Turner v. Vaughn

• Decision Date: 07 July 2021
• Docket Number: No. 54010-0-II,54010-0-II
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals
• Parties: MARINA NICOLE TURNER Respondent, v. RANDOM ERIK VAUGHN Appellant.

MARINA NICOLE TURNER Respondent, v. RANDOM ERIK VAUGHN Appellant.

No. 54010-0-II

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II

July 7, 2021

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

WORSWICK, J. — In this action regarding his Committed Intimate Relationship (CIR), Random Vaughn appeals the trial court's order ruling him in default, excluding his and his witnesses' testimony, exhibits, supporting claims, and striking of his pleadings, and the trial court's order dividing property following the termination of the CIR with Marina Turner. The division of assets included several businesses with ties to the marijuana industry. The trial court found that Vaughn failed to disclose cash income generated from his marijuana businesses and imputed income to Vaughn. Vaughn's 36 assignments of error fall into three categories: he argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it (1) granted sanctions that included default, excluding testimony, exhibits, and claims, and striking Vaughn's pleadings and witnesses' testimony; (2) determined a lay witness was an expert based on experience; and (3) divided assets so that the division was not just or equitable. We find no error and affirm.

FACTS

This appeal is the second to arise from the dispute between Marina Turner and Random Vaughn following the termination of their CIR in February 2016. Our opinion from the first appeal provides necessary factual background for the relationship between the parties in this appeal.

I. TURNER AND VAUGHN'S RELATIONSHIP

In his prior appeal before us, Vaughn appealed the trial court's ruling that he and Turner entered into a CIR, and we affirmed. In re Committed Intimate Relationship of Turner & Vaughn, No. 50190-2-II (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2018) (unpublished) http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2050190-2-II%20Unpublished%20Opinion.pdf, review denied, 191 Wn.2d 1015 (2018) (hereinafter, Turner I). Our opinion in Turner I summarizes the relevant facts surrounding Turner and Vaughn's relationship.

Vaughn and Turner started dating in May 2011. Throughout the relationship, Vaughn repeatedly asked Turner to take his last name. In greeting cards, he referred to Turner as his wife. On Facebook, he held himself out as a married man.

The couple jointly signed a lease for an apartment in Lynwood, Washington, and moved in together in October 2011. Initially, Turner and Vaughn each paid half the rent.

By November 2011, the couple opened a joint bank account. Both Turner and Vaughn also maintained separate bank accounts. Turner used the joint account to pay for the couple's household and personal expenses. Vaughn claimed he only put Turner on the account to process payments for his marijuana business, and that he told Turner she could not take any of the money in the account from the marijuana business. The trial court found Turner lacked credibility on this point.

Vaughn used Turner's social security number for debit and credit transactions of his marijuana business, and then deposited the funds into their joint account. Turner testified that Vaughn told her she had no budget, and that she withdrew $9,140 a month on average without protest from Vaughn.

In April 2012, Turner purchased a vehicle and had it titled in both of their names.

In September 2012, Turner and Vaughn moved from their Lynwood apartment after jointly signing a lease for a California apartment. From September 2012 to March 2014, Vaughn spent half his time in California with Turner, and half his time in Washington for work. During their time in California, Vaughn received pay stubs, business invoices, bank statements, and utility bills listing the address of the California apartment. . . .

Turner worked full time in California, contributing to payments for rent and shared expenses. In November 2012, Vaughn sent Turner an e-mail telling her he loved her. He referred to their apartment in California as their home. Throughout 2013, Vaughn had some business meetings in California, but still maintained a place of business in Washington and received mail at a post office box in Washington.

In April 2013, the couple had an argument. Vaughn claimed the two then broke up. Turner told her family and Vaughn's family about the argument. Days later, Turner told Vaughn that she was pregnant, and the two reconciled. Shortly thereafter, Vaughn bought a ring for Turner.

A month later, the couple traveled to Thailand with family. While there, the couple exchanged vows and rings and took photos. Vaughn wore a ring on his wedding finger. The couple never received a legal certificate of marriage. Vaughn claimed that he told Turner from the beginning of the relationship that he would not get married. Upon returning home, Vaughn refused to marry Turner. "[H]e was worried about the federal ramifications of being married with his activity in marijuana." Report of Proceedings (RP) (Feb. 15, 2017) at 102.

In August, Vaughn expressed his love for Turner. In December, the couple's first child was born. After the birth, the family moved back to Washington. They stayed with Vaughn's parents until jointly signing a lease for an apartment in Puyallup. Turner stopped working and cared for their child. . . .

In April 2015, Turner discovered she was pregnant . . . . Vaughn became upset and told Turner he thought another baby would ruin their relationship. Vaughn claimed this argument amounted to a break up, because he told Turner that the relationship was over, but the trial court found he lacked credibility on this point. In July, Vaughn began spending a few nights a week in Oregon for work. Around the same time, he started a relationship with another person.

In early December, Vaughn moved out of the couple's Puyallup apartment. The couple's second child was born about a month later. In February [2016], Turner became aware of Vaughn's other relationship.

Turner I at 2-4 (alterations in original).

II. TERMINATION OF CIR AND TURNER I

Turner petitioned for a termination of the couple's CIR in February 2016. Turner I at 5. She filed for a division of the couple's property and liabilities. Turner I at 5. She then filed a separate petition for a parenting plan and child support. Turner I at 5. The trial court bifurcated the issues of whether a CIR existed, the parenting plan, and child support, from division of property. Turner I at 5. The trial court held a trial on whether a CIR existed. Turner I at 5. The trial court ruled that the parties had a CIR from October 2011 through December 2015. Turner I at 5. We summarized:

The [trial] court found that "throughout the entire trial, [Vaughn had] been incapable of telling the truth." RP (Mar. 9, 2017) at 660. The court considered [Turner's declaration asserting that Vaughn filed a false police report] in making the parenting plan decision and in disallowing Vaughn unsupervised contact with the children. The judge also said her decision that Vaughn had engaged in an abuse of conflict was not dispositive until reading the declaration.

The court issued a written order on the CIR issues and the parenting plan, which formalized its oral ruling.

Vaughn filed a motion and declaration for a new trial and recusal of judge. Vaughn primarily argued that the declaration affected the court's ruling on the parenting plan, but that he was entitled to a new trial on all issues because the declaration may have affected the court's decision on all contested issues. He argued that by providing a working copy of the declaration to the judge, Turner engaged in an ex parte communication in violation of RPC 3.5(a) and (b). In the alternative, Vaughn argued that by considering the alleged ex parte communication, the judge created an irregularity in the proceeding under CJC 2.9(A)(1), requiring a new trial and recusal if the court granted a new trial. The court denied the motions.

Turner I at 5-6.

Vaughn appealed and we affirmed on all issues. Turner I at 6, 15. The issue of division of property remained with the trial court and proceeded to trial in May 2019.

III. VAUGHN'S BUSINESSES AND TRANSACTIONS

When the parties met in 2011, Vaughn was running a video production company in Everett and Turner worked as a hair stylist in the Seattle area. Turner introduced Vaughn to a friend who worked in the marijuana industry. After this, Vaughn became interested in the marijuana industry and began growing marijuana. In 2012, Turner and Vaughn obtained medical marijuana cards together to enable Vaughn to increase the limit on the number of plants Vaughn could legally grow.

A. Vaughn's Early Medical Marijuana Ventures

Early in the relationship, Vaughn was involved in medical marijuana collectives. Through his connections, Vaughn became involved in a medical marijuana collective called Pacific Green Collective.¹ Although multiple people were involved in Pacific Green, Vaughn claimed sole ownership.

In 2014, Vaughn also purchased a medical marijuana dispensary from Christine Morris for $17,000. When Morris operated the dispensary, at least 60% of her business was transacted in cash.²

Pacific Green also accepted debit and credit card payments as well as cash. Pacific Green processed the debit and credit card payments though a third-party merchant services company called Square. Because of the federally-illegal nature of marijuana sales, banks would not provide accounts to marijuana businesses; as a result, Vaughn used his personal bank account toconduct business transactions. Square also repeatedly stopped providing services to Vaughn when it discovered marijuana transactions were taking place through its system. To work around this, Vaughn set up a Square account using Turner's social security number. The funds generated by Vaughn's marijuana sales through Square went to the couple's joint account. By November 2015, Vaughn's marijuana ventures were generating more than $188,000 of revenue a month in debit and credit card sales alone. In 2015, Turner received a 1099 tax document from Square for $2,227,463. Pacific Green's gross revenue in ...