Marriage Of Rebecca Larsen, V Jeremiah Larsen
47492-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Apr 18, 2017Background
- Rebecca Bamberg and Jeremiah Larsen divorced in 2011; an earlier appeal vacated the child support award and related provisions and remanded for further findings.
- At the May 9, 2014 hearing the court entered an amended child support order reserving work-related day care expenses and requiring Bamberg to provide proof of work hours; parties signed the amended order.
- Parties disagreed about the amount of day care expenses owed; Bamberg later moved for judgment on those expenses and submitted a declaration, handwritten receipt stubs (Massage Envy exchanges for day care), and work schedules.
- A February 2, 2015 motion hearing was held before a different judge; Bamberg (by counsel) did not personally appear; Larsen appeared pro se.
- The trial court entered judgment against Larsen for $3,302.46 for day care expenses; Larsen appealed raising evidentiary, jurisdictional, and preservation arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bamberg) | Defendant's Argument (Larsen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission/marking of exhibits 1–13 at May 9, 2014 trial | Exhibits were properly marked/admitted (no objection) | Trial court erred by marking/admitting exhibits off the record | Waived by Larsen for failing to object; no reversible error |
| Imputation of Bamberg’s income at 2014 trial | Imputation was proper as applied | Imputation was below stipulated amount and erroneous | Issue not preserved on appeal (no objection at trial) |
| Jurisdiction under UCCJEA to enter 2015 judgment | 2015 order is monetary (day care) not a custody determination | UCCJEA required transfer because parties/children moved to Oregon | UCCJEA inapplicable; trial court had jurisdiction to enter monetary judgment |
| Authentication and hearsay admissibility of receipts/schedules | Documents authenticated by logo, tax return, and Bamberg’s sworn declaration; admissible or harmless if hearsay | Documents unauthenticated and hearsay; should be excluded | Authentication finding not an abuse of discretion; any hearsay error was not prejudicial |
| Sufficiency of evidence to award $3,302.46 | Declaration and supporting documents provided a reasonable basis for award | Trial court improperly relied solely on declaration (invoking Fairchild) | Court distinguished Fairchild; award was within discretion and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Payne, 117 Wn. App. 99 (2003) (authentication reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Int’l Ultimate, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 122 Wn. App. 736 (2004) (distinctive characteristics and circumstances may authenticate documents)
- State v. Neal, 144 Wn.2d 600 (2001) (reversal for evidentiary error requires prejudice)
- In re Harbert, 85 Wn.2d 719 (1975) (presumption that trial judge knows and applies rules of evidence)
- In re Marriage of Fairchild, 148 Wn. App. 828 (2009) (declaration alone insufficient in that context; cancelled checks or provider declarations preferable)
- In re Marriage of Fiorito, 112 Wn. App. 657 (2002) (child support determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)