Morin v. Burris

¶31 (concurring in part/dissenting in part) — I agree with the majority in its ultimate conclusion that the respondents in Morin and Matia failed to appear, and thus we should reverse the Court of Appeals in those cases. Morin v. Burris, noted at 126 Wn. App. 1057 (2005); Matia Inv. Fund, Inc. v. City of Tacoma, 129 Wn. App. 541, 119 P.3d 391 (2005). However, I disagree with the majority’s reasoning. By rejecting the informal appearance doctrine, the majority substantially changes the law upon which all three divisions of our Court of Appeals have relied. Additionally, I would affirm the…