Joe Brandmeier And Lisa Brandmeier, Apps. v. Noele Miller And Wah Investments, Inc., Res., 80111-2

Joe and Lisa Brandmeier provided property management, bookkeeping, and accounting to WAH/Marina Park in exchange for a recorded declaration of trust giving them a 7% interest in the property.
Dispute arose when Miller sought to refinance; the Brandmeiers recorded the trust and later sued separately under TEDRA while Miller had already filed a main case (fraud, conversion, breach, declaratory relief) against the Brandmeiers.
The Brandmeiers commenced a separate TEDRA action (as TEDRA requires new actions) seeking removal of the trustee, damages for fiduciary breaches and waste, document turnover, and statutory fees; a receiver was appointed for WAH and sold Marina Park, with sale proceeds partially interpleaded.
The Brandmeiers later asserted substantially identical trust-related counterclaims in the main case; Miller moved to strike/dismiss the TEDRA petition under CR 12(f) as redundant.
The trial court struck and dismissed the TEDRA action with prejudice under CR 12(f); the Brandmeiers appealed.
The Court of Appeals held that striking a TEDRA action under CR 12(f) conflicted with TEDRA (which mandates a new action and contemplates consolidation), so the strike was erroneous but harmless because identical trust claims remained pending in the main case; affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly struck a separately filed TEDRA action under CR 12(f) as duplicative	Brandmeiers: TEDRA requires a new, separate action and CR 12(f) may not be used to eliminate a TEDRA petition; court should consolidate under RCW 11.96A.090(3)	Miller: TEDRA claims are redundant of the main case; CR 12(f) properly strikes redundant pleadings	Court: Trial court erred to rely on CR 12(f) because TEDRA controls and contemplates separate actions and consolidation; striking TEDRA claims under CR 12(f) was inappropriate
Whether the error required reversal or caused prejudice (including loss of TEDRA statutory remedies)	Brandmeiers: dismissal harms their statutory TEDRA remedies (notably discretionary attorney fees)	Miller: No prejudice because identical trust claims and remedies remain pending in the main case; fees and remedies can be considered there	Court: Error was harmless—trust claims remain intact in the main case; trial court should consider TEDRA fee statute when exercising discretion on fees in the main case; appellate fees denied

King County Fire Prot. Districts No. 16, No. 36 & No. 40 v. Housing Auth. of King County, 123 Wn.2d 819, 872 P.2d 516 (1994) (standard and deference for striking pleadings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39, 940 P.2d 1362 (1997) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
Swak v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 40 Wn.2d 51, 240 P.2d 560 (1952) (judicial notice may be taken of ancillary or supplementary proceedings)