[WSBAPT] Harmful nonprofit governance opinion

[Tom White]

Practically, you should be able to cite to unpublished opinions because (1)
there is a relative dearth of case law in Washington compared to other
jurisdictions whose well-established legal systems make them ideal for the
transaction of business and choice-of-law selections; (2) it promotes the
interests of justice and uniformity in decision-making through the
development of case law along common law principles; (3) it reduces
unnecessary duplication of judicial effort, because somebody has already
figured out how the law should apply to similar facts; and (4) it will not
have a negative impact on the administration of justice.

Nobody is ever going to cite to an unpublished opinion if there is a
published one available, and the unpublished opinions will not have nearly
the same weight as a published opinion from Washington state.

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Rob Wilson-Hoss <rob at hctc.com> wrote:

> I think we need to be careful about supporting the citation of unpublished
> decisions. I think they are often unpublished for a reason, and it may just
> be me, but I sense a difference in the amount of analysis and work that
> goes into a published decision. I am trying to be polite here.
>
>
>
> Rob Wilson-Hoss
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:
> wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Grant
> *Sent:* Monday, May 23, 2016 10:17 AM
> *To:* WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBAPT] Harmful nonprofit governance opinion
>
>
>
> I would love some info on the suggestion that the
>
> Our state supreme court appears close to adopting a rule that will permit
> citation to "unpublished" opinions such as this one.
>
>
>
> This silly rule needs to be scrapped.
>
>
>
> I didn’t think the suggestion was even a pending rule change open for
> comment.??
>
>
>
> Josh
>
> *From:* Doug Schafer <schafer at pobox.com>
>
> *Sent:* Monday, May 23, 2016 8:11 AM
>
> *To:* Solo & Small Firm WSBA Listserv
> <solo-and-small-practice-section at list.wsba.org> ; WSBA RPPT Probate &
> Trust Discussion Forum <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
>
> *Subject:* [WSBAPT] Harmful nonprofit governance opinion
>
>
>
> Please carefully read the attached WA Court of Appeals, Div. I, opinion.
> Though "unpublished," it provides a template for hostile dissidents to
> takeover a membership-based nonprofit corporation by secretly collecting
> member applications and dues, then, on the day that the dissidents deposit
> the dues (without authority) in the corporate bank account, sending a
> 10-day notice for a membership meeting . At that meeting, the "new members"
> remove the incumbent directors.  The corporate directors and officers were
> unaware of the "new members" until the meeting occurred. Our state supreme
> court appears close to adopting a rule that will permit citation to
> "unpublished" opinions such as this one.
>
> My fear is that this case will be used disrupt the governance of too many
> nonprofit corporations.
>
> The Court of Appeals declined to apply the well-established doctrine that
> courts refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of such
> associations and defer to the association's own interpretation of its rules
> unless that interpretation is arbitrary or unreasonable, by asserting that
> such doctrine applied only to local chapters of national organizations.
> Case law is otherwise, however.
>
> When I read this opinion, I emailed one of the lawyers for the losing
> parties and urged them to petition for state supreme court review.  I hear
> nothing back until last Thurday, when Ms. Matthews phoned me.  I spoke
> Friday with her and her NYC lawyer husband, Mr. Nelson, who reported that
> the COA denied their motion for reconsideration on May 2, so the deadline
> for a petition for review is June 2.  They are, however, "tapped out" and I
> sense some despair.
>
> I'm within minutes of departing on a family trip this week, so I'm not
> available to assist.
>
> I write in the hope that other lawyers interested in maintaining strong
> nonprofit corporations will consider helping Ms. Matthews and Mr. Happy to
> petition for review.  That will allow time for them to negotiate with the
> prevailing group, and possible reach a settlement whereby they might ask
> Division I to withdraw its opinion.  I've seen that is another case.
>
> Nelson Happy:  jnelsonhappy at gmail.com
> Mary Matthews:  matthewshistpres at gmail.com
>
> Doug Schafer, lawyer in Tacoma.
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBAPT mailing list
> WSBAPT at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbapt
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBAPT mailing list
> WSBAPT at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbapt
>



-- 

Tom White
Attorney-At-Law
Seattle, Washington
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20160524/c28b8b62/attachment.html>