Invoice I sent - In early Feb. I called Seattle Auto Glass and they said they would pay half the judgment Feb. 15 and the other half in March. On March 12, after not hearing from them, I sent this invoice. S.A.G. sent a $500 check (and also wrote the note on the invoice).
Final demand before I start the collections process
The collections process2002-09-30: Application for Writ of Garnishment
2002-09-30: Writ of Garnishment
2002-10-07: Certification of Mailing
2002-10-07: Answer to Writ of Garnishment
2003-01-13: Judgment on Answer and Order to Pay
2003-05-09: Check from King County Court
2003-05-23: Satisfaction of Judgment Against Defendant
2003-05-23: Satisfaction of Judgment Against Garnishee
Update - March 22, 2003: I started the collections process on this case and the remaining amount due was garnished from SAG's bank account in October 2002. I have yet to collect the money, however, as Bank of America's branch office neglected to forward on the final piece of paperwork -- the Judgment on Answer -- to their collections office. I have been going back and forth with them and will likely go purchase another certified copy and send it again soon.
Update: This case was originally thrown out (see cautionary tale below), after which I refiled it. The second time, I used the federal statute, under which one of the three calls wasn't illegal as it was to a business and federal law only specifies "residence." The judge had to research the issues more before ruling, so I had to come back a week later. On September 5, 2001, I received "default judgement" on this case for $1,024.74.
On May 30, 2001, I was in small claims court, trying to get my money from the law-breakers over at Seattle Auto Glass. The case before mine was completely frivolous -- some Washington Mutual employee suing because his last paycheck was mailed one day later than he would've liked. I think this prejudiced the judge against later plaintiffs, myself included.
When my case came up, Seattle Auto Glass had not showed up, so I was pretty much guaranteed victory -- or so I thought. Instead, Judge Spearman chided me for filing my case in the wrong court.
RCW 80.36.400 states that a violation of that section is a violation of RCW 19.86, the Consumer Protection Act. RCW 19.86.090 says "any person who is injured in his or her business or property ... may bring a civil action in the superior court..." If I wanted to file my claim, Judge Spearman told me, I would have to go to Superior Court.
At the time, sitting in small claims court, I didn't have the RCW in front of me and didn't think of questioning Judge Spearman's contention. However, looking at RCW 19.86.090 now, I see that it also states: "PROVIDED FURTHER, That such person may bring a civil action in the district court to recover his or her actual damages, except for damages which exceed the amount specified in RCW 3.66.020..."
Basically, I got a cranky judge who read halfway through a law and stopped when she had enough information to throw out my case. She seemed determined to chastise my case, noting numerous times that I would have to prove I was injured in my "business or person."
I will be refiling this case using the federal ADADS statute, which has some case law behind it saying cases should be filed in small claims. I have two cases before the same judge in late June, and I'm hoping she doesn't try to throw those out as well.