Leroy Howell v. Evaan Syrah Solomon ( 2022 )

FILED
JANUARY 20, 2022
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
LEROY HOWELL, a married man; )
KATHIE CLAYTON, spouse; THE ) No. 37663-0-III
ESTATE OF KATHERINE M HOWELL; )
and HEIRS OF KATHERINE M )
HOWELL, )
)
Respondents, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
v. )
)
EVAAN SYRAH SOLOMON )
)
Appellant )
)
EVAAN SYRAH SOLOMON TRUST )
120; IVAN KRIGER, GREEN GLOBAL )
LLC; DEFUNCT BUSINESS; )
NATALYA KRIGER, former-spouse )
having potential interest; and ALL )
PERSONS OR PARTIES UNKNOWN )
CLAIMING ANY RIGHT, TITLE, )
ESTATE, LIEN OR INTEREST IN TE )
REAL ESTATE DESCRIBED IN THE )
COMPLAINT HEREIN, )
)
Defendants. )
FEARING, J. — Defendant Evaan Solomon appeals a summary judgment ruling
granted plaintiff LeRoy Howell against him and a default judgment order entered against
No. 37663-0-III
Howell v. Solomon
other defendants. Because of the failure of the defendants to answer the complaint and
because of Solomon’s failure to dispute Howell’s recitation of facts provided the superior
court as part of the summary judgment motion, we affirm both judgments.
FACTS
This lawsuit concerns title to 124.19 acres of land near Latah Creek in Spokane
County. In 1985, LeRoy Howell and his first wife, Katherine Howell, purchased the
acreage.
LeRoy Howell, now seventy-six years old, maintains poor health. He weakly
controls his type 2 diabetes. He has suffered two strokes and two heart attacks. He
experiences blindness in one eye and impaired vision in the other eye, making reading a
difficult task. Howell also endures disorientation, confusion, and short-term memory
loss.
Katherine Howell died on an unidentified day in 2019. Sonya Martin, LeRoy
Howell’s daughter, noticed a marked deterioration in LeRoy’s ability to manage his
affairs after her mother’s death. After the death, Martin managed LeRoy’s finances. On
a later unidentified date in 2019, LeRoy Howell married Kathie Clayton.
In the fall of 2019, Evaan Solomon, formerly known as Ivan Kriger, approached
LeRoy Howell to purchase Howell’s Latah Creek property. Howell and Solomon had not
met before. Howell lacked knowledge of Solomon’s history of real estate fraud, which
resulted in at least thirteen civil claims and hundreds of thousands of dollars in judgments
2
No. 37663-0-III
Howell v. Solomon
against Solomon. Howell informed Solomon that his asking price was $1,000,000.
Solomon offered to give Howell a down payment of $300,000 within the coming weeks.
In October 2019, Evaan Solomon appeared regularly and unannounced at LeRoy
Howell’s residence in Kamiah, Idaho. Solomon repeatedly promised to tender, in the
immediate future, the $300,000 down payment for the Latah Creek plot. Over
subsequent weeks, Solomon offered to partner with Howell to jointly develop the
property, in lieu of purchasing the property. Solomon repeatedly beseeched Howell to
enter a development partnership. Howell rejected the entreaties.
On November 6, 2019, Evaan Solomon appeared once again at LeRoy Howell’s
Kamiah residence. Solomon presented a document for Howell to sign. According to
Howell, Solomon represented the document as necessary to facilitate county approval of
an easement to Highway 195. The document instead was a quit claim deed granting
Solomon a twenty-four foot easement across the entirety of Howell’s 124.19 acre Latah
Creek property. We refer to this document as the easement deed.
On November 6, 2019, while relying on Evaan Solomon’s representations, LeRoy
Howell signed the easement deed. The deed mentions no trust created by Solomon,
which trust Solomon later asserted existed. The easement deed did not address
consideration, nor did Howell provide any payment for the grant of the easement. No
notary public acknowledged the deed.
3
No. 37663-0-III
Howell v. Solomon
On November 7, 2019, Evaan Solomon returned to LeRoy Howell’s Kamiah home
and asked Howell to sign more forms for the state. Solomon then presented to Howell
and Howell signed a quit claim deed transferring the fee simple interest in the 124.19-
acre Latah Creek plot to Solomon. We refer to this document as the fee simple deed.
On the fee simple deed, Evaan Solomon listed the grantee as the Evaan Syrah
Solomon Trust 120. During litigation, Solomon produced a trust document entitled “The
Evaan Syrah Solomon Trust—120 Living Trust.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 485-500. The
trust’s name differs from the name Solomon wrote on the fee simple deed: “Evaan Syrah
Solomon Trust 120.” The trust document appointed, as joint trustees of the trust,
Solomon’s daughters, Anastatiya Nabors, Rachel Kriger, and Marilyn Kriger.
The November 7 fee simple deed referenced an Exhibit A, but had no exhibit
attached. No notary public acknowledged the deed. Although the fee simple deed reads
that Solomon paid $100 in consideration for the transfer, Solomon tendered no money.
According to LeRoy Howell, Solomon later added, to the deed, the parcel number and a
partial legal description for the property with a different pen.
The signing of the fee simple deed purports to be witnessed by Yevgeniy Fedin
and Andrey Samolovov. Fedin is an adjudicated incompetent person and Samolovov is
Evaan Solomon’s brother. According to LeRoy Howell, neither Fedin nor Samolovov
were present at the time he signed the fee simple deed.
4
No. 37663-0-III
Howell v. Solomon
On November 13, 2019, Evaan Solomon recorded the easement deed with the
Spokane County Auditor. On November 14, he recorded the fee simple deed with the
auditor. Only the first page of the fee simple deed contains a stamp from the Spokane
County Auditor. Solomon completed a real estate excise tax affidavit, under penalty of
perjury, that declares consideration of $100. The affidavit lists Solomon as grantor and
the Evaan Syrah Solomon Trust 120 as grantee.
Unbeknownst to LeRoy Howell, Evaan Solomon retained the services of Suzy
Dix, a local realtor, for assistance in selling the Latah Creek property. Solomon
represented himself to Dix as the owner of the property.
In late 2019, Evaan Solomon informed Patrick Dullanty that he had purchased
LeRoy Howell’s land and wished to sell Dullanty the northern forty acres of the plot.
Dullanty owned land north of Howell’s Latah Creek property. Before considering
Solomon’s offer, Dullanty performed research on Solomon.
Patrick Dullanty reviewed, in the Spokane County Auditor’s office, the November
7 fee simple deed from LeRoy Howell to the Evan Syrah Solomon Trust. The deed
caused Dullanty concern, due to it being hand-written, incomplete, and unnotarized.
Dullanty spoke with LeRoy Howell about the deed. Howell stated he did not know he
had conveyed his land.
In March 2020, Spokane County Title Company informed realtor Suzy Dix that,
due to the fee simple deed’s lack of notarization, its incomplete legal description, and the
5
No. 37663-0-III
Howell v. Solomon
many legal judgments against Evaan Solomon, the company declined to insure title for
Solomon. Dix informed Solomon that she would not market the property until a title
company would insure title. Dix extinguished her property listing for Solomon.
PROCEDURE
On March 16, 2020, LeRoy Howell, his wife Kathie Clayton, and his daughter
Sonya Martin brought suit for quiet title, ejectment, and conversion against Evaan
Solomon. We refer to the plaintiffs collectively as LeRoy Howell or Howell. In his
complaint, Howell named as defendants Evaan Solomon, the Evaan Syrah Solomon Trust
120, Green Global, LLC, a defunct business association that Solomon created, Ivan
Kriger, Solomon’s former name, and Natalya Kriger, Solomon’s former wife, to whom
he was married at the time Solomon filed the easement deed and fee simple deed with
Spokane County.
In his complaint, LeRoy Howell asserted that Evaan Solomon uttered
misrepresentations that caused Howell to sign the easement and fee simple deeds.
Howell alleged to be a vulnerable adult, under RCW 74.34.020, in that he was over sixty
years old and “functionally, mentally, or physically unable to care for himself.” CP at 4.
Howell contended that the two deeds were invalid for many reasons, including the lack of
acknowledgments in violation of RCW 64.04.020 and the fraudulent circumstances under
which he signed them. He alleged that, at the time of signing the deeds, he suffered
6
No. 37663-0-III
Howell v. Solomon
short-term memory loss and confusion due to his diabetes and his grief over losing his
wife of many years, Katherine Howell.
On March 16, 2020, the superior court authorized service by publication on “all
persons or parties unknown claiming any right, title, estate, lien or interest in the real
estate described” in LeRoy Howell’s complaint. CP at 49-50 (capitalization omitted).
On March 19, 2020, a process server served Evaan Solomon and the Evaan Syrah
Solomon Trust 120. On March 21, 2020, Natalya Kriger was personally served. For six
weeks, between April 23 and May 28, 2020, LeRoy Howell served defendants by
publication via The Spokesman-Review.
On April 6, 2020, Evaan Solomon filed his answer to LeRoy Howell’s complaint.
In his answer, Solomon stated that Howell had signed a quitclaim deed that granted him
the Latah Creek property. Solomon also stated that he had met with Howell on eighteen
occasions and entered into a real estate development contract. No other defendant filed
an answer.
Much of Evaan Solomon’s answer discussed his belief that LeRoy Howell’s
attorney, Lisa Brewer, retaliated against him for speaking openly about her illegal
operations. According to Solomon, Brewer and her busy law firm engaged in poaching
elk, fish, and caviar. Solomon maintained that Brewer brought five cases against him in
an attempt to defame him. He alleged that Brewer harassed him by contacting his current
7
No. 37663-0-III
Howell v. Solomon
and previous business associates and his loved ones, which caused him physical and
emotional stress.
In Evaan Solomon’s answer, he did not address nor deny the flaws in the easement
and fee simple deeds signed by LeRoy Howell. He did not deny the deeds’
incompleteness or lack of acknowledgement or that he added the legal description for the
Latah Creek property in the second deed after Howell signed the document. Solomon did
not dispute Howell’s status as a vulnerable adult.
On June 23, 2020, LeRoy Howell filed a motion for default. He requested that all
defendants, except Evaan Solomon, be held in default for their lack of a response to the
complaint. On the same day, Howell filed a motion for summary judgment. In the latter
motion, he argued that his complaint established a prima facie case to quiet title and that
Solomon’s answer either admitted or failed to deny the material facts of the complaint.
On July 6, 2020, LeRoy Howell sought an order for an ex parte restraining order.
The superior court entered the order, and thereafter Evaan Solomon received notice of the
order.
On July 7, 2020, Evaan Solomon filed a response to LeRoy Howell’s motions for
default and summary judgment. Solomon did not directly address the arguments
forwarded in Howell’s motion, but rather outlined Lisa Brewer alleged illegal behavior
and mission to defame him. Solomon also requested a six- to eight-month continuance of
the motions hearing because of his poor health.
8
No. 37663-0-III
Howell v. Solomon
On July 15, 2020, Evaan Solomon filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The
motion mentioned Lisa Brewer’s filing of five other lawsuits against Solomon and argued
that the number of lawsuits exceeded the legal limit.
On July 17, 2020, the superior court entertained LeRoy Howell’s motion for
default, motion for summary judgment, and motion for a permanent restraining order. At
the hearing, Evaan Solomon murmured about Lisa Brewer’s trespassing on his property
and her hunting of elk and caviar. He did not mention whether Brewer shot bullets at the
caviar. Solomon also alleged that Howell’s neighbor, Patrick Dullanty, killed Sergei
Savin.
During the July 17 hearing, the superior court informed Evaan Solomon that a
deed required formalities such as a notary acknowledgement. The court asked Solomon
whether any facts showed notarization of the fee simple deed. Solomon conceded the
lack of an acknowledgement.
So he [LeRoy Howell] asked me to meet at that bridge. We
supposed [sic] to meet at the notary, but he said, I have one guy with me, he
will notarize, and you have a guy. And I said, That’s fine, let’s meet at the
bridge. So we met at the bridge. We signed the quitclaim deed. We
supposed [sic] to notarize it. I understand that. I told him, We have to
notarize it. He said, Can [sic] you come another time. I said, Yes. So
another time didn’t come because Lisa Brewer was involved with her
negative story about me.
Report of Proceedings (RP) at 21 (emphasis added). During the July 17, 2020 hearing,
Evaan Solomon never mentioned the Evaan Syrah Solomon Trust 120.
9
No. 37663-0-III
Howell v. Solomon
During its oral ruling, the superior court highlighted Evaan Solomon’s failure to
focus his argument on LeRoy Howell’s motion for summary judgment. The court
granted the motion due to a lack of any genuine issue of material fact. The superior court
also granted LeRoy Howell’s motion for default judgment against all nonresponsive
parties, including the Evaan Syrah Solomon Trust 120. Finally, the court entered an
order continuing the restraining order against Evaan Solomon and another order quieting
title as to all defendants.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Default Judgment
On appeal, Evaan Solomon contends that the superior court mistakenly entered
default against the Evaan Syrah Solomon Trust 120 because Solomon represented the
trust during the July 17, 2020 default hearing. LeRoy Howell responds that Evaan
Solomon lacks authority to appeal the default judgment against the trust since his
daughters, not him, are trustees of the trust.
We decline to consider Evaan Solomon’s challenge to the default judgment
against the Evaan Syrah Solomon Trust 120, because he raises the claim for the first time
on appeal. He did not contest the default motion before the superior court. RAP 2.5(a)
declares, in relevant part:
The appellate court may refuse to review any claim of error which
was not raised in the trial court. However, a party may raise the following
claimed errors for the first time in the appellate court: (1) lack of trial court
10
No. 37663-0-III
Howell v. Solomon
jurisdiction, (2) failure to establish facts upon which relief can be granted,
and (3) manifest error affecting a constitutional right.
Summary Judgment
Evaan Solomon contends that the superior court erroneously granted summary
judgment to LeRoy Howell, because Howell voluntarily signed the fee simple deed and
Solomon properly recorded the deed. Solomon requests an order quieting title in him in
the Latah Creek property. Howell responds that Evaan Solomon’s answer failed to
respond to the facts alleged in Howell’s complaint and Solomon never controverted the
facts provided to the court by Howell in support of the summary judgment motion.
Summary judgment is proper when “there is no genuine issue of any material fact
and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” CR 56(c); State ex rel.
Banks v. Drummond, 187 Wn.2d at 167. A material fact is one “which the outcome of
the litigation depends.” Clements v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 121 Wn.2d 243, 249, 850
P.2d 1298 (1993). The adverse party may not rely on its pleadings, other than affidavits,
to defeat a summary judgment motion. CR 56(e). Solomon filed no countervailing
declaration to LeRoy Howell’s summary judgment motion.
In his briefing on appeal, Evaan Solomon focuses on discrediting LeRoy Howell’s
attorney, Lisa Brewer, and Howell’s neighbor, Patrick Dullanty. He indicts Brewer for
poaching elk and aquatic wildlife and Dullanty for killing Sergei Savin. He adds an
accusation of minor sex trafficking against both. False accusations of misconduct against
11
No. 37663-0-III
Howell v. Solomon
the movant party’s attorney and neighbor do not create an issue of material fact for trial
on the complaint’s allegations.
RCW 64.04.020 requires that, for a deed to be valid, the deed must be in writing,
signed by the parties, and “acknowledged by the party before some person authorized by
[ ]this act to take acknowledgements of deeds.” An instrument not acknowledged by the
grantor is not yet a deed. Genesee, Inc. v. Firstline Investment, Inc., 48 Wn. App. 707,
710-11, 740 P.2d 367 (1987). Thus, the easement and the fee simple deeds, as a matter of
law, are void.
We agree with LeRoy Howell that summary judgment was also appropriate on the
basis that Evaan Solomon took advantage of Howell, a vulnerable adult. In his reply
brief, Evaan Solomon argues that LeRoy Howell wore glasses when reviewing the
quitclaim deeds and signed them of his own free will. Nevertheless, Solomon filed no
affidavit or declaration before the superior court that denied LeRoy Howell’s being a
vulnerable adult.
RCW 74.34.020(22) defines a “vulnerable adult” as an individual:
(a) Sixty years of age or older who has the functional, mental, or
physical inability to care for himself or herself.
RCW 74.08.338 declares that, if a real property transaction involves a vulnerable adult
selling their property for less than fair market value, then the resulting deed is prima facie
evidence of fraud:
12
No. 37663-0-III
Howell v. Solomon
When the consideration for a deed executed and delivered by a
recipient is not paid, or when the consideration does not approximate the
fair cash market value of the property, such deed shall be prima facie
fraudulent as to the state and the department may proceed under RCW
43.20B.660.
(Emphasis added.)
Evaan Solomon did not dispute that he paid LeRoy Howell nothing for either the
easement or fee simple title deed. LeRoy Howell’s complaint established a prima facie
case for fraud by exploitation of a vulnerable adult that Solomon did not rebut.
We remind the parties that findings of fact and conclusions of law are superfluous
on appeal. Chelan County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association v. Chelan County, 109 Wn.2d
282, 294 n.6, 745 P.2d 1 (1987); Mora v. MacGilvary, 19 Wn. App. 2d 260, 266, 495
P.3d 850, 855 (2021). Also, any summary judgment order should list all pleadings and
documents, on which the superior court relied in granting or denying the summary
judgment motion. CR 56(h).
Attorney Fees
LeRoy Howell requests reasonable attorney fees based on Evaan Solomon’s
predatory activities, intransigence, and frivolous appeal. He requests fees pursuant to
RCW 4.84.185 and RAP 18.9. Solomon does not challenge Howell’s request for
reasonable attorney fees.
RAP 18.9(a) authorizes this court to sanction a party that files a frivolous appeal.
The rule states, in relevant part:
13
No. 37663-0-III
Howell v. Solomon
The appellate court on its own initiative or on motion of a party may
order a party or counsel, or a court reporter or authorized transcriptionist
preparing a verbatim report of proceedings, who uses these rules for the
purpose of delay, files a frivolous appeal, or fails to comply with these
rules to pay terms or compensatory damages to any other party who has
been harmed by the delay or the failure to comply or to pay sanctions to the
court.
(Emphasis added.) An appropriate sanction under RAP 18.9(a) is requiring the violating
party to pay the other party’s attorney fees. Advocates for Responsible Development v.
Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 170 Wn.2d 577, 580, 245
P.3d 764 (2010); Reid v. Dalton, 124 Wn. App. 113, 128, 100 P.3d 349 (2004).
When evaluating whether an appeal is frivolous, this court considers the following
factors:
“(1) A civil appellant has a right to appeal under RAP 2.2; (2) all
doubts as to whether the appeal is frivolous should be resolved in favor of
the appellant; (3) the record should be considered as a whole; (4) an appeal
that is affirmed simply because the arguments are rejected is not frivolous;
(5) an appeal is frivolous if there are no debatable issues upon which
reasonable minds might differ, and it is so totally devoid of merit that there
was no reasonable possibility of reversal.”
Espinoza v. American Commerce Insurance Co., 184 Wn. App. 176, 202, 336 P.3d 115(2014) (quoting, Griffin v. Draper, 32 Wn. App. 611, 649 P.2d 123 (1982)).
Evaan Solomon has been afforded multiple opportunities to deny or rebut LeRoy
Howell’s factual allegations. At each juncture, Solomon chose instead to attack the
credibility of Howell’s attorney and neighbor and to make conclusory statements as to his
ownership of the Latah Creek property. He never properly responded to the substantive
14
No. 37663-0-III
Howell v. Solomon
allegations in Howell’s complaint. He claimed to represent a trust that names others as
the trustee. We could have summarily rejected Solomon’s appeal because he never
assigned any errors to the superior court’s rulings. RAP 10.3(a)(4). Therefore, we grant
LeRoy Howell reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred on appeal.
CONCLUSIONS
We affirm the superior court’s summary judgment order against Evaan Solomon
and default judgment against all other defendants. We grant LeRoy Howell reasonable
attorney fees and costs incurred on appeal Evaan Solomon and the trust.
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, J.
______________________________
Pennell, C.J.
15