Grigore Cezar Vetrici v. Raluca Iulia Vetrici, 50360-3

Background

Grigore and Raluca Vetrici (married in Romania, later lived in Washington/Canada) divorced by a Washington dissolution decree in August 2010; their two minor children were living in Canada at the time.
The parties had an RESP (education savings) account in Raluca’s name with the children as beneficiaries; the 2009 separation agreement allocated accounts to the party holding them.
At the Washington dissolution hearing the parties and commissioner agreed the court lacked jurisdiction over the children and that the educational account “is not a part of this action.” The decree contained a checked box indicating no written separation agreement.
Raluca later withdrew and closed the RESP and litigated custody/ownership issues in British Columbia; British Columbia trial and appellate courts ruled against Grigore and in favor of Raluca on the RESP and custody issues.
Grigore filed a pro se motion in Washington seeking to hold Raluca in contempt (for liquidating the RESP and claiming tax exemptions) and to enforce the dissolution decree; Washington magistrate and superior courts denied relief and awarded Raluca attorney fees under CR 11 for harassment and baseless filings.
Grigore appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of contempt, upheld the CR 11 sanctions, and awarded Raluca appellate attorney fees as the appeal was frivolous.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Grigore)	Defendant's Argument (Raluca)	Held
Contempt for liquidating RESP / claiming children on taxes	The dissolution decree (and related pleadings) created enforceable obligations; Raluca violated the decree and separation agreement and should be held in contempt.	The Washington decree did not include the RESP or a parenting/child-support order; Canada had jurisdiction; Raluca did not violate any Washington court order.	Court: Denied contempt. Findings supported by substantial evidence that the decree excluded the RESP and there was no Washington order to violate.
Jurisdiction / effect of separation agreement	The decree’s checked box (no written separation agreement) and commissioner comments do not preclude enforcement of the separation agreement or Washington jurisdiction over the RESP.	Parties stipulated that Washington lacked jurisdiction over the children; issues over the RESP were litigated and resolved in Canada.	Court: Washington lacked jurisdiction over the children; decree and stipulation left the RESP out of the action; Canadian courts resolved RESP ownership.
CR 11 sanctions for filing meritless proceedings	Imposition improper because Grigore conducted reasonable inquiry and was entitled to press his claims; court gave no specific pre-notice of CR 11.	Grigore’s filings were not grounded in fact or law, were filed for improper purpose (harassment), and caused needless expense; he had notice and opportunity to respond.	Court: Sanctions proper. Court found filings baseless and interposed for improper purpose; Grigore had adequate notice and chance to respond.
Appellate attorney fees	Grigore sought fees under contempt statutes and Rideout; appeal raises debatable issues.	Raluca argued appeal was frivolous; she sought fees under RAP 18.9.	Court: Denied Grigore fees; awarded Raluca reasonable appellate fees under RAP 18.9 as appeal was frivolous.

Key Cases Cited

Danielson v. City of Seattle, 45 Wn. App. 235 (1986) (document-based findings reviewed for substantial evidence)
Griffith v. Dep’t of Employment Sec., 163 Wn. App. 1 (2011) (immaterial erroneous findings do not require relief)
In re Marriage of Stern, 68 Wn. App. 922 (1993) (CR 52(a)(2)(B) findings in domestic relations matters)
In re Marriage of Rockwell, 141 Wn. App. 235 (2007) (substantial-evidence review when weighing documentary evidence)
In re Marriage of Rideout, 150 Wn.2d 337 (2003) (award of fees where one party acted in bad faith violating parenting plan)
State v. McKenzie, 157 Wn.2d 44 (2006) (abuse of discretion standard described)
Katare v. Katare, 175 Wn.2d 23 (2012) (abuse of discretion review explained)
State v. Breazeale, 144 Wn.2d 829 (2001) (purpose of civil contempt is coercion to comply with court orders)
In re Recall of Lindquist, 172 Wn.2d 120 (2011) (CR 11 applicable to pro se litigants for improper purpose or lack of reasonable inquiry)
Engstrom v. Goodman, 166 Wn. App. 905 (2012) (CR 11 sanctions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Saldivar v. Momah, 145 Wn. App. 365 (2008) (CR 11 applied where claim has no chance of success)
Stiles v. Kearney, 168 Wn. App. 250 (2012) (trial court must specify sanctionable conduct when imposing CR 11 sanctions)