Van Nhu Huynh, V. Leung Hing Li Et Ano
81452-4
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jul 19, 2021Background
- Huynh obtained a judgment quieting title to real property; Li obtained a stay of that judgment by posting a supersedeas bond during Li’s appeal.
- This court affirmed the quiet title judgment. After affirmance, Huynh moved for supplemental judgment claiming the property’s market value declined during the stay.
- Huynh supported her motion with a broker declaration indicating decreased market value; Li opposed and sought release of the bond, citing Zillow data that value remained essentially unchanged.
- The trial court alerted counsel it would decide on the parties’ written submissions (no evidentiary hearing) due to early COVID restrictions; neither party objected at the time.
- The trial court entered supplemental judgment for Huynh; Li appealed, arguing (1) no damages because Huynh had full use of the property and (2) denial of due process from ruling without an evidentiary hearing and inadequate notice.
- The Court of Appeals declined to consider these arguments because they were not raised in the trial court (waived) and affirmed the supplemental judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether supplemental judgment was proper | Huynh: market value declined during stay; entitled to supplemental judgment | Li: no damages because Huynh had full use and value remained unchanged (Zillow) | Waived on appeal; court did not consider new argument and affirmed supplemental judgment |
| Whether court erred by ruling without evidentiary hearing / notice | Huynh: court may decide on briefing given COVID restrictions; parties were informed | Li: due process violated by no evidentiary hearing and inadequate notice | Waived on appeal; no objection below so court declined review; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Silverhawk LLC v. KeyBank Nat’l Ass’n, 165 Wn. App. 258 (2011) (issues not raised in trial court may not be raised for first time on appeal)
- Pappas v. Hershberger, 85 Wn.2d 152 (1975) (appellate court may refuse to review claims not raised below)
- Cotton v. City of Elma, 100 Wn. App. 685 (2000) (party who fails to object to procedure cannot later attack it on appeal)