Mark Hopkins, Et Ux, Resp/cross-app v. Kirk & Jennifer Banks As Assignees For Skyles, App/cross-resp
74068-7
| Wash. Ct. App. | Apr 3, 2017Background
- Billie Getschmann Skyles owned a ranch and signed a purchase and sale agreement (PSA) selling part of it to Mark and Georgia Hopkins; the Hopkinses sued in Nov. 2014 to enforce the PSA.
- Process server Richard Wagner attested he served Skyles on Dec. 18, 2014; later a declaration in Skyles’ name claimed she was not served and a second purported Wagner declaration said he served Kirk Banks instead.
- Wagner later repudiated the second declaration as a forgery and produced text messages showing Kirk offered him money to sign a conflicting declaration; Wagner also declared he handed the papers to Kirk in Skyles’s presence and that Skyles acknowledged him.
- A default judgment was entered after Skyles did not appear at a default hearing; a commissioner vacated that judgment but the trial court later reinstated it.
- Skyles died and Kirk and Jennifer Banks were substituted as appellants/assignees; they argued service was improper and raised other challenges in a motion to vacate.
- The trial court reinstated the default judgment but denied attorney fees; the Hopkinses cross-appealed seeking fees under the PSA and RCW 4.84.330.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hopkins) | Defendant's Argument (Banks) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of service of process on Skyles | Wagner’s declarations show he served Skyles personally (or handed papers to Kirk in Skyles’s presence), establishing prima facie service | Skyles’s declaration and a purported Wagner declaration said she was not served and that Wagner served Kirk | Service deemed proper: Wagner’s sworn statements made a prima facie case; Banks failed to rebut with clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether two procedural complaints (withholding info at default hearing; improper service of default motion) are reviewable on appeal | N/A (these are not separate plaintiff arguments) | These issues raised in Banks’ motion to vacate and should be considered now | Not considered: appellate review limited to the order appealed (motion to revise); trial court did not decide Banks’ second motion to vacate, so these issues are not ripe on appeal |
| Entitlement to attorney fees under the PSA and RCW 4.84.330 | PSA provides prevailing-party fees; Hopkinses prevailed and requested fees | Banks opposed denial below (no substantive challenge on appeal) | Trial court erred to deny fees; RCW 4.84.330 mandates reasonable fees when contract provides for them—remanded to determine amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Guarino v. Interactive Objects, Inc., 122 Wn. App. 95, 86 P.3d 1175 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004) (discussing standard for reviewing trial court findings and documentary records)
- Scanlan v. Townsend, 181 Wn.2d 838, 336 P.3d 1155 (Wash. 2014) (service of process reviewed de novo; distinction between personal and substitute service)
- Dolan v. King County, 172 Wn.2d 299, 258 P.3d 20 (Wash. 2011) (appellate deference in credibility assessments; sliding-scale review)
- Northwick v. Long, 192 Wn. App. 256, 364 P.3d 1067 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015) (proof-of-service declaration regular in form and substance satisfies prima facie burden)
- Weiss v. Glemp, 127 Wn.2d 726, 903 P.2d 455 (Wash. 1995) (explaining substantial compliance standard for personal service)