### FILED JULY 11, 2017 In the Office ofthe Clerk ofCourt WA State Court ofAppeals, Division III IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISIONTHREE In re JIM KEYES, Appellant,
V. CHRISTINAWENTZ; SHERRI HANSEN, CLERK OF THEDISTRICT COURT (ACTING); RICHARD LELAND, JUDGE OF THEDISTRICT COURT; DISTRICT COURT OF SPOKANE COUNTY, Respondents. 

### ) ) ) 

### ) ) ) ) 

### ) ) ) ) 

### ) ) ) No. 35066-5-111

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

LAWRENCE-BERREY, J.

- Jim Keyes appeals the superior court's orderdenying his writ ofmandamus. In general, his writ soughtto have the superior court order respondents toprocess his lower court appeal. BecauseMr. Keyes was notunlawfully precluded from processing that appeal, we affirm. FACTS Robert Saraceno filed an action against "DonHall, d/b/a Wholesale Motors" inthe small claims department ofdistrict court. Clerk'sPapers (CP) at27. A trial was held andNo. 35066-5-III Keyes v. Wentz
thejudge enteredjudgment in favor ofWholesale Motors in the amount of$1,200. For
reasons unclear in the record, thejudge allowed a second trial. Jim Keyes, who has an ownership interest in Wholesale Motors, eventually filed an answer and cross claim, asserting among other claims and defenses, that Wholesale Motors is a limited liability corporation (LLC). During the second trial, Don Hall's son appeared onhis father's behalf, and it was explained to thejudgethat Don Hall was the founder ofWholesale Motors, LLC, was elderly, and had numerous health issues that prevented him from participating in his defense. After hearing the evidence, thejudge enteredjudgment in favor ofWholesale Motors in the amount of$1,500. In an apparent attempt to request reconsideration, Mr. Saraceno sent letters and photographs to thejudgebut did not copy the defendants in that action with these documents. Mr. Keyes was provided a show cause orderrelating to Mr. Saraceno's reconsideration request, and Mr. Keyes obtained copies ofthe supporting documents from the court file. Mr. Keyes, apparently on behalfofdefendants, responded and appeared at the hearing. A secondjudgepresided overthe hearing, commented on Don Hall's absence, and ordered a third trial. Mr. Keyes soughtto appeal this order. He presented a district court clerk with a notice ofappeal signed by Don Hall and himself. The deputy clerk refused to process the
2No. 35066-5-111 

### Keyes v. Wentz appeal because Don Hall was notphysically presentto attest that the signature was his, and because Mr. Keyes was not a party and lacked authority to represent "DonHall, d/b/a Wholesale Motors." She said she could notprocess the appeal unless Don Hall filed the appeal, orunless his signature onthe appeal was notarized and Mr. Keyes brought with him a notarized note signedby Don Hall giving Mr. Keyes permission to process the appeal. In addition, the deputy clerk said an appeal bond was required for $7,000. Mr. Keyes sought the assistance ofthe deputy clerk's superior, who generally confirmed her subordinate's instructions. One week later, the secondjudge sent a letter to Mr. Keyes setting forth instructions so Mr. Keyes couldprocess his appeal. These instructions include a small claims appeal bond of$3,000, and the requirement that DonHall process the appeal. The letter further states: Pursuantto RCW 12.36.010 ifyou are his "agent" and can provide proper documentation ofthe same, you may file the appeal onhis behalf. Such may include but not be limited to a notarized statement from Don Hall that so states. Mr. Keyes, you may wish to review RCW 12.40.010, 

### etseq. including RCW 12.40.080 which states: 

### "No attorney-at-law, legalparaprofessional, nor anyperson other than theplaintiff anddefendant, shallappear orparticipate withprosecution or defense of litigation
..." In addition, you may wishto review RCW 12.36.010, 

### etseq. regarding Small Claims Appeals. 3No. 35066-5-III Keyes v. Wentz
CP at 31. Mr. Keyes, personally, petitioned the superior court for a writ ofmandamus. 1 In his petition, he named the secondjudge, the two district court clerks, and the District Court ofSpokane County as respondents. In addition to otherrelief, Mr. Keyes sought to have a superior courtjudge stay the lower court case, toll the period for filing the appeal, grant a declaratoryjudgment concerning the properprocedures for appealing the lower court's order, and orderthe deputy clerks and the district courtto process the appeal he earlier submitted. The superior court entered an order denying Mr. Keyes's writ on the basis that Mr. Keyes has a "plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. Here, because the small claims matter has yet to be adjudicated, [he could file]
an appeal subsequent to any finaljudgment." CP at 37. Mr. Keyes timely appealed from this order. LAWAND ANALYSIS Mr. Keyes argues that Wholesale Motors has a right to appeal the lower court's grant ofa third new trial, that the clerks'job is ministerial, and that the superior court erred in concluding he had an adequate remedy at law. We agree with Mr. Keyes's first

1Respondents incorrectly view Mr. Keyes's petition as an appeal from the district court order instead ofas a separate action with different parties. Many oftheir arguments relate to this incorrect view. 4

### No. 35066-5-111 Keyes v. 

### Wentz


### two points, but affirm the superior court's order on the basis that Mr. Keyes was not unlawfully precluded from processing the lower court appeal. This court can affirm the lower court on any basis supported by the record. Amy

### v. Kmart ofWash., LLC, 

### 153 Wn. App. 846,868,223 P.3d 1247 (2009). A writ of mandamus may issue to "compel the performance ofan act which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from an office
... and from which theparty is unlawfullyprecludedby such inferior tribunal
... orperson." 

### RCW 7.16.160 (emphasis added). Here, Mr. Keyes was not unlawfully precluded from processing the lower court appeal. The district courtjudgeproperly set an appeal bond of$3,000 and directed Mr. Keyes to establish he was an agent ofthe named defendant as conditions for processing the appeal. First, RCW 12.36.020(2) explicitly requires the posting ofan appeal bond for twice the amount in controversy. Second, RCW 12.40.080 explicitly prohibits anyone but the named parties from acting in furtherance ofthe case. The named defendant was "Don Hall, d/b/a Wholesale Motors." The trial court's requirement that Mr. Keyes establish his agency relationship with Don Hall comports with this statutory prohibition. Because Mr. 

### Keyes was not unlawfully precluded from processing Mr. Hall's original appeal, he has failed to establish his right to a writ ofmandamus.



### 5No. 35066-5-III Keyes v. Wentz
Affirmed. A majority ofthe panel has determined this opinion will notbe printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040. 

# l"SNC~.'3~~'(**~** Lawrence-Berrey, J. WE CONCUR: 

## j

Siddoway, J.

6