Elliott L.l.c. v. Gregory Nickel, 72668-4

Background

Nickel owned and operated businesses called Nickel Works that leased commercial property from Elliott; lease required base rent plus "Additional Rent" (utilities, taxes, insurance, maintenance).
After defaults, Elliott filed unlawful detainer; parties mediated and in October 2011 executed a settlement agreement, a stipulated judgment (fixing $87,574.70 as amount owing as of 2011), and a guaranty by Gregory Nickel guaranteeing payment of amounts in the stipulated judgment.
Settlement preserved Elliott’s right to file the stipulated judgment upon default and allowed amendment to add future defaults; Nickel Works vacated at lease end but failed to pay certain additional rent for Jan–Mar 2012.
Elliott moved for partial summary judgment in 2013 to enter the stipulated judgment; the trial court entered judgment against Nickel Works for $87,574.70; Nickel Works did not appeal that order.
After Nickel dismissed a bankruptcy petition, Elliott sought to enforce the stipulated judgment against Gregory Nickel under the guaranty; Nickel did not oppose the 2014 summary judgment motion and did not appear at the hearing; the trial court entered judgment against Nickel personally and his marital community for $87,574.70 plus interest.
The Court of Appeals affirmed both the 2013 stipulated-judgment entry (as effectively before the court) and the 2014 entry against Nickel personally, and awarded Elliott attorney fees as prevailing party under the guaranty.

Issues

Issue	Elliott's Argument	Nickel's Argument	Held
Whether Nickel is personally liable under the guaranty for the stipulated judgment	Guaranty unambiguously guarantees full payment of amounts payable by Nickel Works under the stipulated judgment; no factual dispute	Nickel asserted insufficient service of process and later argued scope/payment method issues, but raised no opposition below	Held for Elliott: guaranty establishes personal liability; summary judgment appropriate
Whether the 2013 partial summary judgment entering the stipulated judgment was erroneous	Entry was proper because Nickel Works admitted failing to pay additional rent; stipulated judgment fixed 2011 amount and could be amended for later defaults	Nickel argued factual disputes about amounts owed and Elliott’s bad faith meant summary judgment was inappropriate	Held for Elliott: Nickel Works defaulted; amount in judgment reflected 2011 indebtedness and was properly entered
Whether the Court can review the 2013 order though not designated in the notice of appeal	Elliott argued the 2013 order is necessary to review the 2014 judgment because the 2014 would not exist without the 2013 order	Nickel sought review of the 2013 order despite not designating it	Held for Elliott: 2013 order prejudicially affects the 2014 order, so appellate review appropriate
Whether Nickel forfeited procedural objections by failing to raise them below	Elliott contended procedural defects (service, scope arguments) were not preserved because raised first on appeal or in reply brief	Nickel raised service and scope issues on appeal and in reply	Held for Elliott: appellate court declined to consider issues raised first on appeal or first in reply; preserved record controlled

Key Cases Cited

Ski Acres, Inc. v. Kittitas County, 118 Wn.2d 852 (summary judgment standard)
Right-Price Recreation, LLC v. Connells Prairie Community Council, 105 Wn. App. 813 (review of undesignated orders interrelation)
Right-Price Recreation, LLC v. Connells Prairie Cmty. Council, 146 Wn.2d 370 (an undesignated order prejudicially affects a designated order if the latter would not have occurred absent the former)
State v. Taylor, 150 Wn.2d 599 (definition of an aggrieved party for appellate standing)
State of Cal. v. State Tax Comm'n, 55 Wn.2d 155 (corporation as separate legal entity)
Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801 (issues first raised in a reply brief generally not considered)