Stiles v. Kearney
168 Wash. App. 250
Wash. Ct. App.2012Background
- Stiles sued Kearney for defamation; the trial court granted summary judgment for Kearney and imposed $3,912 in CR 11 and RCW 4.84.185 sanctions on Stiles and her attorney Young.
- The court found Stiles’s complaint lacked falsity, unprivilege, damages, or credible evidence supporting essential defamation elements and that Young failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry.
- Stiles and Young appealed the sanctions, arguing procedural and substantive errors in sanctions and related rulings.
- The appellate court reviewed the record, found substantial evidence supporting the sanctions, and held the appeal frivolous, awarding Kearney appellate fees.
- Issues about document review at the sanctions hearing and the extent of which documents were considered were resolved in favor of the trial court’s approach and final memorandum.
- The court noted pro se attorney-fee recoveries are permissible and upheld sanctions notwithstanding various technical or evidentiary arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly sanctioned | Stiles argues CR 11/RCW 4.84.185 sanctions were improper | Kearney asserts sanctions were supported by findings and discretion | Sanctions affirmed |
| Whether the court properly reviewed sanction documents | Stiles claims due-process error from reviewing excluded documents | Kearney contends review was proper and harmless | No reversible error; written decision controls |
| Whether sanctions were reasonable in amount | Stiles argues fees were excessive and should have been mitigated | Kearney maintains amount supported by conduct and timing | Sanctions reasonable and not abusively awarded |
| Whether pro se legal fees for defense are recoverable | Stiles challenges pro se fee entitlement | Kearney supports fee recovery under Leen; Kay's reasoning distinguishable | Pro se attorney fees recoverable in this context |
| Whether appellate fees are warranted | Stiles seeks no relief on appeal | Kearney seeks appellate fees due to frivolous appeal | Appellate fees awarded to Kearney |
Key Cases Cited
- Skimming v. Boxer, 119 Wn. App. 748 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004) (frivolousness standard for RCW 4.84.185/CR 11 sanctions)
- Biggs v. Vail, 124 Wn.2d 193 (Wash. 1994) (abuse of discretion standard and substantial evidence review)
- Miller v. Badgley, 51 Wn. App. 285 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988) (objective standard for prefiling inquiry under CR 11)
- Bryant v. Joseph Tree, Inc., 119 Wn.2d 210 (Wash. 1992) (prefiling inquiry and baseless filings under CR 11)
- Mark v. Seattle Times, 96 Wn.2d 473 (Wash. 1981) (defamation elements and fault/damages considerations)
- Leen v. Demopolis, 62 Wn. App. 473 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991) (pro se attorney fees recoverable where justified)
- Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1991) (distinguishes statutory fee awards; not controlling here)
- Ferree v. Doric Co., 62 Wn.2d 561 (Wash. 1963) (oral rulings controlled by written decisions)
- N. Coast Elec. Co. v. Selig, 136 Wn. App. 636 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007) (need for specific findings to support sanctions)