Percash Ramnath v. Ling D. Wang
74743-6
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 3, 2016Background
- Percash Ramnath and Ling Wang separated after a 20-year marriage and signed a CR 2A settlement agreement in May 2014.
- Parties proceeded to binding arbitration; arbitrator ordered Ramnath to pay Wang $130,000.
- Ramnath missed a July 30, 2014 hearing and did not appear at the August 26, 2014 trial; the trial court found his absence inexcusable and entered a dissolution decree.
- In September 2014 the court found Ramnath violated temporary restraining orders by selling jointly owned assets and entered a judgment ordering payment of $155,339.10 plus fees and costs.
- In December 2014 the court issued writs of garnishment to Wells Fargo and JP Morgan Chase; Ramnath appealed but the Washington Supreme Court held his appeal was timely only as to those December 2014 garnishment writs.
- Ramnath’s appellate briefing lacked legal citations, record references, and analysis; Wang sought attorney fees but failed to file a required financial declaration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal of dissolution decree and contempt/judgment orders | Ramnath contends the trial court’s decree and contempt/judgment orders are erroneous | Wang argues the orders are final and the appeal is untimely | Supreme Court already ruled Ramnath’s appeal was untimely as to those orders; those challenges are waived |
| Validity of writs of garnishment issued Dec 2014 | Ramnath challenges the garnishment writs, largely by attacking the underlying judgments | Wang defends garnishments as statutory enforcement of the judgment | Court affirms garnishment writs; Ramnath’s challenges rely on waived arguments and lack statutory or record-based showing |
| Compliance with appellate briefing and record requirements | Ramnath maintains arguments on the merits (but provides no authorities or record citations) | Wang and court assert appellate briefing standards must be met regardless of pro se status | Court refuses to consider arguments unsupported by authority or record; appellant bears burden to provide adequate record |
| Attorney fees on appeal | Wang requests fees under RCW 26.09.140 and RAP 18.1 | Ramnath opposes (no relevant showing) | Fee request denied because Wang failed to timely file a financial declaration required for consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Olson, 69 Wn. App. 621 (1993) (pro se litigants held to same procedural standards as represented parties)
- Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801 (1992) (arguments unsupported by authority need not be considered)
- Watkins v. Peterson Enterprises, Inc., 137 Wn.2d 632 (1999) (garnishment requires strict statutory adherence)
- Seven Sales LLC v. Otterbein, 189 Wn. App. 204 (2015) (describes requirements for garnishment service and parties)
- In re Marriage of Raskob, 183 Wn. App. 503 (2014) (factors for awarding appellate attorney fees and need for financial declaration)