Court Opinion

ID: 9898258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:29:29.191583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:00.112404
License: Public Domain

Filed
                                                                                       Washington State
                                                                                       Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Division Two

                                                                                       September 6, 2023

    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

                                        DIVISION II
 CRYSTAL McDOWELL,                                                  No. 56988-4-II

                               Appellant,

        v.                                                   UNPUBLISHED OPINION

 DAVID ZAHRADNIK,

                               Respondent.

       MAXA, J. – Crystal McDowell appeals the trial court’s order granting summary judgment

in favor of David Zahradnik regarding Zahradnik’s counterclaims against her.

       McDowell and Zahradnik were married for over nine years until December 1997, when

their marriage was dissolved. Before finalizing their dissolution, they signed a property

settlement agreement that addressed commercial property they jointly owned. In November

2020, McDowell filed a complaint against Zahradnik for breach of contract of a separate

financial agreement that they allegedly signed before finalizing their dissolution. Zahradnik

responded with various counterclaims. The trial court dismissed McDowell’s claims per her

request and entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of Zahradnik on his

counterclaims.

       McDowell makes numerous claims challenging the trial court’s decisions. Because

McDowell has provided insufficient argument or analysis to support her claims, we have no
No. 56988-4-II

ability to address the issues she raises and decline to consider them. Accordingly, we affirm the

trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Zahradnik.

                                              FACTS

Background

         McDowell and Zahradnik were married from June 1988 until December 31, 1997, when

their divorce was finalized. They maintained an amicable relationship, and before their divorce

was finalized they signed a separation and property settlement agreement.

         In the agreement, McDowell and Zahradnik agreed to execute a quit claim deed to each

other as joint tenants with right of survivorship for commercial property they owned on Meridian

East in Puyallup. They also agreed that they would jointly manage the Meridian property,

McDowell would receive all income from leasing the property, and Zahradnik would pay all

mortgages, liens, and taxes on the property. McDowell and Zahradnik both would be

responsible for the costs of all repairs on the property. Zahradnik later testified that there was an

understanding that the Meridian property would be sold within two to four years and they would

split the proceeds.

         The agreement also stated that Zahradnik would pay spousal maintenance to McDowell

of $1,000 per month for a period of 18 months, beginning on January 1, 1998 and ending on June

1, 1999.

Complaint and Answer

         In November 2020,1 McDowell – representing herself – filed a complaint for breach of

contract against Zahradnik. She claimed that Zahradnik had breached an agreement they had

signed under which (1) McDowell could spend up to $10,000 on Zahradnik’s credit card to

1
    McDowell initially filed an unsigned complaint in July 2020.

                                                  2
No. 56988-4-II

purchase supplies and personal goods; (2) Zahradnik would pay McDowell $3,500 each month

for two years and then $1,500 each month for one year after that; (3) McDowell would receive

one third of the gross proceeds from the sale of the Meridian property at such time it was sold,

and if Zahradnik used the property himself he would pay one third of the rental value per month

to McDowell; and (4) McDowell and Zahradnik would sign wills leaving all properties and

assets to each other and excluding all other family.

       Zahradnik responded with various counterclaims. He claimed (1) ouster and injunctive

relief because McDowell made the Meridian property her personal residence and posted a sign

excluding Zahradnik; (2) breach of contract because McDowell refused to pay the utilities while

living at the Meridian property and threatened to take his personal belongings; (3) conversion

because McDowell took his personal property and the improvements he made to the Meridian

property; (4) promissory estoppel because McDowell went against their agreement to hold the

Meridian property as joint tenants with a right of survivorship; (5) unjust enrichment because he

had paid the mortgage payments, property taxes, costs for the sewer, and utilities at the Meridian

property; and (6) misrepresentation. Zahradnik also requested CR 11 sanctions against

McDowell because she had filed a frivolous complaint based on false information.

Trial Court Proceedings

       In December 2021, Zahradnik filed a motion for summary judgment. After opposing the

summary judgment motion, McDowell filed a third amended motion for a voluntary dismissal of

her breach of contract claims with prejudice in January 2022. The motion acknowledged that

Zahradnik’s counterclaims would remain regardless of the dismissal.

       On January 14, 2022, at the summary judgment hearing, the trial court entered an order

dismissing McDowell’s breach of contract claims with prejudice and dismissing all of her other

                                                 3
No. 56988-4-II

claims without prejudice, per McDowell’s request. The trial court continued the summary

judgment hearing on Zahradnik’s counterclaims to January 28. This continuance was granted to

give Zahradnik time to file an amended motion for summary judgment that no longer addressed

McDowell’s dismissed claims. Zahradnik was ordered to file his amended summary judgment

motion by January 20 and McDowell was ordered to file a response by January 24.

       Zahradnik filed an amended motion for summary judgment that focused only on his

counterclaims. McDowell filed a partially amended opposition to the summary judgment

motion, stating that Zahradnik made false and fraudulent claims. She also requested another

continuance of the summary judgment hearing, which the trial court denied. And McDowell

requested reconsideration of the order dismissing her claims, which the trial court denied.

Summary Judgment Decision

       The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Zahradnik on his counterclaims.

The court awarded Zahradnik damages for the rent owed when McDowell occupied the Meridian

property, utility payments, real property taxes, sewer costs, $140,000 that was loaned to

McDowell for the purchase of a home, money that was loaned to McDowell for her father’s

estate, three quarters of the appraised value of the Meridian property, attorney fees, and CR 11

sanctions against McDowell.

       In total, the trial court awarded Zahradnik damages in the amount of $728,300 and

attorney fees in the amount of $33,825.17, with interest accruing at the rate of 12 percent.

       McDowell appeals the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of

Zahradnik.

                                                 4
No. 56988-4-II

                                            ANALYSIS

       Litigants representing themselves are held to the same standard as an attorney and must

comply with the rules of appellate procedure. Winter v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. on behalf

of Winter, 12 Wn. App. 2d 815, 844, 460 P.3d 667 (2020). RAP 10.3(a)(5) states that appellants

should include references to the record in the “Statement of the Case” section and RAP

10.3(a)(6) states that appellants should support all arguments with “citations to legal authority

and references to relevant parts of the record.”

       In addition, we generally decline to consider an issue when the appellant has failed to

provide meaningful argument. Billings v. Town of Steilacoom, 2 Wn. App. 2d 1, 21, 408 P.3d

1123 (2017). “ ‘Passing treatment of an issue or lack of reasoned argument is insufficient to

merit judicial consideration.’ ” Samra v. Singh, 15 Wn. App. 2d 823, 836, 479 P.3d 713 (2020)

(quoting Palmer v. Jensen, 81 Wn. App. 148, 153, 913 P.2d 413 (1996)); see also RAP

10.3(a)(6).

       McDowell makes numerous claims challenging the trial court’s decisions. She claims

that the trial court entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law without any basis in law or

fact, and engaged in prejudicial actions, including improperly meeting ex parte with Zahradnik,

allowing Zahradnik to commit fraud during the summary judgment hearing, and not considering

her opposition filings. McDowell also claims that the trial court erred in (1) denying her request

for a continuance to respond to Zahradnik’s first summary judgment motion and her motion for

reconsideration of dismissal of her complaint, (2) addressing her motion to dismiss her claims at

the summary judgment hearing, (3) ordering a continuance for Zahradnik to amend his summary

judgment motion and ordering an insufficient amount of time for McDowell to respond to

                                                   5
No. 56988-4-II

Zahradnik’s amended summary judgment motion, and (4) granting summary judgment in favor

of Zahradnik.

          However, McDowell fails to support her many challenges to the trial court’s decisions

with any meaningful argument. She relies on conclusory statements that are not supported by

any analysis, citations to the record, or relevant legal authority. She lists numerous citations to

cases, but she states only that they should “be applied to the above, [and] every and anywhere

appropriate.” Br. of Appellant at 16.

          Given that McDowell has provided insufficient argument or analysis to support her

claims, we have no ability to address the issues she raises. Therefore, we decline to consider her

claims.

                                           CONCLUSION

          We affirm the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Zahradnik.

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

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW

2.06.040, it is so ordered.

                                                       MAXA, J.

 We concur:

 CRUSER, A.C.J.

 CHE, J.

                                                   6