What are Unclean Hands?
Colloquially, this may refer to the inability to engage in proper sanitation habits, but legally, “unclean hands” refers to an equitable doctrine that denies remedy to a party seeking equitable relief because of that party’s inequitable or wrongful conduct. To put it bluntly, it is a principle that the defendant should not have to suffer where the plaintiff has engaged in the same guilty bad practice. It is an equitable defense to an equitable claim.
The misconduct constituting unclean hands must relate directly to the transaction or subject matter of the litigation. As the Washington Supreme Court has stated: “The inequity which will repel him must have an immediate and necessary relation to the equity for which he sues. It must be understood to be willful misconduct in regard to the matter in litigation, and not to misconduct, however gross, which is unconnected therewith….” J.L. Cooper & Co. v. Anchor Sec. Co., 9 Wn.2d 45, 113 P.2d 845 (1941). In other words, the unclean hands doctrine does not absolve one party due to another party’s mere misconduct. The misconduct must directly relate to the equitable basis upon which the party with unclean hands has sought the claim.
For example, in McKelvie v. Hackney, the Washington Supreme Court found that the Plaintiff could seek relief even though she stood by and silently permitted a third Party to perpetuate a fraud on the Defendant in the hopes of this resulting in her own recovery. 58 Wn.2d 23, 360 P.2d (1961). The Court determined that the Plaintiff did not act inequitably in her direct dealings with the Defendant, and so it did not apply the unclean hands doctrine. It did not matter that the Plaintiff acted wrongfully and that it led to damage to the Defendant – the doctrine of unclean hands still did not apply. In another case, Holmes v. Border Brokerage Co., the Washington Supreme Court issued an injunction against the defendant for using a similar trade name despite the plaintiff’s violation of customs regulations, reasoning that the unclean hands could not apply because the misconduct did not relate to the equitable relief sought – it did not relate to the issue of using confusingly similar trade names. 51 Wn.2d 746, 321 P.2d 898 (1958). On the other hand, where a creditor concealed and falsified records pertaining to its action for an accounting, the Washington Supreme Court held that the creditor had unclean hands because the action for accounting directly related to the issue of records-keeping at hand. Income Investors v. Shelton, 3 Wn.2d 599, 101 P.2d 973 (1940).
Washington State law allows for the utilization of many equitable defenses, including unclean hands, laches, waiver, estoppel, in pari delecto, and more. When sued in litigation, understanding all the available affirmative defenses at a defendant’s disposal, including the equitable defenses, can be of critical importance. The lawyers at Beresford Booth have significant experience with pursuing a variety of claims and defenses and have litigated a large range of cases involving real estate, business disputes, trust and estates litigation, family law, and other types of civil and commercial litigation. If you find yourself needing assistance with civil litigation, whether as a plaintiff or a defendant, please do not hesitate to contact us for assistance at info@beresfordlaw.com or by phone at (425) 776-4100.