Brennan Heating and Air Conditioning LLC v. McMeel

• Decision Date: 11 June 2019
• Docket Number: 51506-7-II
• Citation: 9 Wn.App.2d 1024
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals
• Parties: BRENNAN HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Respondent, v. JEFFREY MARK McMEEL aka "the McMeel Estate", Appellant.

9 Wn.App.2d 1024

BRENNAN HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Respondent, v. JEFFREY MARK McMEEL aka "the McMeel Estate", Appellant.

No. 51506-7-II

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2

June 11, 2019

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Melnick, J.

Brennan Heating and Air Conditioning LLC laid off Jeffrey McMeel and denied him severance pay.McMeel filed lien for "$1 0012, 000.00" on property belonging to Brennan.The trial court lifted the lien and McMeel appeals, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, erred by failing to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law, and that the judgment mischaracterizes the record.We affirm.

FACTS

McMeel worked for Brennan as an at-will employee.Brennan terminated McMeel's employment and rejected his demands for severance pay.McMeel then filed a "claim of lien for severance pay" naming as grantors Brennan and Costco Wholesale Corp., ^[1] as well as two individuals he listed as their attorneys.He named himself as the sole grantee.McMeel described the lien as a "federal common law lien pursuant to RCW Ch. 60, Internal Revenue Code and the bankruptcy laws of the United States," and stated it applied to two surety bonds belonging to Darrin Paul Erdahl of Brennan Heating LLC.CPat 18.He claimed the principal amount as "$1, 0012, 000.00 [sic]."CPat 18.

Brennan filed an ex parte petition for an order to show cause as to why McMeel's lien should not be stricken and why Brennan should not be awarded attorney fees and costs.^[2] With its petition, Brennan filed a declaration of Eric Beardemphl, one of its owners.A superior court commissioner granted the petition and set a hearing for McMeel to appear and show cause why his lien should not be stricken and why an award of fees and costs should not be entered against him.

At the show cause hearing, the trial court offered McMeel an opportunity to make his case in support of the lien.McMeel submitted a document labeled "Notice to the Court" which, among other contentions, denied the court could order monetary judgments "[w]ith no gold or silver coin Money in general circulation" and accused Brennan's attorney of threatening him and conspiring against him.CPat 44-45.

McMeel then said, "I'm not sure what jurisdiction the plaintiff is bringing.And so I'd like to know what jurisdiction you are running this court under from so-before I can proceed."Report of Proceedings (RP)at 5.The court responded, "Okay.Thanks," and asked Brennan if it wished to be heard.RPat 5.It then gave McMeel another opportunity to make his case and McMeel responded "I'm waiting for an answer on the jurisdiction question before I can proceed."RPat 6.The court again said, "Okay.Thanks," and then granted Brennan's petition. RPat 6.

Brennan requested attorney fees and costs, and McMeel objected arguing, "I haven't gotten an answer to the jurisdiction question I asked the court.I have not yet been given a chance to show cause in here.That's what it-it's a show cause hearing.I wasn't given an opportunity to show cause."RPat 6.The court told him "That's why we're here.If you have-if you can show cause today, I'll hear from you."RPat 6.McMeel then argued there was "no lien before the court" because he had released it.RPat 7.Brennan responded that McMeel had not correctly released the lien and McMeel responded he had made a "good faith attempt to release the lien" such that there was "nothing before the court" and "no claim to even be brought."RPat 7.He attempted to provide the court a document he called a "Release of Lien" which stated that all the partieshe originally filed the lien against "are hereby released from a LIEN which was recorded under a mistake of facts."CPat 54.The trial court did not view the document, as Brennan's counsel stated the release was not correctly executed.

The court entered judgment in favor of Brennan.Its written order stated that its oral decision "included the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law."CPat 49.It struck McMeel's lien as unenforceable and "not supported by fact or law" and awarded $8, 886.50 in costs and fees to Brennan.CPat 50.McMeel appeals.

ANALYSIS^[3]

I.Subject Matter Jurisdiction

McMeel contends that the superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide this case.We disagree.

"A court must have subject matter jurisdiction in order to decide a case."Eugster v. Wash. State Bar Ass'n, 198 Wn.App. 758, 774, 397 P.3d 131(2017)."A court has subject matter jurisdiction where it has authority 'to adjudicate the type of controversy involved in the action.'"In re Marriage of McDermott, 175 Wn.App. 467, 480-81, 307 P.3d 717(2013)(quotingShoop v. Kittitas County, 108 Wn.App. 388, 393, 30 P.3d 529(2001)).Washington's superior courts are courts of general jurisdiction with the "'power to hear and determine all matters, legal and equitable, . . . except in so far as these powers have been expressly denied.'"In re Marriage of Major, 71 Wn.App. 531, 533, 859 P.2d 1262(1993)(quotingState ex rel. Martin v. Superior Court, 101 Wash. 81, 94, 172 P. 257(1918)).

"A judgment entered by a court that lacks subject matter jurisdiction is void."Cole v. Harveyland, LLC, 163 Wn.App. 199, 205, 258 P.3d 70(2011).Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law we review de novo.Dougherty v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 150 Wn.2d 310, 314, 76 P.3d 1183(2003).

A.Failure to Provide "Affidavit"

McMeel contends that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide this case because Brennan included only a "declaration" but not an "affidavit" with its petition for a show cause order, as required by RCW 60.70.060.He also claims Brennan's petition failed to include a statement of jurisdiction.McMeel contends that these defects deprived both the commissioner who ordered the show cause hearing and the trial court judge who granted judgment for Brennan of subject matter jurisdiction.We disagree with McMeel.

RCW 60.70.060(1) provides that persons whose real or personal property is subject to a recorded claim of common law lien "may petition the superior court of the county in which the claim of lien has been recorded for an order, which may be granted ex parte, directing the lien claimant to appear before the court . . . and show cause, if any, why the claim of lien should not be stricken."Such petitions "shall state the grounds upon which relief is requested, and shall be supported by the affidavit of the petitioner or his or her attorney setting forth a concise statement of the facts upon which the motion is based."RCW 60.70.060(1).

After a show cause hearing, if "the court determines that the claim of lien is invalid," it shall "issue an order striking and releasing the claim of lien and awarding costs and reasonable attorneys' fees to the petitioner to be paid by the lien claimant."RCW 60.70.060(4).

"'By definition an affidavit is a sworn statement in writing made . . . under an oath or on affirmation before . . . an authorized officer.'"Our Lady of Lourdes Hosp. v. Franklin County, 120 Wn.2d 439, 452, 842 P.2d 956(1993)(internal quotation marks omitted)(quotingMason v. Clark, 920 F.2d 493, 495(8th Cir.1990)).An affidavit "is a solemn, formal asseveration, under oath, upon which others might rely."Kent v. Lee, 52 Wn.App. 576, 579, 762 P.2d 24(1988).

GR 13 provides that "whenever a matter is required or permitted to be supported or proved by affidavit, the matter may be supported or proved by an unsworn written statement, declaration, verification, or certificate executed in accordance with RCW 9A.72.085," if the statement is submitted "under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington."RCW 9A.72.085^[4]provides a list of criteria for such statements, including that they be subscribed by the person, be declared true under penalty of perjury, state their date and place of execution, and be certified or declared under the laws of the State of Washington.

Brennan filed a petition for a show cause order directing McMeel to appear and show cause why his claim of lien should not be stricken and why Brennan should not be awarded attorney fees and costs.It filed alongside this petition a "Declaration of Eric Beardemphl" stating facts in support of the petition.CPat 9.

Beardemphl's declaration included all the essential facts of the case and Beardemphl declared under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that his statements were true and correct.His declaration is signed, dated, and includes its place of execution.Beardemphl's declaration met all the requirements to substitute for an affidavit under GR 13.

B.Commissioner Order

McMeel contends that the common law lien statute directs that petitions be filed in "superior court where matters are heard by judges, not commissioners."^[5]Br. of Appellantat 13.The superior court commissioner had authority to order McMeel to appear and show cause why his lien should not be stricken.

The Washington Constitution provides that "[t]here may be appointed in each county, by the judge of the superior court having jurisdiction therein, one or more court commissioners."Wash. Const. art. IV, § 23.These commissioners "have authority to perform like duties as a judge of the superior court at chambers," including "to take depositions and to perform such other business connected with the administration of justice as may be prescribed by law."Wash. Const. art. IV, § 23.Court commissioners "take and subscribe an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the state of Washington, and to perform the duties of such office fairly and impartially and to the best of [their...