The Eagle Ridge Homeowners Ass'n v. Nikolay Nikonchuk & Ludmila Nikonchuk
37964-7
| Wash. Ct. App. | Mar 17, 2022Background:
- Nikolay and Ludmila Nikonchuk bought a home in the Eagle Ridge subdivision in 2001; the property is subject to the association's declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs).
- The Nikonchuks paid assessments until 2013, then stopped, claiming they received no benefits; by 2019 Eagle Ridge claimed $7,695.93 unpaid (assessments, fees, interest, attorney fees).
- Eagle Ridge sued for unpaid assessments; the trial court granted summary judgment to Eagle Ridge and later entered a judgment for $19,003.85 (including attorney fees).
- The Nikonchuks appealed, raising multiple errors: alleged procedural defects (notice/hearing), asserted forgery and HOA violations, usurious interest, incorrect statute of limitations, improper fee award, and unverified membership fee.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: it found the appellants’ pro se briefing insufficient, no prejudicial procedural error, insufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment, the six-year contract limitation applied to homeowners’ associations, and the attorney-fee awards were reasonable; appellate fees were awarded to Eagle Ridge under the CC&Rs.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural notice and hearing handling | Court failed to mail orders and improperly rescheduled/read their cancellation letter, depriving them of due process | Any procedural irregularities were not prejudicial and did not prevent development of the record | No prejudicial error; procedures did not require reversal (summary judgment reviewed de novo) |
| Sufficiency/forgery and HOA breaches | Documents were forged; HOA breached CC&Rs (tree removal, watering, meeting obligations); membership fee unverified | Allegations are speculative and unsupported by admissible evidence in the record | Unsupported factual assertions cannot defeat summary judgment; court properly relied on record evidence |
| Applicable statute of limitations | Three-year limitations period (RCW 64.34.364(8)) should apply | Homeowners’ association disputes arise from written agreements so the six-year contract limitations (RCW 4.16.040) applies | Six-year statute applies to HOA contract claims; three-year condominium provision does not govern HOAs |
| Attorney fees (trial and appellate) | Fee award excessive and disproportionate to amount in controversy | Fees were documented, reasonable for time/effort and permitted by CC&Rs; appellate fees recoverable under CC&Rs | No abuse of discretion in fee award; appellate fees awarded to Eagle Ridge under the governing documents |
Key Cases Cited
- Brownfield v. City of Yakima, 178 Wn. App. 850 (2014) (courts may disregard conclusory arguments unsupported by authority)
- Keck v. Collins, 184 Wn.2d 358 (2015) (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- State v. Templeton, 148 Wn.2d 193 (2002) (procedural irregularities require reversal only if prejudicial)
- Becker v. Wash. State Univ., 165 Wn. App. 235 (2011) (speculation and unsupported assertions insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- DeHeer v. Seattle-Post Intelligencer, 60 Wn.2d 122 (1962) (courts not required to search authorities for unsupported propositions)
- Kiona Park Estates v. Dehls, 18 Wn. App. 2d 328 (2021) (HOA claims governed by written-agreement limitation period)
- Ethridge v. Hwang, 105 Wn. App. 447 (2001) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing attorney-fee awards)
- Travis v. Wash. Horse Breeders Ass'n, Inc., 111 Wn.2d 396 (1988) (fee reasonableness considers time, difficulty, and skill required)
- Beeson v. Atl.-Richfield Co., 88 Wn.2d 499 (1977) (factors for reasonable attorney fees)
- Hwang v. McMahill, 103 Wn. App. 945 (2000) (prevailing-party entitlement to appellate fees when contract so provides)
- Schmidt v. Cornerstone Invs., Inc., 115 Wn.2d 148 (1990) (defining prevailing party concept)
- Kelsey v. Kelsey, 179 Wn. App. 360 (2014) (pro se litigants held to same standards as counsel)