OLYMPIA -- If you are sued in the state of Washington you'd best be prepared to appear in court and defend yourself, the state's Supreme Court ruled yesterday.

In two of the three cases ruled together as Morin v. Burris et. al. (docket#s 77291-6, 77784-5 and 77867-1) the Supreme Court overruled a Court of Appeals decision. The appellate court set aside all three default judgments against defendants who failed to formally appear in court.

But the Supreme Court disagreed in two of the cases - Morin v. Burris #77291-6 and Matia Inv. Fund v. City of Tacoma #77867-1 - finding that the defendants should have default judgements re-applied against them.

The state Supreme Court is generally liberal on vacating default judgments "where fairness and justice requires," wrote Justice Tom Chambers for the 6-3 majority. But "when served with a summons and compalint, a party must appear," he added.

"We reject the argument that prelitigation communications alone may satisfy the appearance requirements ... and we decline to adopt the doctrine of informal appearance as formulated by the courts
below," he added.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Bobbe J. Bridge, Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and Justice Barbara A. Madsen agreed with the majority on the two cases but not with its 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," Bridge wrote.

In the third case - Gutz v. Johnson #77784-5 - the Supreme Court found "facts that may justify vacation of the default judgment" and remanded the case to trial. But dissenters agreed that the trial court "abused its discretion when it refused to vacate the judgment" against the defendants.

"I am persuaded that the Johnsons' failure to appear was the result of mistake or excusable neglect arising from a reasonable miscommunication with their insurer," Justice Bridge wrote.