Thomas Baicy v. Danelle M. Shay
74894-7
| Wash. Ct. App. | Nov 7, 2016Background
- Parents Thomas Baicy and Danelle Shay share a child born in 2005; prior contentious proceedings led the trial court to limit Baicy's future filings without authorization.
- The court allowed Baicy to file a motion to adjust child support (Nov. 19, 2015) alleging changed incomes and that 24 months had passed since the support order.
- After a contested hearing on December 15, 2015, the trial court orally made extensive findings and entered a written order denying Baicy's motion and requests for fees/sanctions; the written order expressly incorporated the oral findings. Baicy did not appeal that order.
- Baicy submitted additional documents by letter on Jan. 29, 2016 and sought to "re-note" the motion for a new hearing based on that new evidence.
- The trial court denied the request to re-note on Feb. 3, 2016, concluding Baicy had not shown a substantial change in circumstances. Baicy appealed only the Feb. 3 order.
Issues
| Issue | Baicy's Argument | Shay's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Feb. 3, 2016 order denying "re-note" is reviewable on appeal | Argues trial court erred on the merits (burden allocation, income findings) and challenges denial of support adjustment | Argues the December 15 order was final; Feb. 3 simply denied a renewed request and is not independently appealable | Appeal is limited to the Feb. 3 order; Baicy’s substantive challenges attack the December 15 final order, which he did not timely appeal, so those issues are not reviewable |
| Whether the Dec. 15, 2015 order was a final judgment starting the appeal clock | Claims Dec. 15 was not final because the court did not provide written findings until Feb. 3, so the 30-day appeal period began later | Points to the Dec. 15 written order that incorporated extensive oral findings on the record; thus it fully resolved the motion and started the appeal clock | Dec. 15 order was final (it disposed of all issues and incorporated oral findings); Baicy’s failure to timely appeal it precludes review |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in denying the request to re-note based on new evidence | Says his Jan. 29 letter merely supplied missing evidence so the original motion could be heard in full; not a new motion | Court found Baicy failed to show a substantial change in circumstances warranting another adjustment hearing; no error shown in denying re-note | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
| Whether the appeal is frivolous and whether appellee is entitled to fees | Seeks reversal on merits | Requests attorney fees for a frivolous appeal | Court declines to award fees; appeal not frivolous enough to impose sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Taylor, 150 Wn.2d 599 (2003) (definition and effect of a final judgment)
- Wlasiuk v. Whirlpool Corp., 76 Wn. App. 250 (1994) (judgment finality despite subsidiary acts)
- Nesteqard v. Inv. Exch. Corp., 5 Wn. App. 618 (1971) (substance-over-form in final judgment analysis)
- Kemmer v. Keiski, 116 Wn. App. 924 (2003) (failure to timely appeal a final judgment precludes further review)
- In re Marriage of Foley, 84 Wn. App. 839 (1997) (standard for finding an appeal frivolous)