By Aaron Allen, The Seattle Medium
Oral arguments were presented last Thursday before a panel of appellate judges in the ongoing dispute over the sale of a historic property owned by the Seattle Black Firefighters Association (SBFFA), a case that has raised questions about nonprofit governance, member rights, and charitable purpose.
The appeal follows a ruling by King County Superior Court Judge Josephine Wiggs, who previously found the SBFFA executive board in contempt for violating a December 2023 post-trial judgment that barred the property’s sale without approval from both active and retired members. Despite that finding, the judge declined to reverse the sale, citing a lack of legal grounds due to the buyer’s claimed unawareness of the court ruling.
Located at 2302 E. Pike St. in Seattle’s Central District, the property has served as a cultural and civic hub since the 1970s. It was originally purchased by SBFFA members to support African American firefighters and the broader community through mentorship, education, and advocacy.
The lawsuit—Erwin Chappel, Cardell Thompson, and Clarence Williams v. Douglas Johnson, Seattle Black Firefighters Association, Juliana Edwards, Hilton Jones, and Christianson Dockter—was filed by longtime and retired members of SBFFA. They assert that the executive board moved forward with the sale without notifying or seeking approval from the full membership, including those who were instrumental in acquiring and maintaining the property.
The plaintiffs claim they were deliberately excluded from the decision-making process and allege the board manipulated SBFFA’s bylaws and violated nonprofit statutes to restrict voting rights to a limited group of members. According to the plaintiffs, these actions directly defied the court’s December 2023 judgment, which required full member approval before any sale.
Following the court’s ruling, the board implemented new rules that limited meeting access and voting rights, effectively sidelining many retired members. The trial court later found the board in contempt and imposed financial penalties. However, Judge Wiggs declined to void the sale, ruling that the plaintiffs had not met the legal standard to show the buyer had actual or constructive knowledge of the ongoing dispute.
Attorney Yohannes Sium, counsel for the plaintiffs, expressed disappointment in the decision.
“The judge has refused to reverse the sale of the house. I am very disappointed by this decision,” Sium said.
Community advocate Eddie Rye echoed that sentiment.
Very disappointing,” Rye said. “The fact that the retired members who paid for the house to begin with were not allowed to vote. There were some discrepancies that even Judge Wiggs ruled that there were certain items that warranted a contempt of court ruling. So, it’s very disappointing. I’m really disappointed.”
A motion for reconsideration has been filed, with plaintiffs asserting that new evidence indicates the buyer was aware of the litigation. If the motion is denied, they plan to appeal the court’s refusal to undo the sale.
Court documents show the trial judge found insufficient proof that the buyer had knowledge of legal restrictions or claims involving the property. Without that evidence, the court ruled it lacked jurisdiction to invalidate the sale.
During Thursday’s appellate hearing, Matthew Macklin, attorney for the plaintiffs, argued that the appeal rests on legal interpretation rather than factual disputes.
“This appeal fundamentally turns on questions of law and not discretion,” Macklin said. “Any dispute, a fact that may be needing to be resolved or conflicting testimony is not at the court of this case. The two questions before us today are the interpretation of the bylaws and the application of the nonprofit statute as it applies to the situation.”
Macklin asked the appellate court to take three actions:
“We are asking the court for three specific actions,” he said. “First, to reverse the trial court’s bylaw interpretation that incorrectly extended a kind of a lifetime voting rights to retirees, some of whom hadn’t paid dues in decades. Second, to vacate the relief that was improperly awarded to non-parties who were not parties of the action and did not appear. And third, to affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the meritless fiduciary duty and charitable trust theories.”
One judge questioned how the appellate panel could properly evaluate the trial court’s interpretation of SBFFA’s bylaws without access to the full record of witness testimony.
“I guess the challenge I have with that is the trial court judge did appear to rely on what she heard from the witnesses in determining her interpretation of the intent to the bylaws,” the judge said. “And then, we can’t really evaluate the reasonableness of that if we don’t have the same testimony, which we don’t.”
Another key issue raised during the hearing was whether SBFFA qualifies as a charitable organization under Washington law. While the trial court dismissed charitable trust claims, the plaintiffs maintain that Judge Wiggs did acknowledge the organization’s charitable nature.
Sium responded directly to the panel’s inquiry on this point.
“I actually want to start by addressing that last question that the court was asking as it related to the charitable findings of the judge; and I do believe it’s explicit and I can cite to the record, but it says she did find that it was a charitable organization,” Sium said. “It was organized and operated for charitable purposes. So, in particular pointing into the findings where it says, as SBFFA is a civil rights organization and has historically operated as an organization engaged in community and charitable activities.”
A ruling on the motion for reconsideration and the broader appeal is expected in the coming months.
