Larry Spokoiny v. The Wa State Youth Soccer Association
74326-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 31, 2016Background
- In 2004 WSYSA obtained a superior court judgment against Spokoiny for $16,353.83 in fees and costs after Spokoiny sued without exhausting WSYSA's internal appeal process; the trial court judgment was affirmed on appeal.
- A commissioner later awarded WSYSA additional appellate fees of $18,819.59; the Supreme Court denied review and the appellate mandate issued in July 2006.
- In September 2006 the superior court entered an amended judgment totaling $45,187.51 that (1) incorporated the original judgment principal, (2) included interest, and (3) added attorney fees and costs incurred on appeal.
- WSYSA did not appeal the amended judgment. Nine years later (August 2015) WSYSA sought enforcement via writ of garnishment and supplemental proceedings based on the amended judgment.
- Spokoiny moved to quash, arguing the 10-year statutory limitation to enforce judgments had run; the trial court denied relief and Spokoiny appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 10-year enforcement limitation runs from the original judgment or from an amended judgment that changes the principal | Spokoiny: the limitation began in 2004 when the original judgment was entered; the 2006 amended judgment should "relate back" to 2004 | WSYSA: the enforcement period runs from entry of the judgment being enforced; the 2006 amended judgment is a new triggering judgment | The court held the 10-year enforcement period begins upon entry of the amended judgment (2006), so WSYSA's 2015 enforcement was timely |
| Whether the statutes should be read to require reference to an "original judgment" rather than any judgment entry | Spokoiny: statutes implicitly refer to original judgment and thus the amended judgment does not restart the clock | WSYSA: statutes refer broadly to "judgment" or "any judgment," so entry of any judgment (including an amended one) triggers the enforcement period | The court rejected the "original judgment" limitation; statutory language is broad and enforcement period commences upon entry of the judgment to be enforced |
| Whether WSYSA was actually trying to enforce the 2004 judgment rather than the 2006 amended judgment | Spokoiny: WSYSA's 2015 actions effectively sought enforcement of the 2004 judgment, barred by time | WSYSA: its 2015 writs and supplemental proceedings expressly sought to enforce the 2006 amended judgment | The court found WSYSA sought enforcement of the 2006 amended judgment, which governs the limitation period |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokoiny v. Wash. State Youth Soccer Ass'n, 128 Wn. App. 794, 117 P.3d 1141 (2005) (underlying appeal that affirmed trial court judgment and led to appellate fee award)
- Krueger v. Tippett, 155 Wn. App. 216, 229 P.3d 866 (2010) (entry of judgment creates a lien and is the triggering event for enforcement)
- Hazel v. Van Beek, 135 Wn.2d 45, 954 P.2d 1301 (1998) (the 10-year enforcement period commences upon entry of judgment, regardless of lien filing)