Hough v. Stockbridge

• Decision Date: 15 September 2009
• Docket Number: No. 37382-3-II.
• Citation: Hough v. Stockbridge, 216 P.3d 1077, 152 Wn. App. 328 (Wash. App. 2009)
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals
• Parties: Robert M. HOUGH, Appellant, v. Frank W. STOCKBRIDGE and Susan D. Stockbridge, husband and wife, and the marital community comprised thereof, Respondents.

216 P.3d 1077

152 Wn. App. 328

Robert M. HOUGH, Appellant, v.Frank W. STOCKBRIDGE and Susan D. Stockbridge, husband and wife, and the marital community comprised thereof, Respondents.

No. 37382-3-II.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2.

September 15, 2009.

Garold Edwin Johnson, Kram Johnson Wooster & McLaughlin, Tacoma, WA, for Appellant.

S. Christopher Easley, The Easley Law Group PS, Tacoma, WA, for Respondents.

SWEENEY, J.

¶ 1 This appeal follows the successful prosecution of a claim for abuse of process.The appellant first sued for defamation.The respondents then counterclaimed for abuse of process.The defamation case was ultimately dismissed and the case proceeded to a jury verdict in favor of the respondents on the abuse of process claim.The appellant's essential argument here on appeal is that the court's instructions to the jury allowed the jury to find liability for abuse of process for proceedings other than original process and without a finding that process was used to extort something.The court's instructions required the jury to find an ulterior purpose and an act in the use of legal process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceedings.We conclude that this adequately states the requirements for a cause of action for abuse of process.And we further conclude that the evidence here easily supports the elements of that cause of action.We therefore affirm the judgment entered on the verdict in favor of the respondents.

FACTS

¶ 2Robert Hough sued Frank and Susan Stockbridge for defamation and malicious prosecution.The Stockbridges responded and pleaded a claim of abuse of process:

Plaintiff[Hough] is abusing the superior court, and wasting the superior court's time....

....

... [Defendants Stockbridge pray][f]or a judgment against the Plaintiff in favor of the Defendants for his harassment of the court system in having to once again answer and defend themselves in a frivolous lawsuit.

Clerk's Papers(CP)at 76;accordCPat 88.The case went to arbitration.The arbitrator awarded the Stockbridges $5,000 in damages and $20,315 in attorney fees.Mr. Hough demanded a trial de novo and a jury.The trial judge proceeded without a jury.And Mr. Hough appealed.Hough v. Stockbridge, noted at 129 Wash.App. 1037, 2005 WL 2363795.We reversed the judgment and remanded for a jury trial in an unpublished opinion.Hough,129 Wash.App. 1037, 2005 WL 2363795, at *4.

¶ 3 Mr. Hough then proceeded to file more than 49 motions, pleadings, and discovery documents between September 2001 and October 2007.Many of the discovery documents were redundant, and many of the motions were not filed pursuant to any established court rule or procedure.Each motion, however, required that the Stockbridges respond and/or appear in court.

¶ 4 The Stockbridges disclosed their former attorneys, Scott Candoo and Lafcadio Darling, as witnesses before trial.

¶ 5 The jury trial began on November 5, 2007.The Stockbridges called their former attorneys to testify.Their testimony was essentially the same as in the earlier bench trial.The Stockbridges first asked Mr. Candoo and Mr. Darling about their backgrounds and experience as attorneys.Mr. Candoo then offered his opinion about whether Mr. Hough complied with civil discovery rules and about the proper basis for a motion for reconsideration.And Mr. Darling testified about the proper procedure for dismissing a claim under CR 41.Mr. Hough objected to the testimony as improper expert testimony.The court overruled the objections.The Stockbridges rested.

¶ 6 The trial judge then shared a note she received from a juror:

Your Honor:

Has Mr. Hough been evaluated by a mental health professional?There is little doubt that this man is delusional & would be diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD).Does the court have authority to order such an evaluation?

(No need to respond to this)

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

CPat 189.Mr. Hough moved to dismiss the juror who wrote the note "for having determined an opinion before even [having] heard all the evidence."Report of Proceedings (RP)at 629.The judge denied the motion because she was not convinced that the juror had already reached a decision in the case.

¶ 7 Mr. Hough then filed a written motion to dismiss the juror.He again argued that the juror should be dismissed because the note showed "the juror is not going to keep an open mind regarding Mr. Hough's testimony or evidence."CPat 215(emphasis omitted).He maintained that the note was "evidence of someone whose mind is made up."CPat 216(emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted).The court denied Mr. Hough's motion.

¶ 8The court instructed the jury on the law after Mr. Hough presented his case.The court told the jury that abuse of process required proof of the improper use of legal process and an ulterior purpose of accomplishing an end which the process was not designed to accomplish.

¶ 9 The jury concluded that Mr. Hough was liable for abuse of process and awarded the Stockbridges $200,500.00 in damages, including $30,467.08 for attorney fees and costs.The trial court then awarded the Stockbridges an additional $40,844.50 in costs and attorney fees under Mandatory Arbitration Rule (MAR) 7.3.The court also ordered postjudgment interest on the Stockbridges' judgment in the amount of "12% [per] annum, or maximum allowable by law."CPat 361.

DISCUSSION

Motion for More Definite Statement

¶ 10The court denied Mr. Hough's motion for a more definite statement of the Stockbridges' abuse of process counterclaim.Mr. Hough claims this was error.He maintains that the Stockbridges' pleadings are insufficient because they did not notify him of the facts underlying the claim after it was filed in 2002.He argues that the facts supporting the Stockbridges' abuse of process claim occurred, and were offered as proof, long after they filed the counterclaim.

¶ 11We review the denial of a CR12(e)motion to make a more definite and certain statement for abuse of discretion.Evans v. Goist,90 Wash. 100, 155 P. 780(1916).A court abuses its discretion by exercising that discretion on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker,79 Wash.2d 12, 26, 482 P.2d 775(1971).

¶ 12 Mr. Hough twice moved for a more definite statement of the Stockbridges' abuse of process claim.He argued that "[d]espite the Court of Appeals finding that the [Stockbridges] adequately plead[ed] this counterclaim, notice pleading requires that I be advised of the real issues, which are alleged, not merely some vague `inferences.'"CPat 3.

¶ 13The trial court denied Mr. Hough's motion primarily because we already concluded that the Stockbridges adequately pleaded abuse of process:

1.As ruled by the Court of Appeals, the Stockbridges adequately plead[ed] their counterclaim, and said counterclaim was acknowledged by Hough on several occasions prior to the bench trial of that matter.The Court of Appeals has finally ruled that Stockbridges' allegations sufficiently satisfy general notice pleading requirements.

2.Where as here, a completed bench trial of a counterclaim has been had, and a transcript of that trial has been received, and where as here, the Court of Appeals has finally ruled on the sufficiency of the pleadings, a motion for a more definite statement of the counterclaim's allegations must be denied.

CPat 143.Simply put, these are tenable grounds for this trial judge to deny the motion.

¶ 14An appellate court's decision"governs all subsequent proceedings in the action in any court" once the appellate court issues a mandate "unless otherwise directed upon recall of the mandate ..., and except as provided in rule 2.5(c)(2)."RAP 12.2.We rejected Mr. Hough's argument that the Stockbridges did not properly plead their abuse of process counterclaim in the first appeal of this case.Hough,129 Wash.App. 1037, 2005 WL 2363795, at *7.We concluded that the Stockbridges' allegations satisfied notice pleading requirements:

Although the Stockbridges' counterclaim did not use the term "abuse of process,"they implied such a claim when they set forth their abuse of the superior court and harassment of the court system claims.Moreover, Hough acknowledged the Stockbridges' counterclaim for abuse of process on several occasions.Accordingly, the Stockbridges' allegations sufficiently satisfied our general notice pleading requirements and Hough's argument fails.

Hough,129 Wash.App. 1037, 2005 WL 2363795, at *7(footnote omitted).

¶ 15 A mandate has been filed in that appeal and has not been recalled.SeeCourt of AppealsNo. 31813-0-II (mandate filed Feb. 8, 2007).And Mr. Hough is not asking us to reconsider our earlier decision on this issue.RAP 2.5(c)(2).Our decision on this issue in the first appeal, then, governed the proceedings at the trial court level after remand, including the trial court's decision to deny Mr. Hough's CR12(e) motion.RAP 12.2.

Expert Testimony—Attorney Witnesses

¶ 16 Mr. Hough next assigns error to the trial judge's decision to allow two witnesses to express expert opinions.He argues these witnesses were not properly disclosed as experts according to Pierce County Local Rules(PCLR).He argues that the witnesses were instead disclosed as lay witnesses and that the court should not have permitted them to express expert opinions.

¶ 17We review the trial court's admission of testimony for abuse of discretion.Hoglund v. Meeks,139 Wash.App. 854, 875, 170 P.3d 37(2007);City of Seattle v. Apodaca,18 Wash.App. 802, 803, 572 P.2d 732(1977).A trial court abuses its discretion when it bases its decision on an erroneous view of the law.Wash. State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp.,122 Wash.2d 299, 339, 858 P.2d 1054(1993).

¶ 18 The Stockbridges disclosed their former attorneys as lay witnesses.Their witness list did not expressly...