In the Matter of the Marriage of: Devin Christopher Kienow & Teresa A. Dittentholer Kienow
39451-4
Wash. Ct. App.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Devin Kienow and Teresa Dittentholer divorced in 2021; a dissolution order required both to contribute proportionally to their children’s private school tuition.
- Kienow failed to make tuition payments after March 2021.
- Dittentholer’s phone, used by their son, ended up at Kienow’s home; Kienow retained it, claiming it contained important evidence related to custody.
- Dittentholer moved the court for contempt, seeking payment of educational expenses and return of personal property; the trial court found Kienow in contempt and ordered the return of the phone.
- Kienow challenged jurisdiction, service, and procedure, and sought sanctions against Dittentholer for alleged litigation misconduct; he also objected to returning the phone, citing evidentiary concerns.
- The court repeatedly found Kienow in contempt, rejected his procedural and substantive arguments, and awarded attorney fees to Dittentholer for defending against a frivolous appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Kienow | Trial court lacked jurisdiction for contempt motion | Court properly exercised continuing jurisdiction | Court had personal jurisdiction due to original service |
| Adequacy of service (personal/email) | Required personal service for every amended order | Service statutes allow mailing after appearance | Service was adequate; Kienow had notice and appeared |
| Contempt finding for failing to pay expenses | Inability to pay was not willful disobedience | Kienow made no diligent effort to comply | Contempt supported; Kienow didn’t show due diligence |
| Order to return phone/protect evidence | Phone contained relevant evidence; protective order needed | No modification action pending; phone is property | Declined review; issue moot/not appealable |
| Use of ex parte process by Dittentholer | Abused ex parte for non-emergency matters | Ex parte is allowed to initiate contempt | Ex parte use was proper under statute |
| Bad faith litigation/sanctions | Dittentholer abused process; sought sanctions | Trial court has discretion, Dittentholer entitled | No abuse by Dittentholer; sanctions against Kienow only |
| Appellate attorney fees | Sought reversal and his own fees | Requested fees for frivolous appeal | Granted attorney fees to Dittentholer for frivolous appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hunley, 175 Wn.2d 901 (issue is moot when court cannot grant effective relief)
- State v. Ralph Williams’ N. W. Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 87 Wn.2d 327 (personal jurisdiction retains from initial service through supplemental proceedings)
- Spencer v. Franklin Hills Health- Spokane, LLC, 3 Wn.3d 165 (service statutes must be liberally construed for due process)
- State v. Hobble, 126 Wn.2d 283 (review standard for contempt findings)
- Watness v. City of Seattle, 11 Wn. App. 2d 722 (standard for reviewing denial of CR 11 sanctions)
- Yurtis v. Phipps, 143 Wn. App. 680 (authority for appellate sanctions and fees in frivolous appeals)
- Advocs. for Responsible Dev. v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr'gs Bd., 170 Wn.2d 577 (defines a frivolous appeal)