In re the Marriage of Newlon
167 Wash. App. 195
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Danial L. Newlon and Nicole L. Alexander (formerly Newlon) had a son, Trenton, who died in 2008 after their 2000 Spokane County dissolution decree; Mr. Newlon had the primary residential placement.
- The parties disputed burial/disposition of Trenton’s remains and entered a joint stipulation designating Spokane County Superior Court to resolve the disposition issue, with a July 30, 2008 hearing date and limited testimony.
- The court conducted a hearing under the stipulation, heard sworn statements, then, in camera, ruled against cremation and ordered burial in a Spokane public cemetery.
- On August 10, 2009, Mr. Newlon moved to vacate the August 11, 2008 order; Judge Tompkins recused, and Judge Sypolt denied the motion after considering both parties’ counsel input.
- The appellate court held the superior court had continuing jurisdiction in the postdissolution dispute, and denied the CR 60(b) relief as improper; the court affirmed the judgment.
- The court also clarified that coroners’ statutory purview over remains and the constitutional grant of the superior court’s equity jurisdiction are not mutually exclusive, and that the dispute was properly resolved by the family court in equity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the superior court had subject matter jurisdiction over disposition of remains. | Newlon argues RCW 68.50 vests jurisdiction in the coroner, not the superior court. | Alexander contends the court had authority under the dissolution decree and postdissolution equity powers. | Yes; the court had continuing jurisdiction to resolve the dispute in equity. |
| Whether RCW 68.50 and coroner’s role preclude the superior court’s disposition order. | Newlon claims the coroner's statute reserves exclusive control over remains. | Alexander asserts the court’s equitable authority supports disposition rulings. | Statutes do not bar the court’s equitable jurisdiction; coroner is not a court, and the superior court may resolve such disputes. |
| Whether the postdissolution court action was properly within the court’s equity powers. | Newlon argues lack of proper postdissolution procedure. | Court relied on ongoing jurisdiction to resolve disputes following dissolution. | Court properly exercised continuing jurisdiction in equity. |
| Whether the order to bury was void or improperly obtained and subject to CR 60(b) relief. | Newlon sought relief from judgment based on alleged irregularities. | Proceedings were properly conducted; no extraordinary basis to vacate. | CR 60(b) relief denied; order not void or irregular; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Burkey, 36 Wn. App. 487 (1984) (discretionary review standard for CR 60(b) motions in family cases; abuse of discretion requires untenable grounds)
- In re Schuoler, 106 Wn.2d 500 (1986) (de novo review for jurisdictional questions; abuse of discretion standard for other issues)
- Kastanas v. Kastanas, 78 Wn. App. 193 (1995) (jurisdiction questions reviewed de novo; continuing jurisdiction in dissolution matters)
- Langham, 153 Wn.2d 553 (2005) (family court retains jurisdiction to resolve postdecree disputes using suitable processes)
- Yount v. Indianola Beach Estates, Inc., 63 Wn.2d 519 (1964) (equitable jurisdiction retained for administration of justice between parties)
- In re Marriage of Furrow, 115 Wn. App. 661 (2003) (CR 60(b) relief extraordinary; extraordinary circumstances required)
- James v. Kitsap County, 154 Wn.2d 574 (2005) (constitutional limits on legislative abridgment of judicial power; courts of general jurisdiction)
- In re Inquest Into Death of Boston, 112 Wn. App. 114 (2002) (distinction between coroner inquest and judicial proceedings; superior courts handle disputes)