Deborah D. Hunt v. Edward A. Monk, 40077-8

Deborah Hunt obtained a two-year anti-harassment protection order against Edward Monk in 2018, which also required Monk to surrender his firearms.
The trial court later amended the order to include a prohibition on possessing or obtaining firearms.
Hunt successfully petitioned the court to renew the order for five years in September 2020, using a form intended for domestic violence protection orders (though no finding of domestic violence was made).
Monk did not timely appeal any of these original, amended, or renewed orders.
In October 2023, Monk moved to terminate the renewed order, which was denied; this is the subject of the present appeal, though Monk's arguments focused on prior orders.
Monk alleges procedural and jurisdictional errors related to which judge signed the renewal and the form used for the renewal order.

Issue	Hunt's Argument	Monk's Argument	Held
Timeliness of Appeal	Appeal is untimely as prior orders were not timely appealed.	Appeal should proceed; court lacked jurisdiction in 2020.	Appeal is untimely; only jurisdictional defects can be appealed late.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction	Court had jurisdiction over anti-harassment matters.	Use of a DV form on renewal deprived court of jurisdiction.	Error in form used does not divest court of jurisdiction.
Authority of the Judge	No evidence judge lacked authority or was recused.	Judge who signed renewal had recused; lacked authority.	No record evidence the signing judge was recused; argument rejected.
Conversion to Domestic Violence Order	Order was for anti-harassment, not DV; no such conversion.	Renewal order improperly treated as a DV order.	No conversion occurred; order renewed under anti-harassment statute.

Marley v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 125 Wn.2d 533 (Wash. 1994) (distinguishes errors of law from jurisdictional defects; only lack of subject matter jurisdiction renders an order void).
Bour v. Johnson, 80 Wn. App. 643 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996) (subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, but must actually be lacking for an order to be void).
O'Neill v. Jacobs, 77 Wn. App. 366 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995) (untimely appeals deprive appellate courts of subject matter jurisdiction).