INTHE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON VLADIK BYKOV, Appellant,

v. DAVID R. ADAMS, and his marital community, Respondent. No. 68021-8-1 DIVISION ONE UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FILED: September 16, 2013 Appelwick, J. — Bykov appeals from a judgment awarding postjudgment interest, CR 11 sanctions, and additional CR 11 sanctions imposed as a resultof his reconsideration motion. Bykov fails to establish any error or abuse of discretion bythetrialcourt. We affirm. 

# FACTS £ 0 In April 2010, Vladik Bykov filed a nuisance action against his nejghboj^ David Adams. Adams filed an answerwith a counterclaim for costs and attorr*e£r IX! C~y:-V) 

## fees fordefending afrivolous lawsuit. Thetrial courtgranted Bykov's rrptiorritB dismiss his claims against Adams in June 2010. In July 2010, the trial court dismissed Adams's counterclaim for attorney fees against Bykov, but stated in the order, "However, this dismissal does not preclude Defendants from pursuing such reliefpursuantto the provisions ofRCW4.84.185." InAugust2010, thetrial court granted Adams $1,600 inattorney fees based on its finding that "plaintiffs claims against defendant are frivolous and advanced without reasonable cause contrary to RCW 4.84.185." The trial court entered judgment against Bykov in September 2010. This court dismissed Bykov's appeal ofthejudgment, OrderNo. 68021-8-1/2 

### Terminating Review, Bykov v. Adams, No. 65920-1-1 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2010), and issued the mandate in May2011. While his initial appeal was pending in this court, Bykov continued to file motions in the trial court. Bykov sought reconsideration of the $1,600 award, 

### repeatedly arguing that the trial court failed to sufficiently explain its analysis of his complaint under RCW 4.84.185, or to specifically address each claim inthe complaint. On November 5, 2010, Bykov filed a motion to admit additional evidence for appeal, to which he attached documents referring to notices of federal tax liens inthe name of Brian K. Fresonke, Adams's attorney, as well as printoutofpropertytax information referring to a parcel ofreal estate listed under the name "Fresonke K G." In his motion, Bykov explained his submission ofthe evidence of Fresonke's "potential or actual criminal activity for the purpose of impeaching him and his declarations." These documents contained Fresonke's unredacted social security number. Over the following year, the interactions between Fresonke and Bykov were troubled, culminating in Bykov's conviction in Seattle Municipal CourtinOctober2011 for criminally harassing Fresonke. On November 3, 2011, Adams obtained an order requiring Bykov to appearat a showcause hearing whereAdams would seekthefollowing relief: (1) disbursement of $1,600 in the court registry to Adams; (2) interest on the September 2010 judgment; (3) redaction of Fresonke's social security number from Bykov's November2010 filing; and (4) CR 11 sanctions of$731.50 forfiling "a pleading intended as an act of harassment against defendant's counsel that needlessly increased the costofthis litigation." On November 15, aftera hearing,No. 68021-8-1/3


### the trial court ordered the reliefrequested byAdams. It awarded postjudgment interest inthe amountof$224.00 and entered ajudgment against Bykov forthe 

### $731.50 sanction. The court specifically found that Bykov "had no legitimate
reason for including" Fresonke's social security number in his filing but "intended to harass" him and "caused a needless increase inthe cost of this litigation
... because defendant has had to move the Court to redact his attorney's social security number." Bykov filed a motion to vacatethe November 15judgment. Thetrial court denied the motion, finding that it failed "to conform to the show cause requirements of CR 60 and fails to meetthe substantive requirements for relief. The court ordered an additional CR 11 sanction of$1000 "because this motion is not well grounded infact and is notwarranted byexisting law." Bykov appeals the November 15 order and judgment, as well as the December 8 order denying the motion to vacate judgment and imposing the additional $1000 sanction. DECISION CR 11 permits a courtto impose a sanction, including attorneyfees, when a filing is (1) not well grounded in fact; (2) unwarranted by existing law; or (3) for any improperpurpose, such as harassmentor delay. "To impose sanctionsfor a baseless filing, the trial court must find not only that the claim was without a factual or legal basis, but also that the attorney who signed the filing did not conduct a reasonable inquiry into the factual and legal basis ofthe claim." West
v. Wash. Ass'n ofCounty Officials. 162Wn. App. 120, 135, 252 P.3d 406 (2011).No. 68021-8-1/4


### The reasonableness of an attorney's inquiry is evaluated by an objective standard, that is, "whether a reasonable attorney in like circumstances could believe his or her actions to be factually and legally justified." Bryant v. Joseph Tree. Inc.. 119Wn.2d 210, 220, 829 P.2d 1099(1992). Courts impose sanctions underCR 11 "to deter, to punish, to compensate and to educate." Wash. State Physicians Ins. Exch. &Ass'n v. Fisons Corp., 122 Wn.2d 299, 356, 858 P.2d 1054 (1993). When fashioning appropriate sanctions, courts may considerwhether a party bringing a CR 11 motion gave prior, timely, 

### informal notice of the potential violation to the offending party, but laches or waiverprinciples do not apply "because a CR 11 motion is not a 'cause ofaction'
as contemplated by those doctrines." Biggs v. Vail, 124 Wn.2d 193, 197, 876 P.2d 448 (1994). Although Bykov filed his lawsuit pro se, "pro se litigants are bound by the
same rules of procedure and substantive law as attorneys." Westberg v. AllPurpose Structures. Inc.. 86Wn. App. 405, 411, 936 P.2d 1175 (1997). We review a trial court's orderto pay attorney fees under CR 11, as well
as the amountofany such fees, for an abuse ofdiscretion. Biggs. 124Wn.2d at 197. The trial court must make specific findings indicating which filings violate the rule and how suchfilings violatethe rule or demonstrate bad faith. JcL at201- 02. Unchallenged findings are verities on appeal. Cowiche Canyon Conservatoryv. Boslev. 118Wn.2d 801, 808, 828 P.2d 549 (1992). Bykovfirst challenges the $731.50 sanction, arguing (1) he was entitled to notice of a possible CR 11 violation before Adams filed a motion for sanctions;No. 68021-8-1/5 

### (2)neitherAdams orFresonke incurred costs orfees infiling the motion to redact 

### the social security number; (3) Adams had nostandingtoassertFresonke's legal rights and Fresonke as a non-partycannotbecompensated underCR 11; (4)the motion for sanctions was filed too late; and (5) CR 11 does notallow the courtto 

### penalize a party. These arguments are not supported by relevant authority and lack merit. 

### Bykov has not challenged the trial court's finding that he filed the tax documents inNovember2010 withthe social security numberunredactedfor the improper purpose of harassing Adams's attorney. In support of his motion for sanctions, Adams submitted briefing and exhibits describing Bykov's pattern of harassment of Fresonke and ultimate criminal conviction. In response to Adams's motion to show cause and for sanctions, Bykov argued at length that Fresonke's history oftax evasion demonstrated his dishonesty and was therefore relevant to the lawsuit. Bykov's briefing also contains extensive arguments challenging the basis for the September 2010 judgment and attributing CR 11 violations to Fresonke. We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that Bykov's November2010filing warranted sanctions. As to the amount of the award, Adams submitted the declaration of his attorney describing the time he spent addressing the redaction of his social security number to support his request for $731.50, or 2.66 hours times his hourly rate of$275.00. Bykov fails to demonstrate any abuse ofdiscretion inthe trial court's decision to impose that amount as a sanction.No. 68021-8-1/6 

### Bykovalso challenges the trialcourt's December 8 order imposing $1000
as a CR 11 sanction forfiling his motion to vacate the original $731.50 sanction. Bykov contends that the trial court failed to sufficiently explain how the motion
was not well grounded in fact or warranted by existing law. He claims that the imposition ofthe sanction withoutprior noticewas an errorof law and a violation 

### of his due process rights. Bykovalso challenges the amount, arguing thatthere is no evidence that Adams incurred $1000 in attorney fees in responding to Bykov's motion. But, based on ourreview ofthe record and the particularcircumstances of this case, remand to thetrial courtfor additionalfindings is unnecessary. Where,
as here, the trial court imposed sanctions based on a factual record consisting entirely of affidavits, this court may independently review the evidence for supportfor the required findings. Bryant. 119 Wn.2d at 222-23. The trial court found that Bykov's motion to vacate was not well grounded infact or warranted by existing law, but did not specifically find that he failed to conduct a proper inquiry. However, the record is devoid ofany evidencefrom which the trial court could have determinedthat Bykov conducted any reasonable inquiry. His pleadings speakforthemselves. In his motionto vacatethejudgment, Bykov did not cite CR 60 or argue any legally recognized grounds for vacating a judgment. He presented arguments as to jurisdiction obviously contradicted by the record. Bykov repeatedly attributed wrongdoing to Fresonke andjustified his
own actions, arguing for the first time that he has a First Amendment right to submit public documents displaying Fresonke's social security number to theNo. 68021-8-1/7

court in order to demonstrate Fresonke's dishonesty. Bykov also complained about the evidence Adams offered to support his request for $731.50 and requested an additional evidentiary hearing. But, Bykov's motion did not include 

### or identify any new facts or relevant authority to cogently support his claims. Because the record would support a finding that Bykov did not conduct a reasonable inquiry into the factual or legal bases of his claims before filing his motion to vacate thejudgment, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion indetermining that Bykov violated CR 11 by filingthe motion and that

an additional sanction was warranted. Similarly, in view ofthe record here, remand for the trial court to provide additional findings to explain the amount of the sanction is also unnecessary. The matter began with a frivolous lawsuitthat resulted in sanctions. Itdetoured into a criminal harassment proceeding. The appeal was dismissed. Harrassing pleadings were filed. Following the entry of a clearorderdescribing Bykov's CR 11 violation and imposing a sanction designed in part to compensate Adams, Bykov filed his baseless motion asserting a constitutional right to commit the sanctioned act. Wecannotsaythetrial courtabused its discretion by imposing a sanction severe enough to deter Bykov from continuing to litigate the matter without reasonable grounds. Given the wide latitude afforded trial courts in fashioning appropriate sanctions, it is not necessary to remand in order for the trial court to designate the sanction as "terms" rather than "attorney fees." See FisonsCorp., 122 Wn2d at 355-56.No. 68021-8-1/8 Finally, Bykov assigns errorto thetrial court's finding thathe did not notify Adams's attorneythathe had deposited $1,600 inthe court registry in November 2010. Bykov does not identify the prejudice resulting from the trial court's resolution of this contested fact in Adams's favor. However, like Adams, we assume his alleged error is the award of postjudgment interest. Bykov asserts 

### he gave Fresonke notice ofdeposit ofthe funds to satisfy the originaljudgment when he served a December 2010 motion. The record does not establish that he notified the clerk or Fresonke that disbursement of the funds was authorized 

### rather than mere deposit pending further proceedings. We find no error inthe 

### awardofpostjudgmentinterestaccruing until the funds were disbursed. Bykov requests attorney fees and costs. Because Bykov has not prevailed, he is not entitledtofees or costs. Affirmed.

WE CONCUR:

crv^

8