Opinion ID: 2757580
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The third appeal and subsequent litigation

Text: In September 2010 Jones, representing himself, appealed Judge Baker's order approving the final accounting and distribution. He argued that the decision should be vacated because the value of the house and piano were based on inconsistent appraisals, and he moved for reappraisal of the piano. In May 2011 Division Three granted Jeffrey's and Peter's motion on the merits to affirm the superior court's orders, held that Jones' appeal was frivolous, and imposed sanctions. Jones made a motion to modify the ruling, and when it was denied he petitioned for review, which was also denied. In August 2012, just before his disciplinary hearing and after the WSBA distributed its witness list naming Peter and Jeffrey, Jones filed a new lawsuit 11 In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Jones, No. 201,256-6 naming Peter and Jeffrey as defendants. The suit again asked for relief from the 2001 judgment and asserted the same arguments Jones made in previous motions.