IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION THREE

In the Matter of the Marriage of 

CYNTHIA CERVANTES,

Respondent,

and

JOSE GONZALES CERVANTES,

Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 37474-2-III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FEARING, J. — Jose Cervantes appeals an interlocutory order for incarceration 

because of his contempt in failure to pay child support and spousal maintenance. 

Because Jose, in his brief, only complains about and analyzes another order not appealed 

and because Jose breaches critical Rules on Appellate Procedure, we dismiss his appeal 

without reaching the merits. 

FACTS

Jose Cervantes and Cynthia Cervantes married on December 10, 1986, in Prosser. 

At the time of dissolution, the parties had one fifteen-year-old son. We sometimes refer 

to the parties with their first names because of the same surname. 

The principal dispute during this proceeding entails the amount of income 

garnered by Jose Cervantes in his nursery business. That income influences the amount

of child support and spousal maintenance to be paid by Jose. 

FILED

AUGUST 31, 2021

In the Office of the Clerk of Court

WA State Court of Appeals Division III
No. 37474-2-III

In re Marriage of Cervantes

2

In response to a request by Jose to lower his child support and spousal 

maintenance payments, Cynthia filed a pleading entitled “Analysis of Jose Cervantes 

Bank Accounts Received via Subpoena.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 291-97. We do not 

know the author of the analysis, but the author may have been a forensic accountant. The 

document analyzed Jose’s accounts and concluded that, between July 2017 and January 

2018, Jose had an income of $1,648,344.34 or $235,477.76 per month over seven 

months. In turn, Cynthia provided a financial declaration, indicating that her net monthly 

income was $1,570.68. 

In support of his motion to reduce support and maintenance, Jose Cervantes filed a 

declaration by accountant, Nathan Bridges, CPA. Bridges declared that, in 2018, Jose 

collected $375,800 from farmers for baby trees he would deliver to them in 2019. 

Bridges did not categorize this money as income. According to Bridges:

This is not income to Mr. Cervantes until he actually delivers the 

trees. These are actually pre-payments and are a liability to Mr. Cervantes 

until he delivers.

CP at 304. Bridges explained that Jose used $350,000 of the $375,800 in prepayments to 

retire his house mortgage: 

So in essence, Mr. Cervantes traded one debt for another. It is 

incorrect to categorize the $350,000 paid on the home as income.

CP at 304. 
No. 37474-2-III

In re Marriage of Cervantes

3

According to CPA Nathan Bridges, Jose Cervantes handled $732,116 in cash 

during 2018, including the $375,800 in prepayments and another $86,500 in loans. 

Bridges averred that Jose earned $244,028 from the sale of his nursery tree stock, 

$10,000 from selling a truck, and $15,789 in wages from employment at Egley’s. After 

expenses, Jose netted $46,171. 

PROCEDURE

On September 26, 2017, Cynthia Cervantes filed for dissolution of marriage. 

Cynthia thereafter sought an award of temporary spousal maintenance and child support. 

On August 23, 2018, the superior court commissioner entered a temporary family law 

order. The order required Jose Cervantes to pay $10,000 per month in family support to 

Cynthia. According to the order, family support constituted a combination of spousal 

maintenance and child support. The court commissioner also ordered Jose to pay, to 

Cynthia, $10,000 for attorney fees and $20,000 for an accountant to review the couple’s 

financial records. 

On December 18, 2018, Jose Cervantes filed a motion to eliminate or reduce his 

support and maintenance obligation. To support his motion, Jose filed an accompanying 

declaration, averring that he could not pay $10,000 a month in family support particularly 

when he needed to pay, on behalf of his wife, $10,000 in attorney fees and $20,000 in 

expert fees. 
No. 37474-2-III

In re Marriage of Cervantes

4

On February 14, 2019, the court commissioner denied Jose Cervantes’ motion to 

eliminate or reduce family support. The commissioner found that Jose’s business is cashbased and should be considered on a cash basis. Therefore, the commissioner counted 

Jose’s advance for the 2019 trees in 2018 as income. The commissioner calculated Jose’s 

net annual income at $645,616 and his net monthly income at $29,535, although $29,535 

multiplied by 12 equals $354,420. The court commissioner found Jose Cervantes to be in 

contempt of the previous order awarding to Cynthia child support and maintenance. The 

commissioner entered the following written findings, some of which are conclusions of 

law or orders:

1) The court finds Mr. Cervantes [sic] income at $29,535.00 per 

month, based on his expert analysis

2) Mr. Cervantes was able to pay family support & refusal to pay 

was made in bad faith

3) Mr. Cervantes dodged his obligation

4) Mr. Cervantes [sic] request to reduce family support is denied

5) Mr. Cervantes shall pay wifes [sic] expert $20,000.00 within 60 

days per the courts [sic] August 23, 2018 order

6) Mr. Cervantes shall pay $10,000 as ordered each month plus an 

additional $5,000.00 per month toward the back $38,800.00

7) Mr. Cervantes shall pay the $11,500.00 in attorneys fees within 

60 days. 1/2 due in 30 days 1/2 due in 60 days

8) Contempt can be purged by paying $5,000.00 per month toward 

back support per paragraph 6.

CP at 317-18.

On February 19, 2019, Jose Cervantes filed a motion requesting the superior court 

to revise the court commissioner’s order regarding contempt and requesting the 
No. 37474-2-III

In re Marriage of Cervantes

5

eliminating or reducing of family support. Jose challenged the commissioner’s 

classification of the $375,800 advance as income. On March 19, 2019, Jose submitted 

another declaration, averring that he used $350,000 of the $375,800 advance to retire the 

debt on his house, which was then in foreclosure. 

On March 21, 2019, the superior court denied Jose Cervantes’ motion for revision. 

The court adopted verbatim the court commissioner’s findings of fact and conclusions of 

law. 

On September 19, 2019, the court commissioner entered an order finding Jose 

Cervantes in contempt because he acted in bad faith when failing to comply with the 

court’s order on payment of family support and his wife’s attorney fees. The 

commissioner entered another contempt order on December 9, 2019. The new order 

required Jose to pay $40,000 in arrears at $700 per week in addition to paying his 

monthly obligations. 

On January 30, 2020, the court commissioner, pursuant to Jose Cervantes’ failure 

to comply with the two contempt orders on September 19 and December 9, 2019, ordered 

Jose to jail. The incarceration order required Jose to present himself to the Yakima 

County Jail immediately after the January 30 hearing to be taken into custody for not 

more than five consecutive days. He could purge the contempt and procure his release by 

paying the arrearages. 
No. 37474-2-III

In re Marriage of Cervantes

6

On March 2, 2020, Jose Cervantes filed a notice of appeal of the January 30, 2020

interlocutory order for incarceration. Instead of preparing a concise notice of appeal as 

contemplated by RAP 5.3, Jose included argument in support of the merits of his appeal. 

Jose argued that his attorneys never obtained his consent for a court commissioner to 

preside over hearings and that a jury, not the commissioner, must find him in contempt. 

He contended that the malpractice of his four successive attorneys denied him due 

process of the law. Jose also wrote: 

3. The amount of 10,000 a month is [sic] spousal support is not 

intelligent and it is not based upon the real income of the Defendant and it 

is a detriment to the Defendant in that he is unable to pay that amount and 

has had to borrow money to pay the amount over the year or so that the 

orders have been in place without any opportunity to appeal.

3. [sic] The income of the Defendant is such that it cannot support a 

ten thousand dollar a month payment to his ex-wife where Yakima is 

considered to be a low income community where the median income is less 

than 12,000 a year and yet the Commissioner, [sic] has, based upon the 

spurious statements of the opposing counsel, stated that the Defendant must 

pay the amount of 10,000 a month where there is just not income to provide 

and support such an amount.

CP at 520-21. 

Jose Cervantes’ notice of appeal does not appeal the superior court’s March 21, 

2019 order denying revision of the court commissioner’s order finding contempt and 

denying Jose’s motion to eliminate or reduce family support. Nevertheless, Jose’s entire 

argument on appeal surrounds the superior court’s denial of his revision motion. Jose 

failed to attach the January 30 order, from which he appealed, in violation of RAP 5.3(a). 
No. 37474-2-III

In re Marriage of Cervantes

7

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Appellate Rules

We decline to reach the merits of Jose Cervantes’ appeal for numerous reasons. 

First, Jose fails to list any assignments of error in his opening brief. Second, Jose fails to 

assign error to any findings of fact entered by the superior court commissioner or the 

superior court judge, so that the facts on which the court commissioner and the superior 

court based decisions constitute verities on appeal. Third, Jose devotes his entire brief to 

complaining that the superior court rubber stamped the court commissioner’s ruling, on 

February 14, 2019, that denied his motion to reduce family support and that held him in 

contempt. Nevertheless, Jose did not appeal the March 21, 2019 ruling by the superior 

court denying the motion to revise the court commissioner’s ruling. 

In his opening brief, Jose Cervantes assigns no errors to the superior court judge’s 

or the court commissioner’s rulings. He further fails to list issues pertaining to 

assignments of error. RAP 10.3 declares in part:

(a) Brief of Appellant or Petitioner. The brief of the appellant or 

petitioner should contain under appropriate headings and in the order here 

indicated: 

. . . .

(4) Assignments of Error. A separate concise statement of each error 

a party contends was made by the trial court, together with the issues 

pertaining to the assignments of error.

(Boldface and italics omitted.) This reviewing court may dismiss the appeal when the 

appellant fails to list the alleged errors of the trial court as “‘assignments of error’” in the 
No. 37474-2-III

In re Marriage of Cervantes

8

appellant brief. State v. Pegg, 13 Wn. App. 583, 583, 536 P.2d 171 (1975). We reject 

Jose’s appeal for this reason alone. 

Because he assigns no errors, Jose Cervantes fails to assign error to any findings 

of fact entered by the court commissioner or the superior court judge. RAP 10.3(g) 

declares, in relevant part:

A separate assignment of error for each finding of fact a party 

contends was improperly made must be included with reference to the 

finding by number. The appellate court will only review a claimed error 

which is included in an assignment of error or clearly disclosed in the 

associated issue pertaining thereto.

(Emphasis added.) Unchallenged findings are verities on appeal. In re Marriage of 

Drlik, 121 Wn. App. 269, 275, 87 P.3d 1192 (2004). For this additional reason, we deny 

Jose’s appeal. 

Despite appealing the January 30, 2020 order for incarceration, Jose Cervantes 

devotes no argument or analysis in his opening brief critical to the order. Jose argues that 

the superior court, when denying the motion for revision, erred by failing to 

independently assess the strength of Jose’s arguments for eliminating or reducing family 

support. Jose contends that the superior court abused its discretion by merely rubberstamping the court commissioner’s findings, which findings were unsupported by the 

record. Jose maintains that the court commissioner incorrectly found the $375,800 of 

prepayments he received in 2018 to be income, rather than a liability. Thus, the court 

commissioner overcalculated his imputed monthly income at $29,535. 
No. 37474-2-III

In re Marriage of Cervantes

9

Cynthia Cervantes asserts that Jose Cervantes’ appeal of the court commissioner’s 

January 30, 2020 order for incarceration does not allow this court to review the March 

21, 2019 superior court order denying revision of the court commissioner’s February 14, 

2019 order denying a reduction in child support and spousal maintenance and holding 

Jose in contempt. Cynthia contends that RAP 2.4(b) controls this contention and that, 

under the rule, the March 21, 2019 order did not prejudicially affect the January 30, 2020 

order for incarceration. 

Jose Cervantes does not deny that his notice of appeal failed to appeal the March 

2019 order denying revision. Jose argues that RAP 2.4(b), nonetheless, permits this court

to review his challenge to the order denying revision, because that order prejudicially 

affected the later January 30, 2020 incarceration order. 

RAP 2.4(b) requires this court to review orders not designated in an appellant’s 

notice of appeal under only limited circumstances. The rule states, in relevant part:

The appellate court will review a trial court order or ruling not 

designated in the notice, including an appealable order, if (1) the order or 

ruling prejudicially affects the decision designated in the notice, and (2) the 

order is entered, or the ruling is made, before the appellate court accepts 

review.

The superior court entered the March 21, 2019 order denying revision before this 

court accepted review. Thus, we must inquire whether the 2019 order prejudicially 

affected the subsequent January 30, 2020 incarceration order. 
No. 37474-2-III

In re Marriage of Cervantes

10

As Cynthia Cervantes argues, the court commissioner did not rely on the order 

denying revision when entering the incarceration order. Rather, the commissioner relied 

on the contempt orders, entered on September 19 and December 9, 2019, and entered 

after the order denying revision. Therefore, if the court commissioner had miscalculated 

Jose’s net monthly income for the purposes of family support, the contempt orders, not 

the order denying revision, would have prejudicially affected the incarceration order. As 

with the order denying revision, however, Jose has not appealed either contempt order. 

Moreover, Jose does not argue on appeal that this court should review the contempt 

orders pursuant to RAP 2.4(b). For this third reason, we reject a review of the merits of 

Jose’s appeal and dismiss the appeal with prejudice. 

Attorney Fees

Cynthia Cervantes requests attorney fees on appeal pursuant RCW 26.09.140, 

because Jose Cervantes has the means to pay and she has the need for assistance. 

Alternatively, she requests attorney fees under RAP 18.9(a) on the ground that Jose’s 

appeal is frivolous. Jose replies that Cynthia is not entitled to attorney fees on either 

ground, but he only provides argument against his appeal being frivolous.

We have reviewed Cynthia Cervantes’ financial declaration. Based on the 

declaration, we find that Jose possesses the ability to pay and Cynthia a need for 

assistance. Therefore, we grant reasonable attorney fees and costs on the basis of RCW 

26.09.140. 
No. 37474-2-III

In re Marriage of Cervantes

11

We find Jose Cervantes’ appeal frivolous because he fails to follow at least three 

critical appellate rules. This failure was critical to a successful appeal. We thereby grant 

Cynthia reasonable attorney fees and costs on appeal also because of the frivolous nature 

of the appeal. 

CONCLUSION 

We reject Jose Cervantes’ appeal because of the failure to follow important Rules 

of Appellate Procedure. We grant Cynthia Cervantes an award of reasonable attorney 

fees and costs on appeal. 

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 

2.06.040.

_________________________________

Fearing, J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Siddoway, A.C.J.

______________________________

Staab, J.
No. 37474-2-III

SIDDOWAY, A.C.J. (concurring) — For the procedural reasons explained by the 

majority, I agree that Mr. Cervantes’ appeal should be dismissed. In the future, he should 

find a way to hire a lawyer. 

I write separately to express concern with the concept adopted by the trial court 

that because Mr. Cervantes’ problems with creditors have caused him to conduct his 

business using cash and cashier’s checks, the unearned prepayments he receives are 

therefore “income.” Even for individuals who are permitted to rely on cash basis 

accounting for tax purposes, it is not the case that all cash received is automatically 

income.

I realize that the lack of typical financial records creates a tremendously difficult 

situation for the trial court. But the seemingly simple solution of treating all cash 

received as income invites the need for modification and wild swings in child support and 

spousal maintenance in the future. Fairness would require the courts and Ms. Cervantes 

to apply the premise consistently: if cash received (divorced from proper accounting 

treatment) will all be treated as income, then cash out (divorced from proper accounting 

treatment) should all be treated as expense. And when cash flow changes direction, Mr. 

Cervantes would appear to be entitled to a modification—potentially a dramatic 

modification—based on substantially changed circumstances.
No. 37474-2-III

In re Marriage of Cervantes

It would require more effort in the short-term, but making the effort to accurately 

characterize Mr. Cervantes’ income would provide stability that should be important to 

both parties. 

Siddoway, A.C.J.

I CONCUR:

Fearing, J.