Mountain High Assn Of Apt Owners v. Samuel D. Turner
74529-8
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jan 17, 2017Background
- Mountain High Association (Association) sued unit owners Samuel Turner and Lillian Rambus for roughly $9,000 in delinquent condominium assessments, collection costs, and attorney fees after Rambus made irregular payments beginning in 2012 but did not pay in full.
- Association filed for summary judgment on October 8, 2015; hearing was originally noted for November 6 and continued to December 11 at Rambus's scheduling request.
- The trial court kept the original deadline for Rambus's response despite continuing the hearing date; Rambus filed her response on December 8 but did not serve or provide a copy to the court or Association before the hearing.
- At the December 11 hearing the court sustained the Association’s objection to Rambus’s untimely, unserved response and declined to consider it, though it allowed Rambus to argue orally.
- The court granted summary judgment for the Association, entering judgment for delinquent assessments and attorney fees; Rambus appealed, arguing genuine factual disputes and that the court abused its discretion by refusing to consider her late response or to grant a CR 56(f) continuance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rambus) | Defendant's Argument (Association) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether genuine issues of material fact exist about delinquent assessments and payments | Rambus contends disputes exist about amounts paid and fees | Association presented ledger, billing, and legal basis showing no material dispute | No genuine issue; summary judgment proper for Association |
| Whether trial court erred by refusing to consider Rambus's untimely response | Rambus argues the late filing should have been considered | Association objects that response was untimely and unserved; trial court sustained objection | No error: court permissibly excluded the untimely, unserved response |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by not granting a CR 56(f) continuance | Rambus asserts a continuance was warranted when hearing was continued | Association notes Rambus never moved for CR 56(f) or filed supporting affidavit | No abuse: Rambus did not request CR 56(f) or provide required affidavit/evidence |
| Whether appellant or appellee entitled to attorney fees on appeal | Rambus challenges fees and their reasonableness | Association seeks appellate fees under RCW 64.34.364(14) and governing CC&Rs | Association awarded reasonable fees and costs on appeal subject to RAP 18.1(d) compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Steinbach, 98 Wn.2d 434 (summary judgment review standard)
- Schaaf v. Highfield, 127 Wn.2d 17 (view evidence in favor of nonmoving party on summary judgment)
- White v. State, 131 Wn.2d 1 (CR 56(c) standards)
- Young v. Key Pharms., Inc., 112 Wn.2d 216 (moving party may show absence of evidence supporting nonmoving party)
- Kendall v. Douglas, Grand & Okanogan Counties Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 6, 118 Wn.2d 1 (burden shift on summary judgment)
- Las v. Yellow Front Stores, Inc., 66 Wn. App. 196 (nonmoving party must present specific admissible facts)
- Durand v. HIMC Corp., 151 Wn. App. 818 (CR 56(f) continuance requires good reason and affidavit)
- Qwest Corp. v. City of Bellevue, 161 Wn.2d 353 (abuse of discretion standard for continuance denials)
- Grimwood v. Univ. of Puget Sound, Inc., 110 Wn.2d 355 (conclusory assertions insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Keck v. Collins, 184 Wn.2d 358 (procedures for striking untimely evidence; Burnet factors applicability)
- Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484 (factors for evaluating untimely evidence)