The City Of Ferndale v. Artur And Margaret Rojsza
74863-7
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 4, 2017Background
- Artur and Margaret Rojsza continuously remodeled their Ferndale home beginning in 2005 without following permits and repeatedly exceeded issued permits; the property drew repeated municipal enforcement for building-code and nuisance violations.
- The city revoked permits and issued notices of violation; the parties appealed to the city hearing examiner but agreed to mediate and executed a written Settlement and CR 2A Stipulation (signed February 3, 2015) that authorized entry of a consent judgment if the Rojszas defaulted.
- The Settlement required structural review, as-built plans, removal of unapproved exterior materials, and completion of exterior construction by deadlines; the Stipulation allowed the City to submit declarations of default and a proposed consent judgment and sought all equitable or legal remedies on default.
- The trial court held a hearing and entered a Consent Judgment (Feb. 12, 2016) based on the parties’ agreement, imposing exterior-completion obligations and per-day penalties for noncompliance (reduced from proposed amounts); the Rojszas appealed.
- After continued noncompliance the City moved to enforce; the trial court found contempt, assessed large suspended penalties, awarded attorney fees, and later entered a Third Order and judgment; the Rojszas later cured defects, purged contempt, and stipulated to payment arrangements but continued appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rojsza) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court had authority to enter the Consent Judgment | City lacked authority because judgment-by-confession statute and CR 2A/RCW 2.44.010 were inapplicable | Parties contractually authorized enforcement by CR 2A/RCW 2.44.010; Settlement made consent-judgment entry permissible | Court: Settlement and Stipulation made consent-judgment enforcement valid; argument waived at trial and fails on merits |
| Whether Consent Judgment exceeded scope of the Settlement | Consent Judgment went beyond parties’ agreement and was limited to enforcing an exterior-construction deadline | Settlement and Stipulation expressly covered ‘‘any and all’’ permit/nuisance disputes and authorized equitable remedies on default; Rojszas agreed to blank consent form | Court: Consent Judgment falls within Settlement’s scope; remedies relate to exterior completion and are authorized |
| Whether City’s alleged breach (delayed permit issuance) precluded enforcement | City defaulted by issuing the Spire Permit after deadlines, creating a condition precedent that excuses Rojszas’ performance | Settlement explicitly stated City’s review of 2015 permit would not excuse Rojszas’ obligations; issuance was not a condition precedent | Court: Plain language of Settlement forecloses Rojszas’ claim; City’s delay did not excuse performance |
| Whether contempt/enforcement was improper because appeal was pending | Rojszas argued trial court should not enforce or hold them in contempt while appeal pending | Trial court had lawful order; Rojszas did not obtain a stay or post supersedeas bond, so contempt proceedings were proper to enforce judgment | Court: Enforcement and contempt were lawful; failure to stay/supersedeas meant obligations remained enforceable |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Sequim v. Malkasian, 157 Wn.2d 251 (2006) (mootness and ongoing payment obligations)
- Morris v. Maks, 69 Wn. App. 865 (1993) (standard of review for enforcing settlement agreements)
- Holbrook v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 118 Wn.2d 306 (1991) (abuse of discretion standard)
- Baird v. Baird, 6 Wn. App. 587 (1972) (court’s role in implementing stipulations and binding effect of consent judgments)
- Wash. Asphalt Co. v. Harold Kaeser Co., 51 Wn.2d 89 (1957) (consent judgments end controversy and are not ordinarily disturbed absent fraud/mistake/jurisdictional defect)
- In re Marriage of Pascale, 173 Wn. App. 836 (2013) (contract interpretation principles apply to settlements)
- Anderson Hay & Grain Co. v. United Dominion Indus., Inc., 119 Wn. App. 249 (2003) (condition precedent and breach implications)
- State v. Breazeale, 87 Wn.2d 327 (1976) (lawful order concept and enforcement absent stay)
- Deskins v. Waldt, 81 Wn.2d 1 (1972) (parties must obey court orders pending appeal absent stay)
- In re Marriage of Penny, 119 Wn. App. 799 (2004) (standard for finding an appeal frivolous under RAP 18.9)