# Union Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. State

> Court of Appeals of Washington · September 10, 2009 · 152 Wash. App. 199

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4755268

## Case

- **Full name:** Union Elevator & Warehouse Company, Inc. v. The State of Washington
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Washington
- **Decided:** September 10, 2009
- **Citations:** 152 Wash. App. 199; 215 P.3d 257
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Kulik
- **Judges:** Brown, Kulik, Schultheis
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4755268

## Opinion text

Kulik, J.
¶33 (dissenting) — I agree that RCW 8.25.070 and .075 do not provide for attorney fees in a relocation assistance benefit case. However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that interest on relocation benefits can be awarded. Therefore, I respectfully dissent as to the award of interest on the relocation assistance benefits.
¶34 The trial court denied interest on the $235,000 award Union Elevator received under the relocation assistance and real property acquisition policy act, chapter 8.26 RCW. Union Elevator had previously been awarded $166,000 in compensation for the real property condemnation and $400,000 in interest and attorney fees. In this action, the trial court ordered and we now affirm $25,000 in attorney fees and costs under the equal access to justice act, RCW 4.84.350.
¶35 The trial court properly denied interest on the $235,000 relocation benefit because the State has not waived sovereign immunity. Unless the State waives its immunity, it cannot be liable for interest on its debts. Carrillo v. City of Ocean Shores, 122 Wn. App. 592, 615 , 94 P.3d 961 (2004) (quoting Our Lady of Lourdes Hosp. v. Franklin County, 120 Wn.2d 439, 455-56 , 842 P.2d 956 (1993)). The majority mistakenly decides that relocation benefits should be treated like condemnation awards. But the State expressly waived immunity on interest in condemnation proceedings, but not in relocation assistance benefit cases. Extending immunity to interest on relocation assistance benefits is a matter for the legislature, not for this court. This is not an ambiguous statute; there is simply no language providing for interest on relocation assistance benefits.
*213 ¶36 I would affirm the trial court’s denial of interest on the relocation assistance benefits.
Review granted for petitioner and review of issue raised in respondent’s answer denied at 168 Wn.2d 1025 (2010).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4755268. Public record. Not legal advice.