A fraud investigation report from the Washington State Auditor’s office revealed that nearly $200,000 in public funds were misappropriated by a Mason County fire chief and her secretary.
The state auditor recommended to the District to file a police report about the loss of public funds from January 1, 2017 through July 31, 2022, but as of Aug. 17, no police report had been filed.
The investigation, which began in September 2021, determined misappropriations involving payroll, credit card and other disbursements totaling $68,672 were made between October 2017 and July 2022.
Also, the report determined that auditors were unable to identify whether $95,093 in expenditures from May 2017 to July 2022 were for legitimate business purposes.
According to the report, the District only employs the fire chief and a secretary. The fire chief is responsible for managing the District’s financial operations, including payroll.
Additionally, the one of the Mason County commissioners is married to the District secretary. The fire chief is their daughter.
According to the report, the fire chief was hired as the temporary fire chief in April 2018, made permanent in August 2018, terminated by the board in May 2022, then immediately made temporary fire chief again.
The secretary, the fire chief’s mother, was hired in August 2020 and resigned in March 2022.
The fire chief is responsible for preparing two paychecks – one for herself and one for her mother, the secretary.
According to the report, the fire chief paid herself $2,973 in September 2019 as a vacation leave buyout, which was not allowed in her contract.
The fire chief also paid herself five additional paychecks in 2020 and three additional paychecks in 2021, totaling $20,364.
The report also said the fire chief paid herself several times in advance and received $2,982 in unsupported payroll payments.
The fire chief also received $37,104 in payroll payments after her contract was terminated in May 2022, including two questionable severance payments totaling $30,155.
According to the report, the secretary received two additional paychecks in 2020 and three additional paychecks in 2021, totaling $8,839.
After her resignation in March 2022, she received a buyout for vacation and sick leave totaling $3,875, and an additional $1,240 in questionable pay.
The commissioner, who is married to the Secretary, received three meeting paychecks for unknown reasons in 2020, totaling $693.
He also received 10 questionable payments totaling $10,100, of which $5,709 was for maintenance services. The report was unable to determine if these services were actually performed.
The report said the District has not reported quarterly payroll tax payments to the IRS since December 2018.
The fire chief is also responsible for the District’s credit card purchases and paying those balances.
A review of the credit card activity from January 1, 2017, to May 29, 2020, showed the District had not made a credit card payment since January 2020, and had an outstanding balance of $36,841 when the credit card was closed on May 29, 2020 for having the outstanding balance.
The report said the fire chief misappropriated $16,579 and is responsible for $13,941 for purchases that included televisions, movie and music streaming services, groceries, clothing, holiday dishware and personal items, including jewelry, hair spray and school supplies. The purchases also included $1,994 in plastic kitchen products that were delivered to members of her family.
The commissioner’s credit card was also used for $472 in prepaid cellular cards and a flooring supply purchase.
Additional employee reimbursements totaling $18,831 were also misappropriated by the fire chief. For example, $2,000 for “wildland supplies” and $500 for “picnic supplies” was not supported by any records.
Another $20,811 in payments were made to a cellular vendor. The fire chief bought six cellphones and six smart watches, and not only was the report not able to locate the items in the District’s possession, but there was no business purpose for 13 of the 16 phone lines.
In April 2022, the auditor’s office interviewed the fire chief and the commissioner, who said she did not know why she received more paychecks than usual or why some paychecks were issued in advance.
The fire chief also told investigators she bought groceries for holiday parties and a summer barbecue, but the auditor’s office pointed out several of the purchases were small enough to indicate personal usage and not party supplies. She said the groceries were actually for Saturday drills and snacks that were kept at the station and their vehicles.
The fire chief also said the credit card balance was paid each month and that she did not know why the District stopped using credit cards, and did not know about the outstanding balance or that the account was closed.
The commissioner said he did not know the fire chief received extra paychecks, or that the secretary (his wife) received extra paychecks.
The secretary never responded to interview requests from the auditor’s office.
In a written response to the allegations in the auditor’s report, the District said:
“The Board of Commissioners of Mason County Fire Protection District No. 12 is committed to operating transparently and in full compliance with the law. We appreciate the Auditor’s efforts in identifying areas of concern and the District is working to further investigate and address the allegations contained in this report.
“Given the short deadline for providing a response to this report, and not having access to the Auditor’s supporting documentation, the District is unable to provide a detailed factual response within the constraints of the Audit report format. The District is following the recommendation of the Auditor to investigate the allegations, is retaining an attorney to assist with further investigation into the allegations and the District will take appropriate action if it determines that any of the allegations are sustained.
“The Board of Commissioners recognizes that Auditor’s report of misappropriation and questionable expenditures is based primarily on an absence of supporting records. The Board of Commissioners is working to implement better record keeping processes and is working to improve its process of reviewing and approving expenditures to avoid similar issues in the future.
“The Board has already begun working with the IRS to bring the District into full compliance with all reporting requirements.
“The Board believes that once it has the chance to further investigate the allegations contained in the report the majority of the Auditor’s concerns will be addressed by the District’s investigation and the District is confident that the investigation will determine that no fraud occurred.”
The report said this case would be referred to the Mason County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and the IRS for further consideration.
At Tuesday’s Mason County’s Board of Commissioners meeting, the audit was presented to the public by the auditor’s office, however no additional comments were made by District lawyer Brian Snure and referred to the written statement.
State auditor Pat McCarthy said, “I know it can be challenging to manage local government, but the issues we raised are all intended to serve your community.”
During the ending of the online meeting, several comments were seen on the screen from the Mason County community, however the board refused to hear public comments and quickly ended the meeting.
FB censored this article regarding local incestuous corruption, theft, and embezzlement spanning years dating back to at least 2018 until recently.
48 06/09/2021 Order Denying Motion Petition View Document Order Denying Motion Petition Judicial Officer Waggoner, Tracy G
06/09/2021 Ex Parte Action With Order
49 06/18/2021 Motion for Revision View Document Motion for Revision
50 06/18/2021 Note for Calendar View Document Note for Calendar
51 06/25/2021 Response View Document Response Comment to motion for revision
52 06/25/2021 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
53 06/28/2021 Reply View Document Reply Comment to Response to Revision/Dfdt’s
54 06/28/2021 Affidavit of Mailing View Document Affidavit of Mailing
55 06/29/2021 Note for Calendar View Document Note for Calendar
56 06/29/2021 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment of Daniel Ehrlich
06/30/2021 Revision Judicial Officer Appel, George F Hearing Time 9:15 AM Cancel Reason Defense/Respondent Requested Comment **As noted.-CONFIRMED/EHRLICH -STRICKEN/EHRLICH
06/30/2021 Hearing Cancelled Unknown Party
07/07/2021 Revision Judicial Officer Moore, Karen Hearing Time 9:30 AM.Comment Oral Argument requested by Judge. Please appear at 9:30 am. -CONFIRMED/EHRLICH
58 07/07/2021 Order Revising Ruling View Document Order Revising Ruling Comment order of default against Richard Heng dated 07/29/2019 and default judgment filed 09/01/2020 is vacated as to Richard Heng
59 07/09/2021 Release View Document Release Comment of writ ISSUED 2/11/21 TO WA STATE DSHS
60 10/18/2021 Note for Calendar View Document Note for Calendar
61 10/18/2021 Declaration of Mailing View Document Declaration of Mailing
62 10/18/2021 Affidavit in Support View Document Affidavit in Support Comment of Shean Nasin
63 10/18/2021 Affidavit in Support View Document Affidavit in Support Comment of Lisa McMahon-Myhran
90 01/04/2022 Response View Document ResponseComment to Motion for Summary Judgment
91 01/04/2022 Proposed Order Findings View Document Proposed Order Findings
92 01/04/2022 Notice of Appearance View Document Notice of Appearance
93 01/06/2022 Order of Continuance View Document Order of Continuance Judicial Officer Thompson, Paul W
01/06/2022 Ex Parte Action With Order
94 01/11/2022 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
95 01/18/2022 Note for Calendar View Document Note for Calendar Comment – Amended
96 01/18/2022 Declaration of Mailing View Document Declaration of Mailing
97 01/24/2022 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
98 02/04/2022 Note for Motion Docket Late Filing View Document Note for Motion Docket Late Filing Comment **Date passed, 03/30/21.
99 02/04/2022 Motion to Continue View Document Motion to Continue
100 02/04/2022 Proposed Order Findings View Document Proposed Order Findings
101 02/04/2022 Notice of Appearance View Document Notice of Appearance Comment – Amended
102 02/10/2022 Note for Calendar View Document Note for Calendar
103 02/15/2022 Note for Calendar View Document Note for Calendar Comment – Amended
104 02/15/2022 Declaration of Mailing View Document Declaration of Mailing
02/17/2022 Motion to Continue Judicial Officer Appel, George F Hearing Time 9:15 AM Cancel Reason Stricken-Not Confirmed Comment Hearing from February 18, 2022 to March 18, 2022
02/17/2022 Hearing Cancelled Unknown Party
02/18/2022 Summary Judgment Judicial Officer Okrent, Richard T Hearing Time 9:30 AM Cancel Reason Duplicate Hearing Comment – Masch
105 03/14/2022 Reply View Document ReplyComment to Response to Motion for Summary Judgment
106 03/14/2022 Declaration of Mailing View Document Declaration of Mailing
107 03/14/2022 Notice of Intent to Withdraw View Document Notice of Intent to Withdraw
03/18/2022 Summary Judgment Judicial Officer Moore, Karen Hearing Time 9:30 AM Comment /Masch -CONT 12/3/21 PER MASCH – CONT 01/07 PER MASCH -CONT FROM 2/18/22 PER MASCH-CONFIRMED/MASCH Oral argument requested by Court
115 04/08/2022 Order on Motion for Reconsideration View Document Order on Motion for Reconsideration Comment /granted, vacating order entered 03/18/2022 and granting pltfs motion for summary judgment
04/08/2022 Case Resolution Summary Judgment
116 04/19/2022 Motion for Reconsideration View Document Motion for Reconsideration
117 04/19/2022 Motion for Reconsideration View Document Motion for Reconsideration Comment of Summary Judgment
118 05/02/2022 Note for Calendar View Document Note for Calendar
119 05/04/2022 Motion for Reconsideration View Document Motion for Reconsideration Comment of Summary Judgment-Amended
05/06/2022 Reconsideration Judicial Officer Moore, Karen Hearing Time 10:00 AM Comment Motion for Reconsideration (w/o Oral Arg)
120 05/16/2022 Order on Motion for Reconsideration View Document Order on Motion for Reconsideration Judicial Officer Moore, Karen Comment denied
05/16/2022 Ex Parte Action With Order
121 05/27/2022 Motion for Reconsideration View Document Motion for Reconsideration
122 05/27/2022 Writ of Garnishment View Document Writ of Garnishment
123 06/09/2022 Note for Calendar View Document Note for Calendar
06/17/2022 Reconsideration Judicial Officer Moore, Karen Hearing Time 9:00 AM Comment 2nd motion
124 06/17/2022 Motion for Reconsideration View Document Motion for Reconsideration Comment /amended second
Kiona Park Estates, Respondent, v. Avera Lee Dehls et al., Appellants.
Prior History:
Appeal from Lewis County Superior Court. Docket No: 18-2-01287-1. Judge signing: Honorable J Andrew Toynbee. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 01/08/2020.
Headnotes/Summary
Summary WASHINGTON OFFICIAL REPORTS SUMMARY
Nature of Action: A homeowners’ association sued a member for damages and foreclosure on all past liens and past due balances owing on dues assessments unpaid since 2002.
Superior Court: The Superior Court for Lewis County, No. 18-2-01287-1, J. Andrew Toynbee, J., on January 8, 2020, entered a summary judgment in favor of the association.
Court of Appeals: Holding that (1) the action was subject to the six-year limitation period of RCW 4.16.040, (2) each annual dues assessment was a discreet claim, and (3) the association was therefore entitled to collect unpaid dues only from 2013 to 2018, the court reverses the judgment and remands the case for further proceedings.
Counsel:Christi C. Goeller, for appellants.
Kelly A. Delaat-Maher (of Smith Alling PS), for respondent.
Judges: Authored by Lisa Sutton. Concurring: Lisa Worswick, Linda Lee.
Opinion by: Lisa Sutton
Opinion
¶1 Sutton, J. — Avera Dehls appeals the superior court’s judgment and order granting summary judgment to the Kiona Park Estates Association (Association) to enforce a recorded lien for Dehls’s unpaid annual homeowners’ association (HOA) dues from 2002 to 2018. This case presents an issue of first impression: which statute of limitations applies to an action to enforce a HOA’s lien where chapter 64.38 RCW, the governing chapter for HOAs, does not contain a limitations period.
¶2 We hold that the applicable statute of limitations is six years under RCW 4.16.040 because the governing documents are written agreements. We further hold that each annual HOA dues assessment is a discrete claim. Accordingly, based on the six-year limitations period, the Association is entitled to collect unpaid dues from Dehls for only the time period 2013 to 2018. Thus, we hold that the superior court erred by granting the Association summary judgment for the entire amount of unpaid dues from 2003 to 2018. We reverse the court’s judgment and order granting summary judgment, and we remand to the superior court to vacate the judgment and order and to enter an amended judgment and order consistent with this opinion.
FACTS
I. Background Facts
¶3 The Association is a Washington nonprofit corporation. It was formed to, among other things, collect dues and assessments from its membership and to enforce the covenants and restrictions in a development known as Kiona Park Estates.
¶4 The Association’s governing documents are the original “Declaration of Protective Covenants and Easements,” the 1986 “Restated Declaration of Protective Covenants and Easements” (collectively Declarations), and the “Articles of Incorporation”; the Restated Declaration has been amended during the relevant time period.1 Articles C and D of the Declarations grant authority to the Association to assess dues against each member of the Association for maintenance, and provide that any unpaid dues become a lien. The dues are required to be paid in January of each year. The dues amount was $150 per year in 2002, $200 per year from 2003 to 2017, and $250 per year beginning in 2018.
¶5 Section C(2)(a) of the Declarations states, in relevant part, “Any dues that remain unpaid for a period of ninety (90) days shall become a lien against the defaulting lot owner’s property enforceable as any other real estate lien in the State of Washington.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 85, 98, 115. The Association’s Articles of Incorporation state, “Delinquent dues and assessments will constitute a lien upon the parcel(s) of real property owned by the delinquent member of the corporation,” consistent with the provisions of the Declarations. CP at 133. Article E, section 2 states that the “parties in interest” have the right to enforce the Declarations. CP at 60, 72, 99-100. Association bylaws adopted in 2001 and amended in 2017 also support the HOA’s right and ability to assess an owner for dues and take enforcement action against an owner for unpaid dues in the form of a lien or collection.
¶6 Dehls purchased real property in the Kiona Park Estates development in 1989 and is a member of the Association. Since 2001, Dehls has failed to make payments to the Association as required by the Declarations, and he became delinquent beginning in January 2002. The Association filed and recorded liens against Dehls’s property in 2003, 2006, and 2018. The 2003 lien was for dues owed for 2002 and 2003. The 2006 lien referred only to dues owed in 2004 and 2005, as well as attorney fees. The 2018 lien aggregated all the dues Dehls owed beginning in 2002, stating that Dehls was “in arrears of annual membership dues and assessments, interest, and/or late charges in the amount of $10,041.67,” plus attorney fees in the amount of $368.02, for a total owed of $10,409.69. CP at 38.
II. Procedural Facts
¶7 The Association filed a complaint against Dehls in November 2018, seeking damages and foreclosure on all the past liens and past due balances. Dehls answered the complaint and asserted the affirmative defense of statute of limitations.
¶8 In June 2019, the Association filed a motion for summary judgment and argued that Dehls breached his duties under the Declarations. In support of its motion, the Association filed declarations from its attorney, treasurer, and president. The Association filed, among other documents, the Declarations in their current and past versions, the Articles of Incorporation, and the Association’s ledger outlining the amounts Dehls owed plus interest accrued, for a total amount due of $7,101.00. Dehls opposed this motion and argued that the Association could not collect the past dues from 2002 because the Declarations are contracts and, thus, the 6-year statute of limitations under RCW 4.16.040 applied. The Association replied that it was not subject to a 6-year statute of limitations because the Declarations and Articles of Incorporation were not “contracts,” but either were more akin to an open account under RCW 4.16.150 or were subject to a 10-year statute of limitations under RCW 4.16.120.
¶9 The superior court granted the Association’s motion for summary judgment. The court awarded the Association $7,101.00 for past dues, as well as $7,143.74 in attorney fees and $1,046.00 in costs. Dehls filed a motion for reconsideration, which the superior court denied.
¶10 Dehls appeals the superior court’s judgment and order granting the Association’s motion for summary judgment and denying Dehls’s motion for reconsideration.
ANALYSIS
I. Summary Judgment
¶11 Dehls argues that the superior court erred by granting the Association’s motion for summary judgment because the Declarations constitute a contract or written agreement and, thus, the six-year statute of limitations under RCW 4.16.040 applies, barring the Association’s claim to enforce liens prior to 2013. We hold that the six-year statute of limitations in RCW 4.16.040 applies because the debt arose from the Declarations, which are written agreements. Thus, the superior court erred by granting summary judgment in the Association’s favor for dues owed for the period of 2002 to 2012.
A. Legal Principles
1. Summary Judgment
¶12 We review summary judgment decisions de novo. Zonnebloem, LLC v. Blue Bay Holdings, LLC, 200 Wn. App. 178, 182, 401 P.3d 468 (2017). Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings, admissions on file, and affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. CR 56(c). Here, the materials facts are undisputed.
2. Governing Documents
¶13 An HOA’s governing documents are interpreted in accordance with accepted rules of contract interpretation. See Bangerter v. Hat Island Cmty. Ass’n, 14 Wn. App. 2d 718, 735, 472 P.3d 998 (2020), review granted, 196 Wn.2d 1037 (2021); see also RCW 64.38.010(10). Contract interpretation is a question of law that we review de novo. Dave Johnson Ins., Inc. v. Wright, 167 Wn. App. 758, 769, 275 P.3d 339 (2012). “The purpose of contract interpretation is to determine the parties’ intent.” Roats v. Blakely Island Maint. Comm’n, Inc., 169 Wn. App. 263, 274, 279 P.3d 943 (2012). Washington courts follow the context rule of contract interpretation, which allows a court, while viewing the contract as a whole, to consider extrinsic evidence to determine the parties’ intent. Roats, 169 Wn. App. at 274. We consider a corporation’s governing documents, including articles of incorporation and bylaws, “correlated documents” to be construed together as a whole. Roats, 169 Wn. App. at 274.
¶14 Contractual language generally must be given its ordinary, usual, and popular meaning. Jensen v. Lake Jane Estates, 165 Wn. App. 100, 105, 267 P.3d 435 (2011). “An interpretation of a contract that gives effect to all provisions is favored over an interpretation that renders a provision ineffective.” Snohomish County Pub. Transp. Benefit Area Corp. v. FirstGroup Am., Inc., 173 Wn.2d 829, 840, 271 P.3d 850 (2012). And “[w]here one construction would make a contract unreasonable, and another, equally consistent with its language, would make it reasonable, the latter more rational construction must prevail.” Byrne v. Ackerlund, 108 Wn.2d 445, 453-54, 739 P.2d 1138 (1987). Here, the relevant governing documents are the Declarations as amended.
3. Restrictive Covenants
¶15 Dehls argues that the governing documents constitute a restrictive covenant. A “restrictive covenant” is an agreement or promise between two or more parties that limits permissible uses of land. See Hollis v. Garwall, Inc., 137 Wn.2d 683, 690, 974 P.2d 836 (1999); Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 1.3, at 23 (Am. Law Inst. 2000). When the covenant “runs with the land,” it burdens a particular parcel with the duty of complying with the restriction and benefits of a particular parcel with the right to enforce the restriction. Deep Water Brewing, LLC v. Fairway Res. Ltd., 152 Wn. App. 229, 257-58, 215 P.3d 990 (2009); 17 William B. Stoebuck & John W. Weaver, Washington Practice: Real Estate: Property Law § 3.2 (2d ed. 2004). “The doctrine of ‘running’ is analogous to the contract doctrines of assignment of rights and delegation of duties; it is a doctrine whereby remote parties are bound or benefited by contractual covenants made by the original parties.” 17 Stoebuck & Weaver, supra, § 3.2, at 126.
¶16 Between the original parties to the covenant, enforcement is a matter of contract law. Deep Water Brewing, 152 Wn. App. at 257. If the covenant runs with the land, it may also be enforced by the original parties’ successors in interest. Deep Water Brewing, 152 Wn. App. at 257-58.
4. Statute of Limitations and Accrual of an Action
¶17 A statute of limitations is designed to protect individuals and courts from stale claims. Burns v. McClinton, 135 Wn. App. 285, 293, 143 P.3d 630 (2006). As an affirmative defense, the statute of limitations is a matter on which the defendant bears the burden of proof. See Haslund v. City of Seattle, 86 Wn.2d 607, 620-21, 547 P.2d 1221 (1976). Where the underlying facts are not in dispute, whether a case was filed within the statute of limitations period is a question of law to be determined by a judge. Goodman v. Goodman, 128 Wn.2d 366, 373, 907 P.2d 290 (1995). We review questions of law de novo. Filmore LLLP v. Unit Owners Ass’n of Centre Pointe Condo., 184 Wn.2d 170, 173, 355 P.3d 1128 (2015).
¶18 HOAs are governed by chapter 64.38 RCW. However, the legislature has imposed no statute of limitations to dictate actions arising out of this chapter. In contrast, the legislature imposed a three-year statute of limitations for actions arising out of the Condominium Act,2 and later imposed a six-year statute of limitations for actions arising out of the Washington Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act.3 RCW 64.34.364(8); RCW 64.90.485(9).
¶19 RCW 4.16.040(1) states that “[a]n action upon a contract in writing, or liability express or implied arising out of a written agreement” has a six-year statute of limitations. “A cause of action generally accrues for purposes of the commencement of the statute of limitation when a party has a right to apply to court for relief.” Bush v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 23 Wn. App. 327, 329, 596 P.2d 1357 (1979).
B. Analysis
¶20 It is undisputed that the Declarations are the governing HOA documents. Accordingly, the governing documents are interpreted via contract rules. See Bangerter, 14 Wn. App. 2d at 735; RCW 64.38.010(10). And the parties’ intent was that members of the Association would pay dues in order to receive the benefit of certain maintenance and easements. Roats, 169 Wn. App. at 274. This is clear from the plain meaning of the contractual language. Jensen, 165 Wn. App. at 105. The Association, as the HOA, sued Dehls to enforce the Declarations, which are written agreements. Because this action arises out of a written agreement—the Declarations—RCW 4.16.040 applies, and the statute of limitations to enforce an HOA lien or unpaid HOA dues is six years.
¶21 The Association argues that RCW 4.16.020 applies. RCW 4.16.020 establishes a 10-year statute of limitations for recovery of an interest in real property. This does not apply here because it was not an action for recovery of an interest in real property. The Association does not seek to recover Dehls’s property; rather, it seeks only to recover the dues owed to it by Dehls.
¶22 The Association also argues that RCW 4.16.150, which deals with open and mutual accounts, applies. RCW 4.16.150 provides:
In an action brought to recover a balance due upon a mutual open and current account, where there have been reciprocal demands between the parties, the cause of action shall be deemed to have accrued from the time of the last item proved in the account on either side, but whenever a period of more than one year shall have elapsed between any of a series of items or demands, they are not to be deemed such an account.
“An open account is one in which some item of contract is not settled by the parties. Typically, the account results from ongoing sales of goods, supplies, or materials, but may also result from ongoing rendition of services or advancement of money, comprising mutual credits between the parties.” 27 Marjorie Dick Rombauer, Washington Practice: Creditors’ Remedies—Debtors’ Relief § 5.47, at 522-23 (1998) (footnote omitted). And “[a]n account is not mutual if it consists of items provided on separate contracts without reciprocal demands.” 27 Rombauer, at 523 n.7 (citing Hills v. City of Hoquiam, 94 Wash. 63, 161 P. 1049 (1916)).
¶23 RCW 4.16.150 does not apply here because Dehls’s unpaid dues are not an open and mutual account. This was not a matter of a contract remaining unsettled by a party. Rather, each yearly dues assessment was a discrete amount owed to the Association. The dues assessment was due on a yearly basis, and the amount of the dues periodically increased. The dues owed each year were for services to be provided by the Association in the coming year.
¶24 Articles C and D of the Declarations provide for common expenses owed by each member of the Association annually, and any unpaid expenses become a lien. The dues are due each year in January. In 2002, the dues were $150 per year, and from 2003 to 2017, the dues were $200 per year. The dues went up to $250 per year beginning in 2018. Discrete annual dues amounts were due 90 days after each year’s dues were assessed; on the 91st day, the cause of action accrued and the statute of limitations began to run on each discrete dues assessment.
¶25 Dehls does not dispute that the Association had the authority through the governing documents to seek enforcement of the 2013 to 2018 dues. Since 2002, Dehls never paid his annual dues, and the Association filed and recorded three liens against his property in 2003, 2006, and 2018. At the time the Association filed this lawsuit in 2018, Dehls’s dues totaled $7,101.00, plus interest accrued from 2003 on. But because the six-year statute of limitations began to run each year on the 91st day after Dehls received his dues statement, the Association can seek enforcement of the unpaid annual dues only for the years 2013 through 2018.
¶26 Therefore, the superior court erred by granting summary judgment to the Association in regard to the 2002-2012 dues, but it properly granted summary judgment to the Association in regard to the 2013-2018 unpaid dues. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the superior court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
II. Appellate Attorney Fees and Costs
¶27 Both parties argue that they are entitled to an award of reasonable appellate attorney fees and costs. Because neither party can be perceived as the prevailing party on appeal, we deny both parties’ requests.
¶28 RAP 18.1(a) authorizes a party to recover reasonable attorney fees and expenses so long as the party “request[s] the fees or expenses” and “applicable law grants to [the] party the right to recover.” The party must do so in a separate section of his or her opening brief. RAP 18.1(b). We will award attorney fees to the prevailing party “only on the basis of a private agreement, a statute, or a recognized ground of equity.” Equitable Life Leasing Corp. v. Cedarbrook, Inc., 52 Wn. App. 497, 506, 761 P.2d 77 (1988). “When both parties to an action are afforded some measure of relief and there is no singularly prevailing party,” neither party is entitled to attorney fees. Marine Enters., Inc. v. Sec. Pac. Trading Corp., 50 Wn. App. 768, 772, 750 P.2d 1290 (1988).
¶29 The Declarations provide a right to attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party in any legal actions. Because there is no prevailing party on appeal, we deny both parties’ requests for attorney fees and costs on appeal.
CONCLUSION
¶30 We reverse the court’s judgment and order granting summary judgment, and we remand to the superior court to vacate the judgment and order and enter an amended judgment and order consistent with this opinion.
Lee, C.J., and Worswick, J., concur.
References
LexisNexis Practice Guide: Washington Real Estate Litigation
Washington Rules of Court Annotated (LexisNexis ed.)
Annotated Revised Code of Washington by LexisNexisFootnotes
1We consider a corporation’s governing documents, including articles of incorporation and bylaws, “correlated documents” to be construed together as a whole. Roats v. Blakely Island Maint. Comm’n, Inc., 169 Wn. App. 263, 274, 279 P.3d 943 (2012).
5 04/01/2021 Summons and Petition for Parenting Plan Res Schedule View Document Summons and Petition for Parenting Plan Res Schedule
04/01/2021 Cover Sealed Birth Certificate or Paternity Document
6 04/01/2021 Proposed Parenting Plan View Document Proposed Parenting Plan
04/01/2021 Sealed Personal Health Care Records Cover Sheet
7 04/01/2021 Mot Declr for Ex Parte Restraining Order Order to Show Cause View Document Mot Declr for Ex Parte Restraining Order Order to Show Cause
8 04/01/2021 Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause View Document Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Judicial Officer Robinson, Tina Comment 4/13/21 @ 9:00 PATERNITY – RESTRAINTS
9 04/01/2021 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer Robinson, Tina Comment COURT SIGNS ORDER
11 04/05/2021 Temporary Restraining Order View Document Temporary Restraining Order Judicial Officer Hull, Kevin D
12 04/06/2021 Sheriffs Return on Service View Document Sheriffs Return on Service
13 04/08/2021 Ex Parte View Document Paternity Officer Robinson, Tina Hearing Time 8:30 AMResult Held Parties Present Respondent (WIP): BRYANT, JULIA F
24 04/08/2021 Order Denying Motion Petition View Document Order Denying Motion Petition Judicial Officer Robinson, Tina Comment FOR RESTRAINTS
25 04/08/2021 Order Denying Motion Petition View Document Order Denying Motion Petition Judicial Officer Robinson, Tina Comment TO QUASH IMMEDIATE RESTRAINING ORDER
04/09/2021 Ex Parte Judicial Officer Clucas, Matthew L Hearing Time 1:30 PM Result Held Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): GOODMAN, MATTHEW S Respondent (WIP): BRYANT, JULIA F
26 04/09/2021 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer Clucas, Matthew L Comment COURT ORDERS RETURN OF CHILD TO MOTHER; CONTINUES 4/13/21 HEARING TO 4/20/21 @ 9:00 AM
27 04/09/2021 Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause View Document Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Judicial Officer Clucas, Matthew L Comment 04/20/2021 @ 9:00 AM; PARENTAGE – RESTRAINTS
28 04/13/2021 Email View Document Email Comment CLERK TO KCSO
29 04/19/2021 Notice of Appearance View Document Notice of Appearance
30 04/19/2021 Notice of Appearance View Document Notice of Appearance
04/20/2021 Show Cause Original Type Show Cause Judicial Officer Clucas, Matthew L Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Continued Comment RESTRAINTSParties Present Petitioner (WIP): GOODMAN, MATTHEW S Respondent (WIP): BRYANT, JULIA F
04/20/2021 Show Cause Original Type Show Cause Judicial Officer Clucas, Matthew L Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Comment RESTRAINTS Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): GOODMAN, MATTHEW S Respondent (WIP): BRYANT, JULIA F
31 04/20/2021 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer Clucas, Matthew L Comment MATTER CONTINUED; COURT SIGNS ORDER EXTENDING RESTRAINTS
32 04/20/2021 Extension of Immediate Restraining Order and Hearing Notice View Document Extension of Immediate Restraining Order and Hearing Notice Judicial Officer Clucas, Matthew L Comment 5/18/21 @ 9:00 PARENTAGE – RESTRAINTS (ALREADY SET PER #32)
33 04/23/2021 Email View Document Email Comment CLERK TO KCSO
35 05/10/2021 Note for Calendar View Document Note for Calendar Comment 5/28/21 @ 9:00 SET SETT CONF
05/13/2021 Sealed Personal Health Care Records Cover Sheet
05/13/2021 Sealed Personal Health Care Records Cover Sheet
36 05/17/2021 Objection Opposition View Document Objection Opposition Comment TO PETITIONER’S LATE FILED RESPONSIVE MATERIALS
05/18/2021 Show Cause Original Type Show Cause Judicial Officer Clucas, Matthew L Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Comment RESTRAINTSParties Present Petitioner (WIP): GOODMAN, MATTHEW S Respondent (WIP): BRYANT, JULIA F
37 05/18/2021 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer Clucas, Matthew L Comment COURT GRANTS MOTION IN PART/ ORDER TO BE PRESENTED
05/28/2021 Settlement Conference Hearing Time 9:00 AM
39 05/28/2021 Notice of Change of Address View Document Notice of Change of Address
40 05/28/2021 Settlement Conference Setting View Document Settlement Conference Setting Comment SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE JULY 28, 2021 AT 1:30
06/04/2021 Presentation of Order Original Type Presentation of Order Judicial Officer Clucas, Matthew L Hearing Time 1:30 PM Result Stricken
06/04/2021 Hearing Stricken In Court NonAppearance
41 07/13/2021 Temporary Order View Document Temporary Order Judicial Officer Clucas, Matthew L
07/28/2021 Settlement Conference Original Type Settlement Conference Judicial Officer Robinson, Tina Hearing Time 1:30 PM Result Held Comment ZFL2
42 07/28/2021 Financial Declaration of Petitioner View Document Financial Declaration of Petitioner
43 07/28/2021 Assignment of Trial Date View Document Assignment of Trial Date Comment DECEMBER 7, 2021 AT 9AM
07/28/2021 Settlement Conference Hearing Held
44 09/27/2021 Notice of Withdrawal of Attorney View Document Notice of Withdrawal of Attorney
45 12/01/2021 Notice Withdraw and Substitution of Counsel View Document Notice Withdraw and Substitution of Counsel Comment SUBSTITUTING ATTORNEY: KATE MOGLIA
46 12/03/2021 Order of Continuance View Document Order of Continuance Judicial Officer Hull, Kevin D Comment AGREED; TRIAL 3/29/22 AT 9AM
47 12/13/2021 Ex Parte Original Type Ex ParteView Document Paternity Judicial Officer Hull, Kevin D Hearing Time 8:30 AM Result Held Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): GOODMAN, MATTHEW S
48 12/13/2021 Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause View Document Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Judicial Officer Hull, Kevin D Comment 12/28/21 AT 9AM – PARENTAGE – RESTRAINTS
12/13/2021 Ex Parte Action With Order Judicial Officer Hull, Kevin D
49 12/13/2021 Motion Hearing View Document PaternityJudicial Officer Hull, Kevin D Comment COURT GRANTS JOINT DECISION MAKING, DISCLOSURE OF MED RECORDS, AND VISITS AT HOSPITAL; 12/28/21 @ 9:00 AM
50 12/13/2021 Email View Document Email Comment CLERK TO KCSO
51 12/13/2021 Mot Declr for Ex Parte Restraining Order Order to Show Cause View Document Mot Declr for Ex Parte Restraining Order Order to Show Cause
52 12/13/2021 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment IN SUPPORT OF RESTRAINING ORDER
12/13/2021 Sealed Personal Health Care Records Cover Sheet
53 12/14/2021 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
12/28/2021 Show Cause Judicial Officer Clucas, Matthew L Hearing Time 9:00 AM Cancel Reason Calendar Conflict Comment RESTRAINTS
12/29/2021 Ex Parte Original Type Ex Parte Judicial Officer Bassett, Jeffrey P Hearing Time 8:30 AM Result Held
54 12/29/2021 Return of Service View Document Return of Service Comment KCSO
55 12/29/2021 Extension of Immediate Restraining Order and Hearing Notice View Document Extension of Immediate Restraining Order and Hearing Notice Judicial Officer Bassett, Jeffrey P Comment 1/4/22 AT 9AM – PARENTAGE – RESTRAINTS
01/04/2022 Show Cause Original Type Show Cause Judicial Officer Clucas, Matthew L Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Continued Comment RESTRAINTS Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): GOODMAN, MATTHEW S
56 01/04/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer Clucas, Matthew L Comment MATTER CONT’D / ORDER SIGNED
57 01/04/2022 Extension of Immediate Restraining Order and Hearing Notice View Document Extension of Immediate Restraining Order and Hearing Notice Judicial Officer Clucas, Matthew L Comment 1/18/22 AT 9AM – PARENTAGE – RESTRAINTS
58 01/06/2022 Return of Service View Document Return of Service Comment KCSO 1/5/22
01/18/2022 Show Cause Original Type Show Cause Judicial Officer Clucas, Matthew L Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Comment RESTRAINTS Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): GOODMAN, MATTHEW S
59 01/18/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer Clucas, Matthew L Comment RESTRAINTS DENIED
60 01/18/2022 Notice of Appearance View Document Notice of Appearance
61 02/01/2022 Motion Appointing Guardian Ad Litem View Document Motion Appointing Guardian Ad Litem
62 02/01/2022 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO APPOINT GAL
02/01/2022 Sealed Personal Health Care Records Cover Sheet
63 02/01/2022 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of Hearing Comment 2/15/22 AT 9AM – PARENTAGE – MOTION TO APPOINT GAL
64 02/01/2022 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of Hearing Comment 2/18/22 AT 1:30PM – DEPARTMENTAL MLC – PRESENTATION OF ORDER
65 02/03/2022 Motion for Temporary Order View Document Motion for Temporary Order
66 02/03/2022 Motion for Temporary Order View Document Motion for Temporary Order
67 02/03/2022 Child Support Worksheet Proposed View Document Child Support Worksheet Proposed
68 02/03/2022 Financial Declaration of Respondent View Document Financial Declaration of Respondent
69 02/03/2022 Note for Motion Docket View Document Note for Motion Docket Comment 2/22/22 @ 9:00 PARENTAGE – TEMP ORDER
70 02/08/2022 Objection Opposition View Document Objection Opposition Comment TO PROPOSED ORDER
71 02/08/2022 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment RESPONSIVE TO MOTION TO APPOINT GAL
72 02/11/2022 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of Hearing Comment 2/28/22 @ 9:00 SPECIAL SET – MOTION TO APPOINT GAL
02/15/2022 Motion Hearing Original Type Motion Hearing Judicial Officer Clucas, Matthew L Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Stricken Comment TO APPOINT GAL
02/15/2022 Hearing Stricken Not Confirmed and Not Heard
73 02/17/2022 Child Support Worksheet Proposed View Document Child Support Worksheet Proposed
74 02/17/2022 Financial Declaration of Petitioner View Document Financial Declaration of Petitioner
02/17/2022 Sealed Financial Source Documents
75 02/17/2022 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment RESPONSIVE RE: MOTION FOR TEMP ORDER
02/18/2022 Presentation of Order Original Type Presentation of Order Judicial Officer Clucas, Matthew L Hearing Time 1:30 PM Result Held
77 02/18/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer Clucas, Matthew L Comment COURT GRANTS / SIGNS AGREED ORDER
78 02/18/2022 Temporary Family Law Order View Document Temporary Family Law Order Judicial Officer Clucas, Matthew L
02/22/2022 Temporary Order Original Type Temporary Order Judicial Officer Clucas, Matthew L Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Parties PresentPetitioner (WIP): GOODMAN, MATTHEW S Respondent (WIP): BRYANT, JULIA F
79 02/22/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer Clucas, Matthew L Comment MOTION GRANTED / ORAL RULING
02/28/2022 Motion Hearing Hearing Time 9:00 AM Cancel Reason Stricken Comment MOTION TO APPT GAL
80 02/28/2022 Motion for Revision View Document Motion for Revision
81 02/28/2022 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of Hearing Comment 3/18/22 @ 2:30 DOM PRES – REVISION
82 03/03/2022 Order Appointing Guardian Ad Litem View Document Order Appointing Guardian Ad Litem Judicial Officer Hull, Kevin D
03/18/2022 Revision Judicial Officer Olsen, Sally F Hearing Time 2:30 PM
83 04/21/2022 Notice of Absence Unavailability View Document Notice of Absence Unavailability
84 04/22/2022 Notice of Intent to Withdraw View Document Notice of Intent to Withdraw
85 04/22/2022 Declaration of Mailing View Document Declaration of Mailing
86 05/03/2022 Copy View Document Copy Comment OF EMAILS RE AGREEMENT
87 05/03/2022 Note for Motion Docket View Document Note for Motion Docket Comment 5/20/22 AT 1:30 W/ MLC – PRESENTATION OF ORDERS
88 05/03/2022 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
89 05/10/2022 Motion View Document Motion Comment FOR ATTORNEY WITHDRAW
90 05/10/2022 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of Hearing Comment 05/24/2022 @ 9AM
05/20/2022 Presentation of Order Original Type Presentation of Order Judicial Officer Clucas, Matthew L Hearing Time 1:30 PM Result Continued Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): GOODMAN, MATTHEW S Respondent (WIP): BRYANT, JULIA F
91 05/20/2022 Request for Continuance View Document Request for Continuance Comment & MEMORANDUM OF OBJECTION
92 05/20/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer Clucas, Matthew L Comment COURT CONTINUES HEARING; 5/24/2022 @ 9:00 AM
05/24/2022 Approve Petition Original Type Approve Petition Judicial Officer Clucas, Matthew L Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Comment / PRESENTATION (CONTINUED FROM 5/20/2022) Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): GOODMAN, MATTHEW S Respondent (WIP): BRYANT, JULIA F Guardian ad Litem: RYDER, MICHELLE
93 05/24/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer Clucas, Matthew L Comment COURT GRANTS MOTION AND SIGNS ORDER
94 05/24/2022 Temporary Order of Child Support View Document Temporary Order of Child Support Judicial Officer Clucas, Matthew L
95 05/24/2022 Temporary Family Law Order View Document Temporary Family Law Order Judicial Officer Clucas, Matthew L
96 06/03/2022 Motion for Revision View Document Motion for Revision
06/03/2022 Sealed Personal Health Care Records Cover Sheet
98 06/06/2022 Note for Motion Docket View Document Note for Motion Docket Comment 6/24/22 AT 2:30PM – DOMESTIC PRESIDING – MOTION FOR REVISION
06/07/2022 Non-Jury Trial Hearing Time 9:00 AM Cancel Reason Duplicate Hearing Comment SC TRR – 2 DAYS – WILL BE MOTION TO CONTINUE – NO GAL REPORT YET
06/07/2022 Non-Jury Trial Original Type Non-Jury Trial Judicial Officer Houser, William C Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Continued Comment SC TRR – 2 DAYS – WILL BE RESET – NO GAL REPORT YET Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): GOODMAN, MATTHEW S
99 06/07/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer Houser, William C Comment COURT CONT TRIAL 08/16/22; TO BE SET THROUGH SCHEDULER
100 06/07/2022 Assignment of Trial Date View Document Assignment of Trial Date Comment 8/16/22 AT 9AM – 2 DAY TRIAL
101 06/07/2022 Notice of Intent to Withdraw View Document Notice of Intent to Withdraw
102 06/09/2022 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
103 06/09/2022 Affidavit of Mailing View Document Affidavit of Mailing
104 06/13/2022 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
105 06/23/2022 Memorandum View Document Memorandum Comment IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR REVISION
06/23/2022 Sealed Personal Health Care Records Cover Sheet
06/24/2022 Revision Original Type Revision Judicial Officer Olsen, Sally F Hearing Time 2:30 PM Result HeldParties PresentPetitioner (WIP): GOODMAN, MATTHEW S Respondent (WIP): BRYANT, JULIA F
106 06/24/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer Olsen, Sally F Comment MATTER TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT
08/16/2022 Non-Jury Trial Hearing Time 9:00 AM Comment SC TRR – 2 DAYS
4 02/17/2022 Motion View Document Motion Comment for Preliminary Injunctive Relief and Memorandum of Law
5 02/17/2022 Proposed Order Findings View Document Proposed Order Findings Comment Preliminary Injunction
6 02/17/2022 Motion for Order to Show Cause View Document Motion for Order to Show Cause
7 02/17/2022 Order to Show Cause View Document Order to Show Cause Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Comment Preliminary injunctive relief
8 02/17/2022 Notice of Issue View Document Notice of Issue
9 02/17/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Motion HearingJudicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L
10 02/24/2022 Motion for Order to Show Cause View Document Motion for Order to Show Cause Comment AMENDED
11 02/24/2022 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of Hearing
12 02/24/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L
13 02/25/2022 Order to Show Cause View Document Order to Show Cause Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Comment AMENDED -Preliminary injunctive relief
14 02/28/2022 Show Cause Original Type Show Cause View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Hearing Time 1:30 PM Result Stricken
02/28/2022 Show Cause Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel LHearing Time 1:30 PM Cancel Reason Clerical Error
15 02/28/2022 Hearing Stricken In Court Other Reason View Document Mason Minutes
16 03/02/2022 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
17 03/07/2022 Show Cause Original Type Show Cause View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Hearing Time 1:15 PM Result Held Parties Present Plaintiff Attorney: Nichols, Julie Sund, Plaintiff Attorney: Nichols, Julie Sund
18 03/07/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L
19 03/07/2022 Order Granting Motion Petition View Document Order Granting Motion Petition Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Comment FOR PRELIMINARY INJUCTIVE RELIEF
20 03/09/2022 Writ View Document Writ Comment OF ASSISTANCE
21 03/11/2022 Motion and Affidavit Declaration View Document Motion and Affidavit Declaration
22 03/11/2022 Order Denying Motion Petition View Document Order Denying Motion Petition Judicial Officer Ferguson-Brown, Cadine
24 03/14/2022 Motion and Affidavit Declaration View Document Motion and Affidavit Declaration Comment stay on writ Document has been cut and taped
25 03/14/2022 Order Granting Motion Petition View Document Order Granting Motion PetitionJudicial Officer Finlay, Amber L Comment For Stay on the Writ of Assistance
27 03/23/2022 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration AffidavitComment Stephen Whitehouse
28 03/23/2022 Declaration of Mailing View Document Declaration of Mailing
29 03/28/2022 Motion Hearing Original Type Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Hearing Time 1:30 PM Result HeldParties PresentPlaintiffAttorney: Nichols, Julie Sund Plaintiff Attorney: Nichols, Julie Sund Defendant: NULL, BRIAN
30 03/28/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L
31 03/28/2022 Order of Continuance View Document Order of Continuance Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L
33 04/04/2022 Motion Hearing Original Type Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Hearing Time 1:30 PM Result HeldParties PresentPlaintiffAttorney: Nichols, Julie Sund Plaintiff Attorney: Nichols, Julie Sund Defendant: NULL, BRIAN
34 04/04/2022 Notice of Appearance View Document Notice of Appearance
35 04/04/2022 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of HearingComment presentation of Orders
36 04/04/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L
37 04/11/2022 Presentation of Order Original Type Presentation of Order View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Hearing Time 1:30 PM Result Held
38 04/11/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L
39 04/12/2022 Order Authorizing View Document Order AuthorizingJudicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Comment LIFTING STAY PARTIALLY AND AMENDING ORDER FROM 3-7-22
40 04/14/2022 Notice of Withdrawal of Attorney View Document Notice of Withdrawal of Attorney
41 05/04/2022 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of Hearing
42 05/04/2022 Motion for Summary Judgment View Document Motion for Summary Judgment
43 05/04/2022 Declaration of Mailing View Document Declaration of Mailing
44 06/06/2022 Summary Judgment Original Type Summary Judgment View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D Hearing Time 1:30 PMResult Held Comment Tammy with Whitehouse Case called on 6/1/2022 at 11:00 AM – SL Parties PresentPlaintiffAttorney: Nichols, Julie Sund Plaintiff Attorney: Nichols, Julie Sund Defendant: NULL, BRIAN
49 06/13/2022 Motion Hearing Original Type Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D Hearing Time 1:30 PMResult Held Comment Tami w/ Whitehouse & Nichols called to confirm on 6/8/22 at 9:02 AM – SLParties PresentPlaintiffAttorney: Nichols, Julie Sund Plaintiff Attorney: Nichols, Julie Sund Defendant: NULL, BRIAN
Mark Feldman MD, in Sleisenger and Fordtran’s Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease, 2021
Blastocystis hominis
B. hominis is an intestinal protozoan that commonly infects the human colon. After many years of confusion regarding its taxonomy,Blastocystis is now recognized as a stramenopile, which is one of the major groups of eukaryotes and includes brown algae, diatoms, water molds, etc.139 To date, only one other stramenopile (i.e.,Pythium) is known to infect humans. Diameter ranges from 3 to 30 μm. In culture,B. hominis has ameboid, vacuolated, granular,65 and cystic forms. The distribution ofB. hominis is worldwide, but infection is most common in the tropics.81 In a large study of intestinal parasitism in the USA,B. hominis was identified in 2.6% of stool specimens submitted to state health departments; more than 70% of positive samples were from California.85 Among American travelers and expatriates, the prevalence often exceeds 30%.81
The significance ofB. hominis as a pathogen remains controversial. Several studies have suggested an association with IBS, but neither cause nor effect has been established, and in most series,B. hominis infection is not more common among patients with GI complaints than among asymptomatic control subjects.81 Interestingly, there is tremendous genetic heterogeneity amongB. hominis isolates, which may explain the apparent differences in clinical manifestations of infection.139 Multiple studies have used metronidazole (750 mg orally 3 times a day for 10 days) or iodoquinol (650 mg orally 3 times a day for 20 days) for treatment of symptomatic patients, with an overall improvement rate of about 50%.80 Clinical improvement in some patients may relate to treatment of more virulent isolates, but it may also be a result of treatment of unrecognized infections with other organisms, because many people infected withB. hominis simultaneously harbor known pathogens.128 In one series of patients withB. hominis infection, 84% of patients were found to have at least one recognized pathogen other thanB. hominis (E. histolytica,G. intestinalis, orD. fragilis) when repeated stool examinations were obtained.128
Blastocystis hominis is a common stool commensal (up to 19% of normal controls in the United States are colonized). There is evidence that heavy infestations may be associated with cramps, vomiting, dehydration, abdominal pain, sleeplessness, nausea, weight loss, lassitude, dizziness, flatus, anorexia, pruritus, and tenesmus.
B. hominis infections in primates have been cured with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. In vitro susceptibility tests show that the following drugs may be effective, in descending order: emetine, metronidazole, nitazoxanide, furazolidone, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, iodochlorhydroxyquin (Entero-Vioform), and pentamidine. Chloroquine and iodoquinol have also been reported as effective treatments.
The role of B. hominis as a human pathogen is still controversial. Some published reports, based on clinical and laboratory studies, have suggested that when B. hominis-associated diarrhea appears to respond to therapy, improvement may, in fact, be due to some other undetected organism that is actually causing the problem.
Blastocystis hominis is a common stool commensal (up to 19% of normal controls in the United States are colonized). There is evidence that heavy infestations may be associated with cramps, vomiting, dehydration, abdominal pain, sleeplessness, nausea, weight loss, lassitude, dizziness, flatus, anorexia, pruritus, and tenesmus.
B. hominis infections in primates have been cured with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. In vitro susceptibility tests show that the following drugs may be effective, in descending order: emetine, metronidazole, nitazoxanide, furazolidone, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, iodochlorhydroxyquin (Entero-Vioform), and pentamidine. Chloroquine and iodoquinol have also been reported as effective treatments.
The role of B. hominis as a human pathogen is still controversial. Some published reports, based on clinical and laboratory studies, have suggested that when B. hominis-associated diarrhea appears to respond to therapy, improvement may, in fact, be due to some other undetected organism that is actually causing the problem.
Blastocystis hominis is a common inhabitant of the human intestinal tract. For many years it was regarded as a harmless yeast, but it is now considered by most to be a protozoan. The potential for B. hominis as a pathogen is a subject of debate. Reported symptoms associated with heavy B. hominis infection in the absence of other recognized pathogenic organisms include mild diarrhea, nausea, anorexia, and fatigue. It remains uncertain whether B. hominis itself is the cause of symptoms or if it is only a marker of some other unidentified pathogen. Markell and Udkow have given an interesting and compelling perspective to this controversy. In 32 symptomatic subjects initially found with B. hominis alone or in combination with nonpathogenic protozoa, an additional series of stool specimens (up to six) were rigorously examined. In 27 of those 32 patients, at least one known pathogenic protozoa in addition to B. hominis was found. B. hominis persisted, but symptoms improved in all 27 patients treated specifically for these other pathogenic protozoa. It was concluded that B. hominis is not a pathogen, that treatment with common antiprotozoal drugs may not eliminate it from the stool, and that “symptomatic blastocystosis” was attributable to either an undetected parasite or parasites in some patients or functional bowel problems in others.
Blastocystis spp. (formerly Blastocystis hominis) are transmitted via the fecal–oral route through contaminated food or water; the cysts survive in water for up to 19 days at normal temperatures.2,8 Although other modes of transmission are not defined, the incidence and apparent worldwide distribution suggest the traditional route of infection. When genotypic results from animal isolates were compared with the diversity of genotypes of human Blastocystis spp. isolates, the human isolates were defined as the same as the subtypes of the pet isolates, as well as the tapwater isolates. Thus, the possibility of zoonotic transmission appears to be very likely.9
There are a number of different subtypes/strains/species included in this complex, some of which are considered pathogenic and some are nonpathogenic. Prevention would involve improved personal hygiene and sanitary conditions.
Blastocystis hominis is found worldwide with a prevalence in some studies as high as 58% and generally exceeds that of other organisms; even 15% of stool submitted in the USA for O&P examination may be positive. Fecal-oral transmission is postulated. Studies suggest the existence of numerous zoonotic isolates with frequent animal-to-human and human-to-animal transmission and of a large potential reservoir in animals for infections in humans. The pathogenicity of B. hominis has long been controversial. Several case-control analyses show no increase in prevalence in patients with diarrhea, with high carriage rates in asymptomatic individuals. Many patients infected with Blastocystis also carry other pathogens; endoscopic studies have not found intestinal pathology, thus causality can be difficult to discern.View chapterPurchase book
Blastocystis hominis and Blastocystis spp. Infection
James D. Cherry MD, MSc, in Feigin and Cherry’s Textbook of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, 2019
Treatment
Given the controversy surrounding the pathogenicity ofB. hominis, a prudent approach is to refrain from treating asymptomatic immunocompetent persons.21 In patients who have gastrointestinal illness, including IBS, and in whom other pathogens have been excluded, administering a course of antiprotozoal chemotherapy may be reasonable. The results of several drug studies, including three that were placebo controlled, indicate that therapeutic improvements with parasite clearance in symptomatic patients were noted with the use of metronidazole (15–30 mg/kg per day for 7 to 10 days), nitazoxanide (200 mg twice daily for children 4–11 years old and 100 mg twice daily for children 1–3 years old for 3 days), and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (6 mg/kg trimethoprim and 30 mg/kg sulfamethoxazole daily in two equal doses for 7 days in children; 320 mg trimethoprim and 1600 mg sulfamethoxazole daily in two equal doses for 7 days in adults).22,38 However, because these drugs are broad spectrum, it is possible that clinical improvement may have been a consequence of treating an unidentified enteric pathogen.38 To date, the scientific community has been unable to fulfill the Koch postulates for members of the genusBlastocystis.38 Some investigators have reported symptomatic improvement in patients receiving either metronidazole or tinidazole.5,11
Using an in vitro assay that used metabolic labeling, researchers found that the drugs emetine, satranidazole, furazolidone, and quinacrine were superior in activity to either metronidazole or tinidazole.5 These authors cautioned, however, that the in vitro assay does not take into account the pharmacokinetic properties of the drugs. More recent in vitro testing of ST1, ST3, ST4, and ST8 found thatB. hominis exhibits minimal sensitivity to metronidazole, paromomycin, and triple therapy consisting of furazolidone, nitazoxanide, and secnidazole; however, sensitivity to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and ivermectin was observed.31 A clinical pilot study from Australia reported on the efficacy of triple antibiotic therapy in 10 adult patients withBlastocystis-positive IBS.23 The three-drug (or drug combination) regimen comprised diloxanide furoate, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and secnidazole for 14 days, and it was shown to clearBlastocystis infection in 60% of patients, but with inconclusive effects on IBS in this small pilot study, such that larger studies may be required.23 Ultimately, additional studies that examine drug sensitivities of differentBlastocystis subtypes may help clarify this situation, but for now the status of treating humanBlastocystis infection remains controversial.35
Blastocystis hominis is a protozoon of controversial clinical significance, and probably the most common intestinal parasite of man. In various studies it has been found more frequently in stool samples of patients with TD than in healthy controls. It is hypothesized that the development of diarrhea and other gastrointestinal symptoms is associated with certain subtypes.32 Diagnosis is usually readily available by microscopy; subtypes can be determined by genotyping.
Microsporidia have occasionally been found as a cause of TD.33 Even after treatment and resolution of diarrhea, microsporidia may be found in stool. Persistent diarrhea is seen preferably in immunocompromised patients. Diagnosis is made by stool microscopy using specific staining methods or by more sensitive tests, such as PCR.
Helminthic parasites are not a cause of typical TD, but diarrhea may be a symptom of various helminth infections, such as strongyloidiasis, trichuriasis, fasciolopsiasis, intestinal schistosomiasis or trichinellosis. Blood eosinophilia is frequently present. Diagnosis by parasitological stool investigations can be difficult in travelers, as parasite burdens are usually low. Then, serology and new PCR methods may be helpful.
Blastocystis hominis is an enteric parasite of humans and a wide variety of animals. Its geographic range is global and the organism has been known since the early part of the 20th century. It is the causative agent of traveler’s diarrhea, rectal bleeding, fever, and irritable bowel syndrome. The taxonomic status of the organism is still questionable, but based on information derived from sequencing studies from multiple conserved genes, it is considered a polymorphic protozoan in the stramenopile group of protists. Its life cycle includes four stages, a vacuolated stage, most commonly found in stool samples, amoeboid, precystic, and cystic stages. The amoeboid stage reproduces by binary fission, while the cystic stages are considered, by many, the transmissible stages. The cystic stage comprises thin-walled and thick-walled types with the former probably being the autoinfective stage and the latter’s role being that of external transmission. B. hominis displays extreme genetic diversity. The forms that are infective to humans can be assigned to at least seven zoonotic subtypes based on their genotypes. It is now believed that such genetic diversity is indicative of the pathogenic and non-pathogenic nature of the organism. While no treatment is indicated, metronidazole has proven effective in a number of clinical cases.
Subtypes, pathogenicity, immune response and immunomodulation
This microorganism was historically referred as Blastocystis hominis when isolated from humans, but humans can be infected with other species (e.g., B. ratti). Molecular studies using the small subunit ribosomal RNA gene (SSU) revealed at least 17 Blastocystis subtypes (STs), all of which are morphologically similar but genetically distinct (Alfellani et al., 2013; Stensvold et al., 2007). Thereafter, the designation “Blastocystis spp. STnn” covers all subtypes, of which ST1 to ST9 and ST12 have been detected in humans, and ST1 to ST4 are involved in 90% of human cases (Stensvold and Clark, 2016). Further, subtypes ST18 to ST26 have been proposed to infect humans, but this finding is still controversial (Maloney et al., 2019; Stensvold and Clark, 2020).
To date, there is no proven relationship between Blastocystis STs and virulence, although there appears to be an association. However, key processes involved in intestinal pathogenicity have been identified. In vitro interaction experiments have shown that Blastocystis is able to (a) attach intestinal mucin; (b) promote tight junction alteration mediated by Rho/ROCK, which, in turn, disrupts epithelial barrier function, hence increasing permeability; (c) NF-κB-mediated secretion of pro-inflammatory cytokines (GM-CSF, IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8 and TNF-α) (Fig. 4A); and (d) enterocyte apoptosis by contact-independent, caspase 3-dependent mechanisms (Lim et al., 2014; Puthia et al., 2006) (Fig. 4B). The high genetic variability among Blastocystis isolates is a major contributing factor, not only to explain the distinct inter-ST and intra-ST abilities to induce the alterations mentioned above (Gentekaki et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2014), but also to define likely virulence factors and immune evasion mechanisms used by this parasite.
In spite of the non-invasive nature and controvert pathogenicity of Blastocystis spp., local-intestinal and systemic immune responses have been observed, but are somewhat conflicting. In symptomatic humans, higher levels of serum IgG have been found than in asymptomatic individuals, with variable levels of IgA in serum (Mahmoud and Saleh, 2003; Zierdt et al., 1995). On the other hand, mucosal antibody response in the intestine, mediated by secretory IgA (Fig. 4C), seems to be associated with latent infection, because this isotype is more abundant both in symptomatic patients and in immunized BALB/c mice, acting as a first-line defense against attachment and invasiveness by Blastocystis (Mahmoud and Saleh, 2003; Santos and Rivera, 2009). Further, in pigs, where ST1, ST3 and mainly ST5 predominate, a study testing IgA by immunoblot in 233 fecal samples from asymptomatic, PCR-positive pigs revealed 81% reactivity against different protein bands of a Blastocystis extract from isolate WR-1 (ST4), particularly against a 250 kDa component (Wang et al., 2014). In this context, recent experiments have identified an important role for secreted proteases as major candidate for virulence factors based on their ability to degrade secreted antibodies, disrupt epithelial barrier function and promote the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines (Ajjampur and Tan, 2016; Nourrisson et al., 2016). Particularly cysteine proteases of Blastocystis from symptomatic human cases displayed a higher enzyme activity than those from asymptomatic carriers (Mirza and Tan, 2009). Indeed, secretory dimeric IgA was degraded by cellular and secretory Blastocystis proteases of the cysteine (isolate B, ST7) and a aspartic protease (isolate WR-1, ST4) (Puthia et al., 2005). Interestingly, a variant repertoire and activity of cysteine proteases within and among STs have been reported (Gentekaki et al., 2017; Mirza and Tan, 2009), supporting the notion of variability in pathogenicity and in immune evasion ability among STs.
NO is an important component of the innate immune system, which is produced in large quantities from l-arginine through the activation of NOSII, and is a free radical causing nitrosative stress-mediated death in microbial pathogens. In Blastocystis, necrosis as well as apoptosis-like processes might be induced by NO (Eida et al., 2008; Mirza et al., 2011b) (Fig. 4D). Interestingly, Blastocystis isolate B (ST7) is more prone to apoptosis (i.e., more susceptible to NO) than isolate WR-1 (ST4) (Eida et al., 2008); nevertheless, the ST7 isolate is able to downregulate NOSII mRNA levels in colonic epithelial cell monolayers (CaCo-2) (Mirza et al., 2011b). Although the ST7 isolate contains much higher arginase activity than ST4 isolate, this feature is thought to be secondary to the decrease in NOSII expression in evasion (Mirza et al., 2011a).
Cellular immune response elicited by Blastocystis spp. has been studied in vitro and in vivo. The ability of this parasite to disrupt intestinal barrier integrity allows its secreted antigens to cross epithelium and reach the lamina propria, thus reaching effector cells. In this context, cysteine proteases released by Blastocystis negatively affect enterocyte junctions through Rho kinase activation, F-actin rearrangement and ZO-1 distribution increasing epithelial permeability (Mirza et al., 2012; Puthia et al., 2006). Experimental infections with cysts in BALB/c mice (human isolate) and rats (isolate RN94-9, ST4) showed, by histological examination, an intense infiltration of pro-inflammatory cells in colonic and caecal mucosa, with a moderate increase in goblet cell numbers (Iguchi et al., 2009; Moe et al., 1997). This recruitment is, in part, mediated by soluble mediators acting on inducing granulocytes/macrophages (GM-CSF) and neutrophil recruitment (IL-8), both released by colonic epithelial cell lines (HT-29 and T84) in response to infection by Blastocystis (Long et al., 2001). Regarding mucus production by goblet cells that alleviate colitis-induced symptoms, this production is triggered via IL-22 from CD4 + cells (Leung et al., 2014). In addition, macrophages initially resident in the lamina propria or recruited to the inflamed bowel may be induced by serine proteases from Blastocystis, which may activate protease-activated receptor 2 (PAR2), which, in turn, triggers mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathways involving ERK1/2 and JNK, thereby promoting the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines as IL-1β, IL-6 and TNFα (Lim et al., 2014) (Fig. 4E). Interestingly, this response was found to be more intense when macrophages and even mice with colitis or mouse colon explants were exposed to lysates from isolate B (ST7) as compared with isolate WR-1 (ST4), indicating a differential pro-inflammatory potential among STs (Lim et al., 2014). Further, some IBS cases with concomitant Blastocystis infection are refractory to metronidazole treatment, as parasite isolates (e.g., isolate B) display resistance to this drug (Mirza et al., 2011a). Moreover, isolate B has a higher virulence-arsenal than isolate WR-1, as it contains more cysteine and serine proteases, and arginase activities that appear to explain isolate B’s higher IgA degradation capacity, higher phosphorylation of MAPKs leading to higher pro-inflammatory responses and lower NO production in host cells to allow parasite survival.
The relationship between cellular immune responses to Blastocystis and development of intestinal inflammation, i.e., IBS/IBD, is unclear, but there are significant insights into the activation of the immune response, loss of tolerance to the parasite and immunosuppression (Kaser et al., 2010; Strober et al., 2002). In IBS patients with concomitant Blastocystis infection, lower levels of CD3 + and CD4 + cells and CD4 +/CD8 + ratios were observed (Wang et al., 2002) (Fig. 4F). In the same context, IBS patients infected with subtypes ST1 or ST3 produced higher levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines as IL-8, IL-12 and TNFα compared to patients with only IBS (Yakoob et al., 2014) (Fig. 4G). In addition, Blastocystis carriers harbouring polymorphisms in the alleles of pro-inflammatory IL-8 + 396 (GG) and anti-inflammatory IL-10-592 (C) cytokines were at significant risk of developing IBS (Olivo-Diaz et al., 2012) (Fig. 4H).
Besides pro-inflammatory cytokines, there is limited information regarding other soluble parasite mediators. Interestingly, colorectal cancer cell line HCT116 exposed to antigen extracts of Blastocystis from symptomatic patients significantly up-regulated transcription factor NF-κB, Th-1 (IFN-γ and TNFα) and Th-2 (IL-6, IL-8 and TGFβ) mRNA responses with dominance of Th-2 pattern in comparison with the same cells exposed to extracts from asymptomatic patients (Chan et al., 2012). Considering this aspect, a comparison among subtypes ST1 to ST5 showed that ST3 evoked a higher up-regulation of Th-2 cytokines, particularly TGFβ (Kumarasamy et al., 2013). Altogether, these observations provide evidence of host immunomodulation induced by this parasite.
16 12/21/2021 Proposed Parenting Plan View Document Proposed Parenting Plan
17 12/21/2021 Declaration in Supp of Parenting Plan View Document Declaration in Supp of Parenting Plan
18 12/22/2021 Temporary Order Original Type Temporary Order View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Ferguson-Brown, Cadine Hearing Time 1:30 PM Result Held Comment CONFIRMED via phone 12/14/2021 by Dennis Cygan. -BH Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): FERRAND, RACHEL A Respondent (WIP) Attorney: PESICKA, RYAN MATTHEW Petitioner (WIP) Attorney: Wilcox, Bailey James
Comment (COUNT III 9 MONTHS JAIL WITH 12 MONTHS COMMUNITY CUSTODY WITH CONDITIONS COUNT IV 9 MONTHS JAIL COUNT V 9 MONTHS JAIL; CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED NO CONTACT WITH TRISTIAN RAEMER HARDING FOR 5 YEARS)
Confinement
Type: Local Jail
Effective Date: 05/10/2021
Report Date: 05/10/2021
Term: 9 Months
Probation: 12 Months
Credit for Time Served Determined by Corrections
Restitution and Other Fees
Debtor: HARDING, BRANDON JON
Current Sentence Status:
Status: Active
Status Date: 05/10/2021
Signing Judge: Cobb, Monty D
Signed Date: 05/10/2021
Effective Date: 05/10/2021
Fees and Fines: $500.00
Events and Hearings
41 21.8.10 Hrg Strk NonApp 456
12/14/2020 Preliminary Appearance Judicial Officer Finlay, Amber LHearing Time 9:00 AMResult HeldComment ASSAULT 2, UNL IMPRSNMNT, FEL HRSMNT, UPF, RAPE 2 Parties PresentDefendant (WIP): HARDING, BRANDON JON
1 12/14/2020 Affidavit of Probable Cause View Document Affidavit of Probable Cause
12/14/2020 Findings of Indigency
2 12/14/2020 Order Appointing Attorney View Document Order Appointing AttorneyJudicial Officer Finlay, Amber L
3 12/14/2020 Order Establishing Conditions of Release View Document Order Establishing Conditions of Release Judicial Officer Finlay, Amber L Comment BAIL
4 12/14/2020 No Contact Order View Document No Contact OrderJudicial Officer Cobb, Monty DComment PRE-CHARGE DV/TELEPHONIC
6 12/15/2020 Notice of Appearance View Document Notice of Appearance
7 12/15/2020 Demand For View Document Demand ForComment DISCOVERY
8 12/16/2020 Order Expending Public Funds View Document Order Expending Public FundsComment INVESTIGATOR $450 AUTHORIZED
12/16/2020 Ex Parte Action With Order Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D
9 12/16/2020 Information View Document InformationComment 6 CTS
12/28/2020 Arraignment Judicial Officer(s) Goodell, Daniel L, Cobb, Monty D Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Parties PresentPlaintiff (Criminal): STATE OF WASHINGTONDeputy Prosecuting Attorney: Bickerton, Tyler Craig Defendant (WIP): HARDING, BRANDON JON
10 12/28/2020 No Contact Order View Document Order for Sexual Assault Protection Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Comment Sexual Protection Order
11 12/28/2020 Order Setting Trial Date View Document Order Setting Trial Date Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Comment FSD 3-12-21
13 01/13/2021 Omnibus Application of Prosecuting Attorney View Document Omnibus Application of Prosecuting Attorney
01/19/2021 Omnibus Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Parties PresentPlaintiff (Criminal): STATE OF WASHINGTONDeputy Prosecuting Attorney: Bickerton, Tyler Craig Defendant (WIP): HARDING, BRANDON JON
14 01/19/2021 Order Setting Trial Date View Document Order Setting Trial Date Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Comment 4-19-21 FSD
16 01/20/2021 Omnibus Order View Document Omnibus Order Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L
01/20/2021 Ex Parte Action With Order Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L
02/01/2021 Pre-Trial Management Hearing Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Hearing Time 9:00 AM Cancel Reason Continuance
17 02/01/2021 Motion and Affidavit Declaration View Document Motion and Affidavit Declaration Comment REDUCE BAIL
18 02/01/2021 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of HearingComment MOTION TO REDUCE BAIL
19 02/03/2021 Order Expending Public Funds View Document Order Expending Public Funds Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Comment INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES @$45 PER HR UP TO 10 HRS TOTAL OF $450.00
02/03/2021 Ex Parte Action With Order Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L
02/08/2021 Motion Hearing Judicial Officer Finlay, Amber L Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Comment REDUCE BAIL Parties Present Plaintiff (Criminal): STATE OF WASHINGTON Deputy Prosecuting Attorney: Bickerton, Tyler CraigDefendant (WIP): HARDING, BRANDON JON
20 02/08/2021 Order Denying Motion Petition View Document Order Denying Motion Petition Judicial Officer Finlay, Amber L Comment DEF’S MT TO MODIFY CONDITIONS
02/16/2021 Jury Trial-12 Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Hearing Time 9:00 AM Cancel Reason Continuance
02/16/2021 Trial Confirmation Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Hearing Time 9:00 AMCancel Reason Continuance Comment TRIAL STATUS
02/22/2021 Pre-Trial Management Hearing Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Parties PresentPlaintiff (Criminal): STATE OF WASHINGTON Deputy Prosecuting Attorney: Bickerton, Tyler Craig
22 02/22/2021 Sheriffs Return on Service View Document Sheriffs Return on ServiceComment subpoenas
23 02/22/2021 Order to Appear for Pretrial Hrg Conf View Document Order to Appear for Pretrial Hrg Conf
02/23/2021 Pre-Trial Management Hearing Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Parties PresentPlaintiff (Criminal): STATE OF WASHINGTON Deputy Prosecuting Attorney: Bickerton, Tyler Craig Defendant (WIP): HARDING, BRANDON JON
25 02/23/2021 Waiver of Speedy Trial View Document Waiver of Speedy Trial Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L
26 02/23/2021 Order Setting Trial Date View Document Order Setting Trial Date Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Comment FSD 5-11-21
28 03/05/2021 Notice of Intent to Withdraw View Document Notice of Intent to Withdraw
29 03/05/2021 Notice Withdraw and Substitution of Counsel View Document Notice Withdraw and Substitution of Counsel
03/09/2021 Trial Confirmation Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Hearing Time 9:00 AM Cancel Reason Continuance Comment trial status
03/09/2021 Jury Trial-12 Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Hearing Time 9:00 AM Cancel Reason Continuance
04/12/2021 Pre-Trial Management Hearing Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Parties PresentPlaintiff (Criminal): STATE OF WASHINGTON Deputy Prosecuting Attorney: Bickerton, Tyler Craig Defendant (WIP): HARDING, BRANDON JON Attorney: Bradshaw, Sunshine Morning
30 04/12/2021 Order to Appear for Pretrial Hrg Conf View Document Order to Appear for Pretrial Hrg Conf Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Comment 9:00 OR COP
31 04/12/2021 Sheriffs Return of Service With Fees Assessed View Document Sheriffs Return of Service With Fees Assessed Comment SUBPOENAS
32 04/12/2021 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L
04/26/2021 Change of Plea Original Type Change of Plea Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Comment OR PRETRIAL 9:00 Parties Present Plaintiff (Criminal): STATE OF WASHINGTON Deputy Prosecuting Attorney: Bickerton, Tyler Craig Defendant (WIP): HARDING, BRANDON JON Attorney: Bradshaw, Sunshine Morning
33 04/26/2021 Order for Hearing View Document Order for HearingJudicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Comment SENTENCING/NEEDS FIREARM WARNING
34 04/26/2021 Statement of Defendant on Plea of Guilty View Document Statement of Defendant on Plea of Guilty Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L
04/26/2021 Case Resolution Guilty Plea Before Trial Commencement
35 04/26/2021 Guilty Plea Only Hearing View Document Guilty Plea Only Hearing
04/27/2021 Trial Confirmation Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Hearing Time 9:00 AMCancel Reason Plea Entered Comment TRIAL STATUS *COP SET FOR 4-26-21*
04/27/2021 Jury Trial-12 Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Hearing Time 9:00 AM Cancel Reason Plea Entered
05/10/2021 Sentencing Hearing Original Type Sentencing Hearing Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Comment 9:00 Parties Present Plaintiff (Criminal): STATE OF WASHINGTON Deputy Prosecuting Attorney: Bickerton, Tyler Craig Defendant (WIP): HARDING, BRANDON JON Attorney: Bradshaw, Sunshine Morning
36 05/10/2021 No Contact Order View Document No Contact Order Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D Comment POST CONVICTION
37 05/10/2021 Felony Judgment and Sentence View Document Felony Judgment and Sentence Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D
39 08/03/2021 Motion View Document Motion Comment TO RESCIND NCO
40 08/03/2021 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of Hearing
08/10/2021 No Contact Order Original Type No Contact Order Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Stricken Comment VICTIM’S MT TO RESCIND
41 08/10/2021 Hearing Stricken In Court NonAppearance View Document Hearing Stricken In Court NonAppearance
4 02/17/2021 Transmittal on Copy of Order View Document Transmittal on Copy of Order
5 02/19/2021 Return of Service View Document Return of Service
6 02/26/2021 Domestic Violence View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): HARDING, TRISTINA
8 02/26/2021 Order for Protection View Document Order for Protection Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D
02/26/2021 Case Resolution Closed by Court Order After a Hearing
9 02/26/2021 Transmittal on Copy of Order View Document Transmittal on Copy of Order
10 03/01/2021 Order to Surrender Weapon CPL Restriction View Document Order to Surrender Weapon CPL Restriction Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D
03/01/2021 Ex Parte Action With Order Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D
11 03/03/2021 Return of Service View Document Return of Service
12 05/28/2021 Notice of Withdrawal of Attorney View Document Notice of Withdrawal of Attorney
06/25/2021 Confidential Information Form
13 06/25/2021 Motion and Affidavit Declaration View Document Motion and Affidavit Declaration
14 06/25/2021 Order Modifying Terminating Terms of Protective Order View Document Order Modifying Terminating Terms of Protective OrderJudicial Officer Ferguson-Brown, Cadine
