Common Motions
What the hell is Revision? What is its use? Why should you care?
In the State of Washington, you have a constitutional right to have your grievance heard by a full judge of the people. However, the reality of the system today is that there simply aren’t enough judges to hear every matter before the bench.
To solve this problem, the Superior Courts appoint judicial officers called Commissioners and Pro Tem Commissioners. They oversee most routine motions calendars like Temporary Family Law Orders, Contempt Motions, and more.
Commissioners
Commissioners are judicial officers with power on loan from the bench that appointed them. While they issue rulings and preside over court proceedings like a Judge, they were not elected or appointed by the Governor. They are not full judges.
The good news is that Commissioners are full-time judicial professionals. They work regular hours and are usually highly experienced and knowledgeable. Many Judges who sit the bench in family law got their start as a Commissioners before being promoted to the bench in full.
Revisions
- Why this is constitutional:
If you have a right to have a Judge hear your case, how is it fair to have a Commissioner adjudicate your case? They aren’t judges! - Revision Motions:
When a Commissioner enters an order, either party has the right to motion for a revision within 10 calendar days of the order’s entry. Or to put it another way, a ‘mini-appeal’. With a revision, a new hearing is set with a Judge. Additionally, all the documents that were before the Commissioner are put before the Judge for a fresh review.
KEEP IN MIND: One cannot add any additional evidence to the revision effort. You are stuck with the same evidence you submitted when going before the Commissioner.
Pro Tem Commissioners
Pro Tem Commissioners are substitute teachers who are pulled into sit the bench on an as-needed basis. They are not full-time judicial officers and are often private practicing attorneys who work the bench on a part time basis. While Pro Tem Commissioners do their best, the quality of their analysis and rulings can vary wildly. This isn’t their full-time job, after all.
What is Revision?
A revision is where, after a Commissioner has handed down an order, you motion to have the order reviewed and reexamined by a full Judge.
This gives you the opportunity to get a different outcome on the same evidence.
- De Novo (in theory):
A revision is ‘De Novo’ or ‘like new’. The Judge is under no obligation to rule in line with the Commissioner’s analysis. In theory, this provides you a completely fresh bite at the apple. - De Novo (in Practice)
- Remember, Judges are the ones who appointed the Commissioner’s in the first place. They tend to defer to their analysis, and shy away from completely overturning Commissioner rulings in most cases.
What this means:
It is generally not productive to go in for revision unless you have a strong and compelling reason, or if the Commissioner got something horribly wrong. Simply not liking the outcome of a ruling will not see it overturned on revision review.
In general, attorneys tend to sparingly use the revision motion. Courts disfavor overturning lower rulings, so be ready for a fight if you attempt it.
Keep in mind:
Until overturned, orders entered by the Commissioner are in full force and effect. You must follow them while your revision is pending.
It takes a few weeks to have a Commissioner’s order reviewed. Further, the Judge may request additional briefing or may call a hearing IF they feel it is required.
CASE STUDY:
A client came to us with compelling claims of domestic violence, having been assaulted by her partner to the point of visible injury. She then got him to directly apologize for choking and hurting her (in writing), and then came to us for protection and assistance.
We told her that, while nothing was certain in the law, her case was as compelling a slam dunk as we had ever seen. She had thorough documentation and had the perpetrator admitting to his actions in a format easily shown to the court. We immediately petitioned for a protection order with great confidence.
Upon review, the Commissioner not only denied our client’s request, but admonished our team for filing it in the first place. The Commissioner felt that the perpetrator specifically apologizing for hurting our client was not proof that he had abused her at all. We were stunned.
Our client was understandably distressed. We motioned for revision.
Upon receipt of our motion, the Judge immediately reversed the ruling of the Commissioner, granted the protection order, and then took the unusual step of remanding the case back to the same Commissioner to see if the child of our client should also be included in the protection.
This time, the Judge ordered that DV be presumed when reviewing our client’s case.
Interested in other Family Law motions?
