Linda Tiokasin-orr v. Estate Of Patricia Spruance Orr
48680-6
Wash. Ct. App.Jun 20, 2017Background
- Patricia obtained a judgment for unpaid spousal support against David and sued David and Linda Tiokasin-Orr for fraudulent transfer after David quitclaimed his interest in the marital home to Linda; Patricia recorded a lis pendens against the home.
- Linda (Tiokasin-Orr) claimed the transfer repaid loans she made to David and contended she promptly provided documentary proof after the lis pendens was recorded.
- Patricia later voluntarily dismissed the fraudulent-transfer suit and released the lis pendens; Patricia died and her estate denied Linda’s claim for damages.
- Linda sued the Estate under the wrongful lis pendens statute (RCW 4.28.328), seeking damages for the sixteen-month delay in removing the lis pendens.
- The trial court concluded Patricia had substantial justification to file the lis pendens and entered judgment for the Estate; the court denied the Estate’s motion for attorney fees as the suit was not frivolous.
- On appeal, Linda argued the case concerns the Estate’s failure to timely remove the lis pendens (not the initial filing); the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the Estate and declined to award appellate attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCW 4.28.328(3) permits recovery for an unjustified delay in removing a lis pendens | Linda: statute should be read to permit damages for failure to promptly remove lis pendens after being shown the claim lacks merit | Estate: statute addresses wrongful filing, not delay in removal; no statutory basis for expanding liability | Court: RCW 4.28.328(3) concerns the filing of a lis pendens; it does not provide a cause of action for delay in removal; judgment for Estate affirmed |
| Whether Patricia had substantial justification to file the lis pendens | Linda: subsequent conduct (removal after motion to dismiss) shows original filing was wrongful | Estate: substantial justification existed at time of filing based on claim to recover unpaid support via alleged fraudulent transfer | Court: trial court correctly found Patricia had a reasonable, good-faith basis to file the lis pendens |
| Whether the appeal was frivolous and warranted attorney fees on appeal | Linda: appeal raises a plausible statutory interpretation issue about delay in removal | Estate: appeal lacks merit and is frivolous | Court: appeal not frivolous because statute does not expressly foreclose Linda’s argument; fees denied to Estate |
| Standard of review for statutory construction | Linda: N/A (argues interpretation) | Estate: N/A | Court: reviews statutory interpretation de novo; will not add words to unambiguous statutes |
Key Cases Cited
- SEIU Healthcare 775NW v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 193 Wn. App. 377 (discusses de novo review and statutory interpretation)
- Cerrillo v. Esparza, 158 Wn.2d 194 (court will not rewrite unambiguous statutory language)
- Lake v. Woodcreek Homeowners Ass’n, 169 Wn.2d 516 (will not add words where legislature did not include them)
- S. Kitsap Family Worship Ctr. v. Weir, 135 Wn. App. 900 (definition of substantial justification for filing lis pendens)
- Tiffany Family Trust Corp. v. City of Kent, 155 Wn.2d 225 (standard for finding an appeal frivolous)
- Advocates for Responsible Dev. v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearing’s Bd., 170 Wn.2d 577 (awarding fees and sanctions on appeal)