Jorge Portillo, V. Soraya Mendez
82629-8
| Wash. Ct. App. | Mar 21, 2022Background:
- Soraya Mendez petitioned for a domestic violence protection order against ex‑husband Jorge Portillo, alleging multiple threats involving firearms and submitting photos including a firearm and Portillo with a firearm.
- The court issued a temporary domestic violence protection order and an order to surrender weapons (OTSW), served on Portillo.
- Portillo repeatedly denied owning or possessing firearms in multiple declarations and appeared at several compliance hearings.
- At successive compliance hearings the court found Portillo not in compliance and ultimately set a contempt hearing after multiple continuances and further factual submissions.
- At the contempt hearing the court granted the State’s motion for civil contempt, ordered Portillo to surrender the firearm in the photo and any firearms he owned or possessed, and imposed a $15 per day sanction until compliance.
- The trial court entered no written findings of fact or conclusions of law, instead incorporating an oral ruling not in the record; the Court of Appeals remanded for written findings to permit appellate review.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contempt finding may stand without written findings of fact and conclusions of law | The court issued written orders after compliance hearings and incorporated its ruling; those satisfy the requirement | The contempt order lacked written findings and conclusions, so appellate review is impossible | Remanded: trial court must enter written findings; appellate court cannot review contempt without them |
| Whether incorporation of an oral ruling or prior orders suffices for appellate review | Incorporation of oral ruling and earlier written compliance orders is sufficient | Oral rulings are inadequate if not in the record; prior orders were not incorporated into the contempt order | Oral ruling insufficient and not in record; incorporation does not satisfy the requirement; remand for written findings required |
Key Cases Cited
- Dennington v. State, 12 Wn. App. 2d 845 (2020) (trial courts must enter written findings to allow appellate review of contempt orders)
- Templeton v. Hurtado, 92 Wn. App. 847 (1998) (oral rulings do not provide an adequate basis for appellate review of contempt orders)
- Hobble v. State, 126 Wn.2d 283 (1995) (trial courts should provide a thorough factual description sufficient in law to show contempt)
- In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39 (1997) (abuse of discretion standard governs review of contempt decisions)