Michaela Osborne Nka Fellows v. Charles Fellows
74643-0
| Wash. Ct. App. | Nov 28, 2016Background
- Dissolution decree (June 30, 2015) awarded the family home to Charles Fellows but allowed Michaela Osborne to remain for 60 days and remove belongings by August 30, 2015; Fellows was ordered to pay Osborne $54,000 for equity.
- The trial court orally and in writing ordered the home to be maintained in livable condition and warned that sabotage could prompt contempt and damage remedies.
- Osborne vacated within the deadline; upon inspection on August 31, 2015 Fellows discovered widespread vandalism (paint splatters, holes, carved messages, damaged fixtures) with repair estimates of $144,937.49.
- Osborne admitted removing certain appliances and acknowledged minimal writing and a carving on the door; she also gave statements suggesting her children or others may have caused some damage and telling police she could do what she wanted until September 8.
- Fellows moved for contempt; the trial court found Osborne in contempt for intentionally violating the court order by damaging the home and allowed purge of contempt by paying monies awarded to Fellows.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Osborne) | Defendant's Argument (Fellows) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Osborne willfully violated the court's order to keep the house intact | Osborne denied responsibility for most damage, blamed children or Fellows, and asserted the house was livable when she left | Fellows argued Osborne intentionally and purposefully destroyed the home in violation of the order | Court: substantial evidence supports finding Osborne willfully violated the order; contempt upheld |
| Whether trial court relied on inadmissible hearsay (police report, PI report) | Osborne contends reports were hearsay and inadmissible | Fellows notes Osborne never objected at hearing; thus error not preserved | Court: Osborne waived hearsay objections by failing to timely object; issue not considered on appeal |
| Whether contempt sanction was punitive requiring criminal due process protections | Osborne asserts sanction was punitive and triggered additional due process | Fellows argues sanction was remedial to compensate and coerce compliance; purge option exists | Court: sanction was remedial (Osborne could purge by paying awarded monies); no criminal process required |
| Whether the sanction imposed was within court's remedial authority | Osborne implied sanction was excessive/invalid | Fellows sought damages and costs for contempt proceeding including attorney fees | Court: remedial sanction and award of costs/fees to Fellows on appeal permissible under RCW 7.21.030(3) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of James, 79 Wn. App. 436 (review standard for contempt proceedings)
- State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12 (abuse of discretion standard)
- Dep't of Ecology v. Tiger Oil Corp., 166 Wn. App. 720 (strict construction of underlying order in contempt proceedings)
- In re Marriage of Rideout, 150 Wn.2d 337 (substantial evidence standard for contempt findings where credibility implicated)
- In re Pers. Restraint of King, 110 Wn.2d 793 (due process requirements when punitive contempt is imposed)
- R.A. Hanson Co. v. Magnuson, 79 Wn. App. 497 (contempt- related appellate fee recovery)