In re the Marriage of Geoff Merritt And Heidi Merritt, 33577-1

Background

Geoff and Heidi Merritt divorced in 2008; parenting plan awarded primary residence to Geoff and liberal visitation to Heidi. Two children were born of the marriage.
A restraining order (2009) and later parenting-plan modifications substantially limited Heidi's visitation; child-support issues followed.
Geoff filed a child-support modification petition (Dec. 2011); after intermittent proceedings and mediation on parenting issues, Geoff moved (Feb. 2015) to enter agreed parenting-plan orders and modify child support; a merits hearing was noticed for March 9, 2015.
Heidi and her counsel missed the March 9 hearing due to scheduling confusion and counsel's vacation; Geoff submitted declarations, tax records, DCS records, and worksheets; the court entered an order modifying support, awarding back support with interest, and setting future automatic increases tied to the child’s age.
Heidi moved to vacate under CR 60(b) (mistake/excusable neglect and that relief exceeded request); the trial court denied vacatur. Heidi appealed; the appellate commissioner limited review to issues raised in the vacatur motion.

Issues

Issue	Heidi's Argument	Merritt's Argument	Held
Whether the March 9, 2015 order was a default judgment requiring vacatur	The order was entered by default because Heidi/counsel did not appear; defaults are disfavored and vacatur should be liberally granted	The court conducted a single-party trial on the merits using submitted affidavits/worksheets; judgment was on the merits, not a default	Court: No default—merits judgment supported by affidavits/worksheets per RCW 26.09.175(6) and evidence submitted by Merritt; vacatur denied
Whether the order granted relief beyond what Merritt requested (prejudgment interest; automatic increases) and is void	The award of interest and automatic future increase exceeded Merritt’s request and thus is void	Merritt contends the requested relief included an automatic adjustment and back support; interest was not challenged below on appeal	Court: Heidi waived challenge to interest (not assigned in opening brief); automatic adjustment was requested in Merritt’s motion (RCW basis), so award permitted
Whether Merritt was required to mediate child-support issues before filing for modification	Heidi argues modification was improper because Merritt failed to mediate child support first	Merritt says mediation was never ordered for child support and Heidi did not raise this below	Court: Argument not preserved/within scope of appellate review; mediation was not ordered as a prerequisite and issue waived
Whether the defense of laches should have been considered	Heidi asserts equitable defense of laches defeats enforcement/retroactive award	Merritt notes laches was not raised in trial-court pleadings or vacatur motion	Court: Laches not raised below; not preserved; trial court did not abuse discretion by refusing to consider it

Key Cases Cited

In re Marriage of Olsen, 183 Wn. App. 546 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014) (single-party trial proceeds on merits where one side fails to appear)
In re Marriage of Daley, 77 Wn. App. 29 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994) (default judgment improper when party previously appeared and procedural notice for default lacking)
In re Marriage of Leslie, 112 Wn.2d 612 (Wash. 1989) (due process limits entry of relief in excess of what complaint requested in default-judgment context)
In re Det. of Ambers, 160 Wn.2d 543 (Wash. 2007) (parties must raise legal arguments to trial court to preserve issues for appeal)
Smith v. Shannon, 100 Wn.2d 26 (Wash. 1983) (parties must inform trial court of legal rules they want applied to allow correction of any error)