Randy Reynolds & Assocs., Inc. v. Harmon

• Decision Date: 25 October 2018
• Docket Number: No. 95575-1,95575-1
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: RANDY REYNOLDS & ASSOCIATES, INC. dba Reynolds Real Estate, Respondent, v. Kasey HARMON aka Kasey Harman, Any Subtenants, and All Others Acting By Or Through Them, Petitioner.

193 Wash.2d 143

437 P.3d 677

RANDY REYNOLDS & ASSOCIATES, INC. dba Reynolds Real Estate, Respondent,

v.Kasey HARMON aka Kasey Harman, Any Subtenants, and All Others Acting By Or Through Them, Petitioner.

No. 95575-1

Supreme Court of Washington.

October 25, 2018

Filed MARCH 28, 2019

Scott Crain, Northwest Justice Project, Edmund Robert Witter, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA, Stephen John Parsons, Jennifer Ammonsm Northwest Justice Project, Tacoma, WA, Leslie Woodruff Owen, Attorney at Law, Olympia, WA, for Petitioners.

Michael G. Gusa, Gusa Law Office, Olympia, WA, for Respondent.

Mark Morzol, Tacoma-Pierce County HJP, Kent Roland Van Alstyne, Phillips Burgess PLLC, Tacoma, WA, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Tacoma-Pierce County Housing Justice Project.

Bonnie Lee Aslagson, Attorney at Law, Bruce Hayden Conklin, Attorney at Law, Olympia, WA, Kimberlee A. Thornton, Attorney at Law, Lacey, WA, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Thurston County Volunteer Legal Services (TCVLS), Kitsap Legal Services (KLS), Snohomish County Legal Services (SCLS), and Clark County Volunteer Lawyers Program.

WIGGINS, J.

¶ 1 Kasey Harmon, a 53-year-old woman in failing health, was evicted from her home following a default judgment and writ of restitution. During the eviction, Harmon obtained an ex parte order staying enforcement of the judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act of 1973 (RLTA) prohibited such an order. We hold that the RLTA does not apply to tenants, like Harmon, who contest entry of a default judgment in unlawful detainer actions; these actions are governed by the Civil Rules. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals decision, including the award of appellate attorney fees and costs to Reynolds.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2 In February 2016, Harmon began renting an apartment managed by Randy Reynolds & Associates (Reynolds). On July 11, 2016, Reynolds served Harmon with a notice terminating her tenancy and directing her to vacate the apartment by the end of the month. Harmon did not leave her home.

¶ 3 On August 15, 2016, Reynolds filed an eviction summons and unlawful detainer complaint. The summons indicated Harmon must respond in writing to the landlord’s attorney by September 15, 2016, if she wished to defend herself against the lawsuit. Although Harmon responded to the complaint and sent it to Reynolds’ attorney by certified mail on September 14, the day before the specified deadline, the response was not timely received.

¶ 4 On September 15, 2016, Reynolds moved for an order of default judgment, including a writ of restitution against Harmon for failure to appear or defend against the complaint. The next day, the superior court commissioner entered the default judgment and granted the writ.

¶ 5 On September 19, the Thurston County sheriff posted the writ at Harmon’s home, requiring her to vacate within 72 hours or be subject to physical eviction. That same day, Harmon moved ex parte to stay execution of the writ of restitution. The commissioner granted the stay, finding good cause existed because Harmon alleged that she answered Reynolds’ complaint before the case was filed and default judgment was entered. A show cause hearing was scheduled for September 23, 2016. The stay order waived any requirement for Harmon to post a bond until a hearing on the merits of the motion could be held. Harmon did not post a bond.

¶ 6 At the show cause hearing, the commissioner found that Harmon failed to prove Reynolds received her response before the deadline and thus had no basis to lift the default judgment. The commissioner lifted the stay and entered a judgment with attorney fees and costs in favor of Reynolds.

¶ 7 On September 29, 2016, the writ was executed. Harmon was evicted.

¶ 8 During the eviction process, Harmon was in crisis. Her health had declined since moving into her apartment. She suffered left foot neuropathy¹

caused by spinal damage and a groin hernia for which she would undergo surgery and was diagnosed with heart failure. Harmon lived alone, had no income, received rental assistance, and had a pending Social Security application.

¶ 9 Although Reynolds prevailed at the trial court and evicted Harmon, the landlord nevertheless sought appellate review. The Court of Appeals commissioner allowed Reynolds to "supplement the record with declarations" from two attorneys involved in the case. Br. of Appellant at 4 n.3 (Wash. Ct. App., No. 49588-1-II). The Court of Appeals recognized that the issues raised were moot and that it could not offer relief but reached the merits of the case under the public interest exception. Reynolds v. Harmon , 1 Wash. App. 2d 239, 244-46, 404 P.3d 602 (2017). The court held, in a published decision, that the superior court commissioner violated CR 5(a) and RCW 59.18.390(1) by granting the ex parte stay without providing notice to Reynolds and waiving the bond requirement. Id. at 246-49, 250-52, 404 P.3d 602. The court also held the order improper under the Code of Judicial Conduct. Id. at 250, 404 P.3d 602.

¶ 10 Throughout the eviction, Harmon was largely unrepresented. She again found herself without counsel at the Court of Appeals. She did not file a brief and her motion for reconsideration was denied.

¶ 11 Harmon petitioned this court for review. She argued that the issues Reynolds raised below were moot, the Court of Appeals incorrectly considered evidence from outside the trial record, and the superior court’s inherent equitable authority gave it the power to issue the order staying execution of the writ of restitution. Reynolds opposed review and, in the alternative, asked the court to consider whether the waiver of a bond pending a show cause hearing violated RCW 59.18.390(1). We granted review of all issues and asked for supplemental briefing on whether Reynolds qualified as an aggrieved party pursuant to RAP 3.1. Reynolds v. Harmon , 190 Wash.2d 1019, 418 P.3d 802 (2018).

ANALYSIS

1. Although Reynolds lacked standing to appeal, Harmon is an "aggrieved party" before this court under RAP 3.1

¶ 12 The Rules of Appellate Procedure state that "[o]nly an aggrieved party may seek review by the appellate court." RAP 3.1. Reynolds was not "aggrieved" and the Court of Appeals erred by entertaining review. Here, Harmon is aggrieved based on the judgments against her. She properly sought appellate review. Id.

¶ 13 While RAP 3.1 does not itself define the term "aggrieved," Washington courts have long held that "[f]or a party to be aggrieved, the decision must adversely affect that party’s property or pecuniary rights, or a personal right, or impose on a party a burden or obligation." In re Parentage of X.T.L. , No. 31335-2-III, slip op. at 17, 2014 WL 4088155 (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2014) (unpublished) http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/313352.unpub.pdf; State v. Taylor , 150 Wash.2d 599, 603, 80 P.3d 605 (2003) (stating that an aggrieved party is "one whose personal right or pecuniary interests have been affected"); Sheets v. Benevolent & Protective Order of Keglers, 34 Wash.2d 851, 855, 210 P.2d 690 (1949). A party is not aggrieved by a favorable decision and cannot properly appeal from such a decision. Paich v. N. Pac. Ry. Co., 88 Wash. 163, 165-66, 152 P. 719 (1915). " ‘[T]he mere fact that a person is hurt in his [or her] feelings, wounded

in his [or her] affections, or subjected to inconvenience, annoyance, discomfort, or even expense by a decree, does not entitle [that party] to appeal from it.’ " Elterich v. Arndt, 175 Wash. 562, 564, 27 P.2d 1102 (1933) (quoting 2 RULING CASE LAW Necessity That Appellant Be Prejudiced § 34, at 53 (1914)).

¶ 14 Reynolds contends that it was aggrieved before the Court of Appeals because the supplemental judgment of $ 1,662 awarded by the superior court commissioner remains unsatisfied. Additionally, because Harmon was not directed to post a bond under RCW 59.18.390(1), Reynolds asserts it was "deprived" of "a ready means of satisfying the judgment." Resp’t’s Suppl. Br. at 1.²

¶ 15 Reynolds’ argument is unconvincing. First, it fails to address the fact that Reynolds prevailed on every issue raised below. At the trial court, the landlord obtained a default judgment and writ of restitution, obtaining "all of the relief it sought—full rent for August and September and the right to amend the judgment to recoup damages to the premises that occurred during litigation." Pet’r’s Suppl. Br. at 6 (citing Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 20-22). A party is not aggrieved by a favorable decision and cannot properly appeal from it. Paich , 88 Wash. at 165-66, 152 P. 719.

¶ 16 Second, Reynolds essentially contends it was inconvenienced because one method of satisfying a judgment was not imposed. Inconvenience alone is hot sufficient under RAP 3.1. Elterich , 175 Wash. at 563-64, 27 P.2d 1102. Reynolds therefore does not qualify as an "aggrieved party" and had no grounds to appeal. RAP 3.1 ; Paich , 88 Wash. at 165-66, 152 P. 719. The Court of Appeals should have dismissed review.

¶ 17 Harmon, however, is aggrieved. RAP 3.1 ; RAP 13.4(b)(4). The Court of Appeals reversed the commissioner’s stay; the original order was a ruling in Harmon’s favor.

See Paich , 88 Wash. at 165-66, 152 P. 719. In total, Harmon incurred over $ 4,000 in judgments against her. These judgments adversely affected her pecuniary rights and imposed a monetary obligation. Sheets , 34 Wash.2d at 855, 210 P.2d 690. Harmon was legally injured by the Court of Appeals’ decision, thus she has standing to seek further appellate review. RAP 3.1.

2. The Court of Appeals properly applied the substantial public interest exception to mootness

¶ 18 Harmon contends that the issues raised at the Court of Appeals were moot. As a general rule, "where only moot questions or abstract propositions are involved, ... the appeal, or writ of error, should be dismissed." Sorenson v. City of Bellingham , 80 Wash.2d 547, 558, 496 P.2d 512 (1972) ; see also Klickitat County Citizens Against Imported Waste...