Landes v. Cuzdey

• Decision Date: 16 May 2023
• Docket Number: 56419-0-II
• Parties: PATRICIA LANDES, Respondent, v. PATRICK CUZDEY, Appellant.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

1

PATRICIA LANDES, Respondent, v. PATRICK CUZDEY, Appellant.

No. 56419-0-II

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2

May 16, 2023

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

VELJACIC, J.

This is the second appeal in Patricia Landes's unlawful detainer action seeking to evict Patrick Cuzdey from her property. Cuzdey appeals the trial court's writ of restitution and order awarding attorney fees and costs to Landes. First Cuzdey argues that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding all contextual evidence of the alleged contract formation at issue, such as his history of residence on Landes's property, the facts of the quiet title action in Cuzdey v. Landes,^[1] and the court order referenced in his protest letter in response to Landes's unilateral contract offer. Second, Cuzdey argues that the trial court erred in giving jury instruction 5 because it deprived the jury of its discretion to decide the issue of mutual assent misstated the law, and failed to comply with this court's previous decision in Landes v. Cuzdey.^[2]Third, Cuzdey argues that the trial court erred in granting Landes's request for attorney fees and costs under the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act of 1973 (RLTA).^[3] Landes requests attorney fees and costs on appeal.

We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in either limiting or excluding Cuzdey's proffered contextual evidence and in excluding the court order at issue. We decline to address the alleged legal error in instruction 5 because he failed to object at trial on the grounds he now argues on appeal. However, we hold the trial court erred in granting Landes's request of attorney fees and costs under the RLTA.^[4] Therefore, we also deny Landes's request for attorney fees and costs on appeal. Accordingly we affirm the writ of restitution, reverse the order granting Landes's attorney fees and costs, and remand for the trial court to vacate the order awarding attorney fees and costs.

FACTS

I. BACKGROUND^[5]

In 1983, Landes and her husband (now deceased) purchased a five-acre parcel of undeveloped property southwest of Olympia. Their daughter Karla^[6] and her then-husband Cuzdey moved into a mobile home on the property in 1984.

In 1985, the Landeses purchased a newer mobile home for the Cuzdeys to live in. The Cuzdeys repaid the Landeses for the cost of the mobile home by making monthly payments until the amount was paid off in 2005. The Cuzdeys apparently never made rent payments to the Landeses for either the mobile home or the property on which it was located.

In May 2014, Karla and Cuzdey dissolved their marriage. Karla moved off the property, but Cuzdey continued to reside in the mobile home.

A. Cuzdey's Quiet Title Action

In June 2014, Landes served Cuzdey with a 20-day notice to terminate tenancy of the mobile home and the real property. In response, Cuzdey filed an action to quiet title to the property. Cuzdey alleged that pursuant to a 1984 oral agreement, the Landeses had agreed to sell the property to him and Karla, and that the purchase price had been paid off with cash and work Cuzdey had performed on the property. Cuzdey later added a claim to quiet title to the mobile home, which he claimed was included in the sale of the property.

In August 2015, the trial court dismissed Cuzdey's claims on summary judgment. The court also found that Cuzdey's claim was frivolous and awarded Landes $36,000 in attorney fees under RCW 4.84.185. In addition, the court issued an order staying the dismissal of Cuzdey's quiet title claims for 60 days if Cuzdey filed an appeal and also paid into the court's registry a $36,000 bond and rent for two months at $1,500 per month.

Cuzdey filed a notice of appeal for what would become Cuzdey v. Landes,^[7] (Landes I). He did not post bond at that time or make a rental payment into the court's registry for either August or September. The stay expired on October 6.

On October 14, Landes filed a complaint for unlawful detainer. On November 13, the trial court entered an agreed order dismissing the unlawful detainer action if Cuzdey scheduled a hearing to determine the amount of security or bond required to stay the judgment in the quiet title action pending appeal. The hearing was to take place no later than December 11, or else Landes was free to obtain a new show cause hearing date on the unlawful detainer action, which could result in a writ of restitution.

B. Notice to Begin Rental

On November 16, Landes served Cuzdey with a "NOTICE TO BEGIN RENTAL PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 59.18 RCW." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 23. The notice read,

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the terms of your non-exclusive possession and occupancy of [the property's address] are hereby changed as of and after January 1, 2016, as follows:

1. On or after January 1, 2016, your non-exclusive possession and occupancy of the subject premises will be considered a month-to-month tenancy subject to the provisions of the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act, RCW 59.18.

2. Rent will be charged for your possession and occupancy of the subject premises, at the rate of $1,500.00 per month, payable in advance on or before the first day of each month, beginning January 1, 2016.

CP at 23. Cuzdey did not respond to this notice at that time.

C. Supersedes Bond Hearing in the Quiet Title Action (Landes I)

The next day, Cuzdey set a hearing for his motion for stay or alternative security in the quiet title matter while it was pending on appeal. A hearing on Cuzdey's motion occurred on December 11. Cuzdey argued that the quiet title judgment should be stayed without bond because his only assets were personal property and that selling the personal property to raise money for the bond would take too long to affect a stay of the judgment.

The trial court ordered that the judgment against Cuzdey would be stayed on the condition that he posted a supersedeas bond or cash in the amount of $75,000 on or before January 11, 2016.

D. Cuzdey's Protest Letter

By January 11, Cuzdey had not posted the bond. The judgment in the quiet title action, which dismissed Cuzdey's claim, became effective against Cuzdey at that time. Landes then sent Cuzdey a 3-day pay or vacate notice.

On January 19, Cuzdey sent a letter responding to Landes's 3-day pay or vacate notice which read:

Mrs. Landes,

I received your notice on 1.14.2016 at approximately [time not included.]

I have appealed the judgment quieting title and do not admit to being a tenant of Landes. I am paying under protest and under order^[8] of the superior court and reserve all of my rights, claims and arguments for purposes of the appeal and remand of the case.

I further reserve the right to seek reimbursement of the payment if/when I prevail on appeal.

Attached is a money order satisfying your demand for rent in the amount of $1,500.00 payable to Patricia Landes.

CP at 420.

In February, Cuzdey sent Landes a second money order for $1,500. The memo line of the money order read "'RENT' FOR FEB 2016." CP at 27.

In March, the trial court granted Cuzdey a stay of enforcement of the quiet title action after he posted a supersedeas bond. Cuzdey stopped making $1,500 monthly payments to Landes, but he continued living on the property.

E. Landes I Opinion^[9]

Meanwhile, in April 2017, Division One of this court affirmed the dismissal of Cuzdey's quiet title action as to the real property, but reversed the trial court's dismissal of his quiet title claim to the mobile home because there was a genuine issue of fact regarding title of the mobile home. The court also reversed the trial court's attorney fee award.

F. Unlawful Detainer Action (Landes II)

In October 2017, Landes sent Cuzdey another 3-day notice to pay or vacate, asserting that rent from January 2016 through October 2017 at $1,500 per month was still owing. Cuzdey remained on the property in the mobile home.

In November 2017, Landes filed a new unlawful detainer action against Cuzdey based on his failure to pay rent. Cuzdey, No. 75632-0-I, slip op. at 6. Landes also filed a motion for an order to show cause why a writ of restitution and final judgment should not be entered in her favor. The trial court granted the motion and scheduled a show cause hearing.

At the hearing, Landes argued that the parties had an enforceable rental agreement under the terms of her November 2015 notice to begin rental. Cuzdey argued that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to remove him from the property through an unlawful detainer action because he was a tenant at will, and that no enforceable rental agreement had been formed between the parties.

The trial court orally ruled that Cuzdey's remaining on the property and payment of rent for two months formed a rental agreement between the parties. The court entered the following findings of fact:

2.9 Mr. Cuzdey was represented by counsel when his attorney stated Mr. Cuzdey's circumstance was governed by Landlord Tenant Act. Based on transcripts and filings submitted in this action, Mr. Cuzdey's attorney and Mr. Cuzdey understood paying rent in January of 2016 would cause Mr. Cuzdey to enter into a contract governed by the Landlord Tenant Act.

2.10 The court has proper subject matter jurisdiction over this action based on Mr. Cuzdey entering into an enforceable contract in January of 2016.

CP at 37.

The court entered judgment for Landes and awarded her attorney fees and costs. The court also issued a writ of restitution restoring the property to Landes. Cuzdey appealed the writ of restitution and the judgment for unpaid rent and attorney fees to this court, which would become Landes II.^[10]

II. LANDES II

In Landes II, the overarching issue was "whether Landes's November 2015 Notice to [Begin] Rental and Cuzdey's actions following that notice...