Court hears arguments on whether class representatives may record wage liens that encumber property titles

The court heard competing arguments over whether Washington’s wage-lien statutes permit class representatives to record liens that encumber property titles on behalf of multiple workers.

Jeremy Knight, attorney for the appellants, told the panel that "liens are creatures of statute and thus the issue before the court," and argued the relevant provisions "say nothing about class representatives having such a right to file wage liens." Knight said the statutory scheme requires the lien claimant’s name and other identifying information on the face of the lien so property owners can use the summary proceeding to contest liens promptly rather than resorting to protracted discovery.

The question matters because, Knight said, allowing a single recorded lien that aggregates the alleged claims of dozens of workers without identifying who worked on a particular property would deprive owners of the notice the Legislature intended. "If the court is to hold that a wage lien does not have to disclose the name of the individual with lien rights," he warned, "then property owners will have no choice but to resort to litigation in order to clear title to their property."

Greg Wolk, attorney for the respondents, argued that the class members — identified in the record as security guards who obtained a judgment for unpaid wages — are the type of workers protected under the state’s Wage Recovery Act, and that the lien process coupled with the summary procedures (section 130) provides a vehicle for owners to contest amounts and frivolous liens. "Once the class was certified" and reduced to judgment, Wolk said, the claims "were merged together" and the class representatives could file notices of claim that trigger the statutory challenge process.

Justices questioned both sides about how the statute is read as a whole. One justice noted the statute separately authorizes a foreclosure action by a class representative but asked whether that authorization implies the right to start a recorded-lien process. The court also pressed whether Civil Rule 23’s class-certification framework should affect lien recording and whether a default judgment entered without notice to property owners could implicate due-process or joinder rules that require owners be made parties to foreclosure proceedings.

Both sides discussed RCW 60.90.020 and RCW 60.90.030 (statutory content requirements for liens) and the summary proceeding created by RCW 60.91.30, which gives owners a short timeframe to challenge liens as frivolous or excessive. Counsel disputed whether substantial compliance with the lien-content requirements occurred here and whether providing identifying information outside the recorded lien (for example, in a separate filing) suffices to give owners the statutory notice.

The bench heard argument from both sides and asked follow-up questions about trustee/agent language on sample lien forms, the role and adequacy of class representatives as fiduciaries, and whether absent class members’ rights are preserved by the summary-challenge process. Counsel for the appellants emphasized that requiring full individual identification on the face of a recorded lien is necessary to preserve the summary remedy’s function; respondents’ counsel said certification, judgment and the statutory mechanisms afford property owners an adequate opportunity to dispute liens.

The matter was submitted to the court without a reported decision at the hearing. The court moved to the next matter on its calendar.