Guest v. Lange
| Decision Date | 07 May 2019 |
| Docket Number | c/w 50428-6-II,No. 50138-4-II,50138-4-II |
| Parties | CHRISTOPHER GUEST and SUZANNE GUEST, husband and wife, Appellants, v. DAVID LANGE and KAREN LANGE, husband and wife and the marital community comprised thereof, Respondents, THE COE FAMILY TRUST and trustee, MICHAEL COE, Interveners. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
SUTTON, J. — Christopher and Suzanne Guest appeal from the trial court's February 24, 2017 order cancelling several lis pendens following the mandate in the Guests' two prior appeals, March 28, 2017 order denying the Guests' motion for reconsideration of the February 24, 2017 order, and April 19, 2017 order denying several motions and reinstating one of the previously cancelled lis pendens.1 They also attempt to challenge our decisions in their two prior appeals. The Guests argue that (1) all orders and decisions in this case are void because the trial court and this court lacked jurisdiction to consider this matter, (2) the trial court erred in canceling the lispendens because this matter was not fully and finally settled, (3) we should reconsider our prior decisions in this matter under RAP 12.7 and RAP 2.5(c)(2), (4) they should be able to appeal a May 2013 summary judgment order under RAP 2.5(c)(1), (5) the trial court erred in cancelling two lis pendens that related to a separate case, (6) the trial court erred by not requiring responses and allowing replies before deciding some of the Guests' motions, and (7) the trial court considered forged documents in the underlying case. The Langes argue that the order cancelling the lis pendens is not appealable. We hold that the order cancelling the lis pendens is appealable. We affirm the trial court's cancellation of the lis pendens and remand with direction to the trial court to cancel the remaining lis pendens, auditor number 201301231320, when this case mandates. We also deny the Guests' request for costs, attorney fees, and expenses, and decline the Langes' request to restrict the Guests' ability to file further appeals.
The Guests and the Langes own adjoining lots in the Spinnaker Ridge development. After the Langes rebuilt a deck that protruded onto the Guests' property, the Guests sued the Langes for breach of contract, trespass, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Guests also alleged that the Langes had a duty to indemnify the Guests. The Langes alleged affirmative defenses and a trespass counterclaim, and asked the court to enjoin the Guests from further trespass and to quiet title in the deck with the Langes.
In January 2013, the Guests recorded a lis pendens against the Langes' property. This lis pendens was recorded under number 201301231320.
The Guests and the Langes each moved for summary judgment. On May 6, 2013, the trial court granted both motions in part and dismissed all of the claims other than (1) the Guests' claim for trespass related to a three foot by five foot encroachment, (2) the Guests' breach of contract claim based on the Langes' alleged promise not to build a deck in the easement area, and (3) the Langes' quiet title claim. That same day, the Guests filed declarations asking the trial court to postpone the entry of the summary judgment orders until discovery was concluded and to deny the Langes' motion for summary judgment because the grantor in the easement was not the owner of the development. The trial court ruled that the declarations were untimely and declined to consider the Guests' arguments. Guest v. Lange (Guest I), noted at 194 Wn. App. 1031, 2016 WL 3264419, at *3.
In May 2013, the trial court granted a motion to intervene filed by Michael Coe and the Coe Family Trust (Trust), who sold the property to the Guests. In January 2014, the trial court granted summary judgment to the Trust. On February 3, the Guests recorded two more lis pendens under Pierce County Auditor's numbers 201402030230, 201402030233. On April 11, the trial court granted the Trust's second motion to dismiss and dismissed the claims against the Trust with prejudice.
The case proceeded to a jury trial. On July 16, 2014, the jury returned a verdict in the Langes' favor on all of the claims against them. On September 19, the trial court entered a judgment dismissing all of the Guests' claims against the Langes with prejudice and quieting title in the deck to the Langes.
On September 29, the Guests filed a motion entitled "Verified Guest CR 59 Motion to Vacate, Amend and/or Modify All Coe Family Trust Related Orders and Judgments as a Matter of Law and to Enter Judgment in the Guests' Favor." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 3389. It appears that the Guests asserted that the Trust refused to appear or participate in the trial and that the Guests did not receive a jury trial on matters that involved the Trust, so the trial court should not have dismissed any claims involving the Trust. The record does not contain anything showing that this motion was noted or that the trial court considered the motion.
After the trial court denied the Guests' motion for reconsideration of the September 19, 2014 judgment, the Guests filed a notice of appeal challenging 15 of the trial court's orders, several of the trial court's oral rulings, various jury instructions, and the September 19, 2014 judgment. They later filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court's order denying reconsideration, which we treated as an amended notice of appeal. We opened this appeal under cause number 46802-6-II (Guest I).
In February 2015, the Langes moved to cancel the notice of lis pendens recorded by the Guests in January 2013. The Guests opposed the motion, arguing that the case had not yet been settled, discontinued, or abated, because their appeal from the trial court's September 19, 2014 judgment was still pending.
On March 5, 2015, the Guests filed two Notices of Cash Deposit as Supersedeas Bond with the trial court. The next day, the Guests recorded two more lis pendens under auditor numbers 201503060026 and 201503060027.
On March 11, the Langes objected to the amount and sufficiency of the cash supersedeas bond. On March 19, the Guests filed a motion for leave to conduct discovery under RAP 7.2 andCR 27 in response to the Langes' February 2015 motion to cancel the lis pendens and the Langes' March 11, 2015 motion challenging the sufficiency of the supersedeas bond.
On March 27, the trial court entered an order cancelling the lis pendens recorded under auditor numbers 2013012313202 and 201503060027.3 In this same order, the trial court stated that it found "that the cash supersedeas bonds on file in the total amount of $4,000.00 are adequate." CP at 46, 3621. That same day, the trial court also issued an order "vitiating" Guests' March 19, 2015 motion for leave to conduct discovery in light of the order canceling the lis pendens. CP at 53-55, 3614-16.
On April 20, the Guests filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court's March 27, 2015 orders cancelling the two lis pendens and "vitiating Guests' Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery pursuant to RAP 7.2 and CR 27." CP at 49-50. We opened this appeal under cause number 47482-4-II (Guest II).
On May 1, 2015, the Guests recorded another lis pendens based on the notice of appeal in Guest II, under auditor's number 201505010857. On March 9 and March 14, 2016, they recorded two more lis pendens under auditor's numbers 201603090134 and 201603140586.
On June 14, 2016, we issued an unpublished opinion in Guest I, affirming the trial court's denial of the Guests' request to amend their complaint; the trial court's order granting the Langes' motion for summary judgment and dismissing some of the Guests' claims; the trial court's denialof the Guests' motion for partial summary judgment; and the judgment entered in the Langes' favor, including quieting title in the Langes' favor. Guest I, 194 Wn. App. 1031, 2016 WL 3264419 at *1, *4-*10. We subsequently denied the Guests' motion for reconsideration, and our Supreme Court denied review. We issued the mandate in Guest I on January 9, 2017.
Meanwhile, on August 2, 2016, we issued a published opinion in Guest II addressing the trial court's orders cancelling the lis pendens. Guest v. Lange (Guest II), 195 Wn. App. 330, 381 P.3d 130 (2016). In Guest II, we held "that the trial court erred by cancelling the lis pendens because the Guests' appeal and supersedeas bond meant the action was not settled, discontinued, or abated." Guest II, 195 Wn. App. at 341. We reversed the trial court's March 27, 2015 cancellation of the lis pendens and remanded for further trial court action. Guest II, 195 Wn. App. at 341-42.
We stated, "On remand, the trial court should ensure that the amount of any supersedeas bond is sufficient to compensate the Langes for any damages they incur due to the appeal and lis pendens." Guest II, 195 Wn. App. at 342. In a footnote, we acknowledged that we had recently decided the substantive issues from the case in Guest I. Guest II, 195 Wn. App. at 331 n.1. But we noted that the lis pendens issues were not moot because the time had not yet expired for the Guests to petition for review in Guest I. Guest II, 195 Wn. App. at 331 n.1. We subsequently denied the Guests motion for reconsideration, and our Supreme Court denied review. We issued the mandate in Guest II on February 13, 2017.
The day after the last of the Guests' appeals mandated, the Langes' moved to cancel the several lis pendens that the Guests had filed throughout these proceedings. The Guests moved to strike the Langes' motion to cancel the lis pendens and for an order vacating the "quiet title" judgment and other orders. CP at 226-27. In this motion, the Guests alleged that some of the information that had been presented to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial