Sun Life Assurance Company Of Canada, V Abriel C. Lee, Resp Heidi A. Lee ( 2017 )

Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
August 15, 2017
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY No. 48971-6-II
OF CANADA,
Plaintiff,
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
v.
HEIDI A. LEE,
Appellant,
And
ABRIEL C. LEE,
Respondent.
BJORGEN, C.J. — During the process of dissolving Ronald and Heidi Lee’s marriage,
Ronald violated a temporary order and final dissolution decree by naming his daughter, Abriel
Lee, beneficiary of his life insurance policy.1 Ronald died before he had fulfilled his obligations
under the final dissolution decree. Heidi and Abriel separately submitted a claim to Sun Life
Assurance Company of Canada (Sun Life) for the proceeds from Ronald’s life insurance policy.
In response, Sun Life filed an interpleader action, naming Heidi and Abriel as defendants.
1
Because they share a common last name, we refer to Heidi, Abriel, and Ronald by their first
names for clarity. No disrespect is intended.
No. 48971-6-II
Abriel offered twice to settle with Heidi early in litigation, believing the dissolution
court’s2 intent was only that Ronald name Heidi as his life insurance beneficiary to ensure that
Heidi was paid the maintenance and a judgment awarded to her in the final dissolution decree.
Heidi rejected the settlement offers, contending that the dissolution court’s intent was for her to
receive the entire life insurance policy. Heidi also argued that equity, particularly under an
unclean hands theory, required that she receive the entire amount of the proceeds because of
Ronald’s purposeful conduct in violating the temporary order and final dissolution decree.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Abriel, finding that Heidi was only
entitled to what Ronald still owed her under the judgment awarded in the final dissolution
decree. It also sanctioned Heidi and awarded attorney fees under Jefferson County Local Rule
(JCLR) 7.8, ruling that continuing litigation was frivolous from the point that Abriel first offered
to settle with Heidi.
Heidi appeals these rulings, arguing that the trial court (1) erred in interpreting the
dissolution decree and (2) abused its discretion (a) in making an equitable determination that
Ronald’s violation of the temporary order and final dissolution decree did not entitle Heidi to the
entire life insurance proceeds, (b) in sanctioning Heidi for frivolous litigation and awarding
attorney fees to Abriel, (c) in admitting a letter from Ronald, and (d) in admitting documentation
evidencing Abriel’s two settlement offers. Abriel requests attorney fees on appeal under RAP 18.1
and JCLR 7.8.
We hold that the trial court properly interpreted the dissolution decree and that no abuse
of discretion occurred in its equity determination. We also hold that the trial court abused its
2
We use “dissolution court” to refer to the dissolution proceedings and “trial court” to refer to
the interpleader proceedings.
2
No. 48971-6-II
discretion by awarding attorney fees to Abriel for Heidi’s frivolous litigation under JCLR 7.8.
Given our holdings and reasoning in this opinion, we do not address the propriety of the trial
court’s evidentiary rulings. Finally, we deny Abriel’s request for attorney fees on appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
FACTS
Ronald and Heidi were married from 2001 to 2011. In March 2011, Heidi petitioned for
dissolution of their marriage. A temporary dissolution order was entered, which stated in part:
Both parties are restrained and enjoined from assigning, transferring, borrowing,
lapsing, surrendering or changing entitlement of any insurance policies of either
or both parties whether medical, health, life or auto insurance.
Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 178-79. At the time the temporary dissolution order was entered, Ronald
possessed a life insurance policy through Sun Life totaling $150,000, which named Heidi as
beneficiary. In September 2013, while the temporary dissolution order was still in effect, Ronald
designated his daughter, Abriel, as the sole beneficiary of his life insurance policy.
In March 2014, Heidi and Ronald proceeded to a dissolution trial in superior court. Heidi
contended that Ronald should pay her $2,000 a month spousal maintenance because of their
different incomes and a sum that restored her financial position to when they were first married.
After arguing for these obligations, Heidi’s counsel proposed the following disposition of Ronald’s
life insurance policy:
Finally, in [Ronald’s] financial declaration he referenced a life insurance
policy. . . . We would ask that given the state of his health that he continue to – as
long as he has a spousal maintenance obligation, as long as he still is paying on any
judgment awarded [Heidi] that he continue to maintain that life insurance policy
and continue to name [Heidi] as the beneficiary.
CP at 195.
3
No. 48971-6-II
After Ronald’s attorney gave closing argument, the court extensively outlined Ronald and
Heidi’s financial obligations and property assets and predominantly agreed with Heidi’s position,
awarding her a $35,384 judgment and $2,000 a month in maintenance for eight months. After
making these determinations, the court ruled on the life insurance policy issue:
And [Heidi’s attorney] asked that [Ronald] continue to have the life
insurance on his life until the loan – until the judgment and the maintenance is paid,
and I’ll order that too given his health situation.
CP at 222.
Following the oral ruling, the court entered a written final dissolution decree on April 9,
2014, with the following pertinent provisions:
I. JUDGMENT SUMMARIES
....
3.7 MAINTENANCE
....
Other: The husband shall continue to name the wife as the beneficiary on
his life insurance policy to secure future payment of both his spousal
maintenance obligation and the judgment entered herein.
....
III. DECREE
....
3.15 OTHER
The husband shall continue to name the wife as the beneficiary of his life
insurance policy until both his spousal maintenance obligation terminates
and the judgment is paid in full.
CP at 91-92, 94. Ronald signed the decree despite having already changed the beneficiary of his
life insurance policy to Abriel.
On April 16, 2015, Ronald died. Although he had paid all his spousal maintenance
obligations, Ronald still owed $32,384 plus interest on the judgment.
4
No. 48971-6-II
On June 11 and 21, 2015, Heidi and Abriel, respectively, submitted a claim to Sun Life
for the entirety of the payout under Ronald’s life insurance policy. Because of the competing
claims, Sun Life filed an interpleader complaint on July 27, naming Heidi and Abriel as
defendants. Sun Life, Heidi, and Abriel jointly stipulated to release Sun Life from the case after
it deposited the contested $150,000 life insurance benefit into the superior court’s account.
On August 24, 2015, Heidi responded to the interpleader complaint, asserting a cross
claim against Abriel for a declaratory judgment that Heidi was entitled to the entire $150,000 life
insurance benefit. On September 10, Abriel sent a letter to Heidi offering to resolve Heidi’s
claim against Ronald’s insurance policy for the amount still owed Heidi under the final
dissolution decree. Heidi declined that offer.
On October 19, 2015, Abriel responded to the interpleader complaint and Heidi’s cross
claim for declaratory judgment, arguing that Heidi was entitled to $32,384 plus interest
according to Ronald’s obligation under the final dissolution decree, but that the remaining
proceeds belonged to Abriel. Attached to Abriel’s response was a typed, unsigned letter
purported to be from Ronald. In the letter, Ronald directs Abriel, among other things, to pay
Heidi what she is still owed under the final dissolution decree. In early November, Abriel
offered to settle the case for $45,000, exceeding the amount still owed under the final dissolution
decree. Heidi also rejected this offer.
On January 8, 2016, Heidi moved for summary judgment. She argued that she was
entitled to all the life insurance proceeds because (1) Ronald violated the March 2011 temporary
dissolution order by changing the beneficiary from Heidi to Abriel and (2) Ronald violated the
April 2014 final dissolution decree when he signed it because he had not named Heidi as the
beneficiary of his life insurance policy. Heidi also asked the court for an award of attorney fees
5
No. 48971-6-II
from Abriel “for being forced to file an action to collect on [Ronald]’s outstanding financial
obligations to her.” CP at 168.
Abriel submitted opposing argument, along with documentation related to the September
and November settlement offers and Ronald’s letter. Abriel also moved for a sanction against
Heidi under JLCR 7.8,3 which allows a court to “impose sanctions or terms for any frivolous
motion.” CP at 322. Heidi moved to strike Ronald’s letter and the September and November
settlement offers.4
The same judge who presided over Ronald and Heidi’s dissolution trial ruled on these
motions on February 5, 2016. The trial court denied Heidi’s motion to strike. As to Heidi’s
motion for summary judgment, the trial court agreed with Abriel that under the pertinent case
law, including In re Marriage of Sager, 71 Wash. App. 855, 863 P.2d 106 (1993), Heidi was only
entitled to what Ronald still owed her under the final dissolution decree and that Ronald’s
violation of the temporary order and final decree did not entitle her to receive the entire life
insurance proceeds.
The trial court made the following relevant observations during the oral proceeding:
[Ronald]’s dead. Contempt remedy is not available. We’re not here to punish
somebody. Nobody can file contempt against a dead person. . . so how does giving
Heidi a windfall make any sense?
....
[T]o me it’s crystal, crystal clear that the reason for the insurance was to secure
these obligations because Ron[ald] was ill and there was a concern about whether
she would get all of her money.
....
I don’t think the issue at all is how much is a violation of a Court order worth? I
think that’s a complete mischaracterization of it. I mean, people violate this Court’s
3
Http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/supcourt/PDFs/LocalCourtRules_9-1-16.pdf.
4
Heidi also moved for sanctions under CR 11 because Abriel “intentionally included and
referenced inadmissible evidence” in her response to Heidi’s summary judgment motion. CP at
372. These sanctions were implicitly denied later and are not the subject of this appeal.
6
No. 48971-6-II
orders all the time. And, but, I mean, I’m not here to try to punish somebody for
that who’s deceased, or his surviving daughter. . . . [A]s I mentioned, this is an
equitable considerable [sic]. An equitable proceeding, interpleader. But it’s an
equitable situation and the cases clearly give the Court discretion and to act in
equity to do what’s right and appropriate here.
I’m going to deny Heidi’s motion for summary judgment. And, in fact, I’m going
to grant -- well, I’m going to deny it and grant [Abriel’s], . . . summary judgment,
basically. I’ll enter a judgment in favor of her.
And the way this will be . . . Heidi Lee gets the amount that she’s owed.
Report of Proceedings (RP) at 16, 27-28, 32.
The court also granted Abriel’s sanction motion under JCLR 7.8, awarding her attorney
fees from the point when she made the September settlement offer. The court stated:
COURT: And finally, on September 10, 2015, is when, is when I have the
documented evidence that Ab[riel] was trying to settle this by paying, paying Heidi
off. . . . So, from September 11th forward Heidi pays Ab[riel]’s attorney’s fees and
costs. And, . . . because to me I don’t know why we’re here.
To me this is obvious. It was for security purposes only. Heidi’s asking for
a complete unjustified windfall and it just amazes me. And, um, and in the
meantime Ab[riel]’s had to spend beau coups bucks just to get what, in my opinion,
she’s entitled to. And . . . Heidi was missing nothing. She, the cash is available
for her to get everything she was awarded in the divorce. And so, I mean, my
decision is specific to these facts.
....
[Heidi’s Counsel]: The award of attorney’s fees. What rule is that based
upon?
COURT: . . . Local Rule 7. . . the frivolous rule. I mean . . . I’m not going
to order them under CR 11. But I’ll tell you, I gotta be honest, it’s as close as it
could be. Because, because of what I just said. I, I-- well, this case is . . . frivolous,
in my mind, given Abi’s offer to pay everything that Heidi was owed. So, from
that point forward, in my mind, the litigation was frivolous.
RP at 33-34.
In its written order, the court entered the following pertinent findings reflecting its oral
ruling:
(3) The undisputed material facts and settled law require that the insurance
proceeds deposited with this court under this action be distributed to the
7
No. 48971-6-II
named beneficiary, Abriel C. Lee, after Heidi A. Lee receives payment for
the balance Ronald E. Lee owed her under their dissolution decree when he
died;
....
(5) Heidi Lee’s summary judgment motion and subsequent pleadings were
frivolous motions in violation of [J]LCR 7.8 because the settled case law
established in Marriage of Sager, 71 App .855, 863 P.2d 106 (1993),
which involved the same issues argued by Heidi Lee in her motion,
limited Heidi A. Lee’s recovery from Ronald E. Lee’s life insurance
proceeds to the amount Abriel C. Lee offered to pay Heidi A. Lee on or
before September 10, 2015.
(6) Pursuant to [J]LCR 7.8 this court exercises its discretion to impose
sanctions against Heidi A. Lee for her frivolous motion and require her to
pay Abriel C. Lee the costs and attorney fees she incurred in this case after
September 10, 2015.
CP at 477-78.
Heidi appeals.
ANALYSIS
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
An interpleader action proceeds in two stages: (1) determining the propriety of
interpleading adverse claimants to a fund held by a disinterested stakeholder and discharging the
stakeholder and (2) equitably dispensing the fund among the claimants. Wash. Irr. & Dev. Co. v.
United States of Am., 110 Wash. 2d 288, 297, 751 P.2d 1178 (1988). The issues in this appeal only
involve the second stage. Because the distribution of funds in an interpleader action is a matter
of equity, id., we examine that issue using equitable principles.
We review de novo an order granting summary judgment. Nichols v. Peterson NW, Inc.,
197 Wash. App. 491, 498, 389 P.3d 617 (2016). If there are no genuine issues of material fact, the
second stage of an interpleader action may be adjudicated on a summary judgment motion. Fed.
Old Line Ins. Co. v. McClintick, 18 Wash. App. 510, 516, 569 P.2d 1206 (1977). Neither Heidi nor
Abriel argues that there are any material facts disputed on appeal. Thus, with no genuine issue
8
No. 48971-6-II
as to any material fact, we review de novo whether the trial court properly granted judgment as a
matter of law. See CR 56(c).
II. INTERPRETATION OF DISSOLUTION DECREE AND EQUITABLE DETERMINATION
Heidi argues that the trial court erred by awarding her only what Ronald was still
obligated to pay her based on the judgment under the final dissolution decree. In approaching
Heidi’s argument, we examine: (1) whether the trial court appropriately interpreted the final
dissolution decree; and (2) whether the trial court reasonably exercised its discretion by denying
Heidi’s request to receive all the life insurance proceeds as an equitable remedy for Ronald’s
violations of the dissolution decree.
1. Interpretation of Final Dissolution Decree
Heidi argues that the trial court erred when it determined that the life insurance policy
only secured Ronald’s maintenance obligation and judgment awarded to Heidi in the final
dissolution decree. We disagree with Heidi.
The interpretation of a dissolution decree is a question of law reviewed de novo. Stokes
v. Polley, 145 Wash. 2d 341, 346, 37 P.3d 1211 (2001). Washington courts apply rules of
construction applicable to statutes and contracts to determine the intent of the court in entering a
dissolution decree. Id. A decree should be construed as a whole, giving meaning and effect to
each word. Id. If the decree is ambiguous, we may examine extrinsic evidence in interpreting it.
See In re Marriage of Smith, 158 Wash. App. 248, 257, 241 P.3d 449 (2010).
Washington courts have had prior opportunities to examine the relationship between a
dissolution decree and the designation of a beneficiary in a life insurance policy. In Aetna Life
Insurance Co. v. Bunt, 110 Wash. 2d 368, 369-70, 754 P.2d 993 (1988), the husband and first
wife’s children were named “irrevocable beneficiaries” in the husband’s life insurance policy as
9
No. 48971-6-II
part of their dissolution decree. The husband changed the beneficiary from his children to his
second wife, and he subsequently died. Id. at 370. The court held that the decedent-husband’s
designation of the second wife was “contrary to law” under the language of the decree, and thus
the children were entitled to the entire proceeds from the life insurance policy. Id. at 377, 380-
81.
Similarly, in Standard Insurance Co. v. Schwalbe, 110 Wash. 2d 520, 522, 755 P.2d 802
(1988), the husband had a life insurance policy, naming his wife as beneficiary. The husband
filed for dissolution of the marriage, and the trial court entered a preliminary injunction
preventing the husband from changing the beneficiaries in his life insurance policy. Id. at 521-
22. The stated purpose of the preliminary injunction was to protect “the best interests of the
minor child(ren)” and required the husband to pay a specific amount of temporary child support.
Id. at 521, 525 (alteration in original). In violation of the injunction, the husband added a co-
beneficiary on the policy. Id. at 522. The husband committed suicide before a final dissolution
order could be entered. Id. In an equitable proceeding, the trial court awarded the wife the entire
life insurance proceeds, finding that the husband’s violation of the injunction voided any change
in the beneficiaries. Id.
Our Supreme Court in Schwalbe upheld the trial court’s ruling, holding:
[T]he trial court ordered Mr. Schwalbe to pay temporary child support and entered
a preliminary injunction in the nature of a security-for-support provision which
enjoined Mr. Schwalbe from changing the beneficiary named in his life insurance
policy. The stated purpose of the preliminary injunction was to protect “the best
interests of the minor child(ren).” To give effect to Mr. Schwalbe’s change of
beneficiary would nullify the purpose of the trial court’s order. Under these
circumstances, Mrs. Schwalbe and the children obtained an equitable interest in the
policy which precluded Mr. Schwalbe from changing the beneficiary during
pendency of the dissolution suit.
Id. at 525 (citation omitted). In a footnote, the Schwalbe court noted that it was not reaching
“whether the intended effect of the preliminary injunction was to limit the right of Mrs.
10
No. 48971-6-II
Schwalbe and her children to only those policy proceeds necessary to discharge Mr. Schwalbe’s
future support and maintenance obligations.” Id. at 523, n.1.
Five years later, our court decided Sager, 71 Wash. App. at 857-58, where the final
dissolution decree for the husband and his first wife required the husband to “make the minor
children . . . beneficiaries of the . . . life insurance policies which exist through his place of
employment.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) The final dissolution decree also specified
the precise dollar amount that the husband would have to pay each month for each child until
they reached the age of 18. Id. The husband remarried, removed his children as beneficiaries of
the life insurance policy, named his second wife the beneficiary, and subsequently died. See id.
at 857-58. The first wife (on behalf of her minor child) and the second wife both claimed the life
insurance proceeds. Id. at 858.
The Sager court examined whether the intent underlying the divorce decree was to limit
the first wife’s recovery under the life insurance policy to what the husband still owed her for
child support. Id. at 862. The court held that
the intent here is obvious from the face of the decree. . . . [T]he intent was only to
provide security that would pay [the husband]’s child support obligation in the
event he died. Effectuating this intent, we construe the decree as requiring [the
husband] to name his minor children as beneficiaries of his insurance only to the
extent necessary to secure his child support obligation.
Id. at 862-63. Thus, under this theory the first wife could only claim the amount from the life
insurance benefit necessary to pay the husband’s remaining child support obligations to her. See
id. at 864.
As an initial matter, Heidi appears to argue that Ronald’s violation of the temporary
dissolution order, as a matter of law, permitted her to recover the entire proceeds of the life
insurance policy. Abriel does not contest Heidi’s representation that Ronald violated the
11
No. 48971-6-II
temporary dissolution order by changing the beneficiary of his life insurance policy from Heidi
to Abriel. Indeed, the outcome in Schwalbe, 110 Wash. 2d at 525, suggests that Ronald’s violation
of the temporary order may have entitled Heidi to the entire life insurance proceeds.
However, unlike the decedent in Schwalbe, who died before any final dissolution order
was issued, Ronald died after the final dissolution decree was entered. As pointed out by Abriel,
Brief of Respondent at 14-15, a temporary dissolution order “[t]erminates when the final decree
is entered.”5 RCW 26.09.060(10)(c); see Lindsey v. Lindsey, 54 Wash. App. 834, 835, 776 P.2d
172 (1989). Thus, by operation of law, the final divorce decree between Heidi and Ronald
superseded the temporary order. The final decree therefore controls in determining whether
Heidi is entitled to recover from the life insurance policy and, if so, in what amount.
Turning then to the controlling final dissolution decree, the pertinent provisions
governing Ronald’s life insurance policy read:
3.7 MAINTENANCE
....
Other: The husband shall continue to name the wife as the beneficiary on
his life insurance policy to secure future payment of both his spousal
maintenance obligation and the judgment entered herein.
....
3.15 OTHER
The husband shall continue to name the wife as the beneficiary of his life
insurance policy until both his spousal maintenance obligation terminates
and the judgment is paid in full.
CP at 91-92.
The meaning of these provisions is unmistakable. Provision 3.7 shows that the purpose
of continuing to name Heidi as the beneficiary is “to secure” Ronald’s maintenance and
judgment obligations. Consistently with that purpose, provision 3.15 mandates that Heidi remain
5
There are exceptions to this rule. Heidi does not argue that any apply in this case.
12
No. 48971-6-II
the beneficiary until those obligations are fulfilled. Thus, similar to the plain meaning of the
final dissolution decree deduced in Sager, we find that the dissolution court’s intent here was for
Ronald to name Heidi as beneficiary to secure payment of his maintenance and judgment
obligations.
Even if we assumed that the plain meaning is not clear, the extrinsic evidence removes
any doubt that this was the dissolution court’s intent. The oral transcript of the final dissolution
trial shows that Heidi argued extensively for Ronald to pay maintenance and a judgment to her to
restore her to the position she had at the time they were first married. Heidi wanted to be named
beneficiary “as long as he has a spousal maintenance obligation” or “still . . . paying on any
judgment” because of Ronald’s declining health. CP at 195. Nothing from her argument
indicated that she was claiming the entire $150,000 life insurance benefit as part of the financial
and property division.
Similarly, the dissolution court discussed in detail the ramifications to both parties in
awarding Heidi maintenance and a judgment. It ordered Heidi to be named beneficiary “until the
judgment and the maintenance is paid” because of Ronald’s health. CP at 222.6 If the
dissolution court’s intent was for Heidi to receive the full benefit of Ronald’s life insurance
policy in the event he died, the court would have used more explicit language to effectuate this
purpose. Instead, relying on Heidi’s closing argument, it ordered her be named beneficiary to
simply ensure that she receive her maintenance and judgment.
6
In her briefing, Heidi argues that we cannot rely on the trial court’s oral ruling to ascertain the
intent of the final dissolution decree. However, if a decree is ambiguous, a court is permitted to
turn to such extrinsic evidence to ascertain the intent of the dissolution decree. See Smith, 158
Wash. App. at 257.
13
No. 48971-6-II
In short, the temporary dissolution order was supplanted by the final dissolution decree,
and the final dissolution decree controlled. The trial court did not err in determining that the
final dissolution decree only named Heidi beneficiary to ensure that she received her
maintenance and judgment. Thus, its distribution of the insurance proceeds—giving Heidi what
Ronald still owed her when he died and giving Abriel the balance of funds—was fully consistent
with the final dissolution decree.
2. Reasonableness of Equitable Remedy
The next question is whether the trial court abused its discretion by not awarding Heidi,
in equity, the entire benefit of the life insurance policy because of Ronald’s violations of the
temporary order and final dissolution decree. We find no abuse of discretion.
In matters of equity, the trial court has broad discretionary power to fashion equitable
relief for parties that addresses the particular facts of each case. See SAC Downtown Ltd. P’ship
v. Kahn, 123 Wash. 2d 197, 204, 867 P.2d 605 (1994); see also Kelsey v. Kelsey, 179 Wash. App.
360, 369, 317 P.3d 1096 (2014). As such, we review a trial court’s determination in equity for
an abuse of discretion. Cornish Coll. of the Arts v. 1000 Virginia Ltd. P’ship, 158 Wash. App. 203,
221, 242 P.3d 1 (2010). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is
manifestly unreasonable or is exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons. Id.
As determined above, the dissolution court intended that Ronald name Heidi beneficiary
only to secure his maintenance and judgment obligations. However, Heidi argues that because
Ronald deliberately violated both the temporary order and final dissolution decree, she should be
entitled to the entire life insurance proceeds. Further, she contends that under the unclean hands
doctrine, Abriel inherited the onus of Ronald’s inequitable conduct, nullifying her expectation
interest in the life insurance policy.
14
No. 48971-6-II
As a threshold matter, Abriel argues that Heidi waived her unclean hands argument by
failing to bring it to the trial court’s attention. Because the trial court’s decision implicitly
considered many aspects of the unclean hands doctrine, we address the issue.
In general, “a party with unclean hands cannot recover in equity.” Burt v. Dep’t of Corr.,
191 Wash. App. 194, 210, 361 P.3d 283 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Those who act
unjustly or in bad faith are deemed to act with unclean hands. See Miller v. Paul M. Wolff Co.,
178 Wash. App. 957, 965, 316 P.3d 1113 (2014); see Burt, 191 Wash. App. at 210-11. The term
“unclean hands” is “a figurative description of a class of suitors to whom a Court of Equity as a
court of conscience will not even listen, because the conduct of such suitors is unconscionable,
i.e. morally reprehensible as to known facts.” J. L. Cooper & Co. v. Anchor Sec. Co., 9 Wash. 2d
45, 72, 113 P.2d 845 (1941).
Even assuming that Ronald’s conduct was inequitable, his unclean hands are not
somehow imputed to Abriel. By its nature, the “wrong” of inequitable conduct is that of the
actor. Ronald, not Abriel, changed the beneficiary designation in violation of the temporary
order and final dissolution decree. Any stain from those actions is not somehow transferred to
Abriel simply by her status as a beneficiary. Thus, in its ruling the trial court correctly stated,
“I’m not here to try to punish somebody for that who’s deceased, or his surviving daughter.” RP
at 32. Heidi also takes issue with the trial court’s statement that “people violate this Court’s
orders all the time” and argues that its decision may incentivize individuals to disregard court
orders. RP at 32. In context, however, this was merely a statement to support the trial court’s
opinion that Abriel should not bear the adverse consequences of Ronald’s acts. The statement
does not call the trial court’s decision into question.
15
No. 48971-6-II
Furthermore, Heidi’s position was that the “worth” of Ronald’s violations was the entire
$150,000 from the life insurance policy. RP at 15. The trial court disagreed, stating that the
usual remedy is to hold a violator in contempt and that it made no sense to punish Abriel and
give Heidi a windfall. If Ronald were still alive, the court could have held him in contempt.
However, it was in the trial court’s discretion to determine a fair and equitable remedy based on
the specific circumstances presented to it. The trial court did not want to punish Abriel, an
innocent actor, for Ronald’s earlier violation of a temporary order, which inflicted no tangible
harm on Heidi.
Therefore, without any other equitable basis to support awarding Heidi the entire amount
of the life insurance policy, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its equitable
ruling.7
III. THE TRIAL COURT SANCTION AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES
Heidi next argues that we should reverse the trial court’s sanction awarding attorney fees
to Abriel under JCLR 7.8. We agree with Heidi because her position was not frivolous.
We review a trial court’s decision to impose a sanction under a court rule for an abuse of
discretion. See State ex rel. Quick-Ruben v. Verharen, 136 Wash. 2d 888, 903, 969 P.2d 64 (1998).
According to JCLR 7.8, “[t]he court may impose sanctions or terms for any frivolous motion,
non-appearance, or in granting a continuance of any matter.” Here, the trial court imposed a
sanction of attorney fees because it concluded that it was frivolous for Heidi to continue
litigation after Abriel made the September settlement offer.
7
Heidi also invites us to review Ronald and Heidi’s property distribution under the final
dissolution decree to examine whether the trial court abused its discretion in fashioning the
equitable remedy. We decline to do so. In this matter, the only relevance of the final dissolution
decree was to ascertain the purpose of the life insurance beneficiary provisions.
16
No. 48971-6-II
Because the JCLRs do not contain a definition of “frivolous,” we must first decipher its
meaning. The interpretation of a court rule is a question of law reviewed de novo. Marquez v.
Cascade Residential Design, Inc., 142 Wash. App. 187, 191, 174 P.3d 151 (2007). We interpret
court rules the same way we interpret statutes, using the tools of statutory construction. State v.
Otton, 185 Wash. 2d 673, 681, 374 P.3d 1108 (2016). Thus, we begin with examining the plain
language of the rule. Id.
If a word is undefined in statute, we may use a standard dictionary definition to find the
term’s plain and ordinary meaning. Audit & Adjustment Co. v. Earl, 165 Wash. App. 497, 503,
267 P.3d 441 (2011). Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (2002) at 913 defines
“frivolous” as “of little weight or importance: having no basis in law or fact.” Black’s Law
Dictionary (Ninth Edition) at 739 defines “frivolous” as “[l]acking a legal basis or legal merit;
not serious; not reasonably purposeful.” Under RCW 4.84.185, which is a statutory mechanism
to award a party attorney fees for frivolous litigation, a frivolous action is defined as “one that
cannot be supported by any rational argument [i]n the law or facts.” Clarke, 56 Wash. App. at
131-32; see also Dave Johnson Ins., Inc. v. Wright, 167 Wash. App. 758, 785, 275 P.3d 339
(2012). Accordingly, we adopt these definitions for the meaning of “frivolous” in JCLR 7.8.
The trial court’s specific reason for finding Heidi’s continued litigation frivolous was that
“the settled case law,” particularly Sager, 71 Wash. App. 855, was clear that Heidi’s recovery was
limited only to what she was still owed under the final dissolution decree and Abriel’s September
settlement offer covered that amount. CP at 477-48. The husband-decedent in Sager, though,
violated only a final dissolution decree, not a temporary order as well. Ronald violated both
types. Even though we ultimately disagree with Heidi’s position, there is room for rational
argument that Sager did not preclude her position. Heidi’s argument was not frivolous, and the
17
No. 48971-6-II
trial court thus abused its discretion in sanctioning Heidi and awarding attorney fees to Abriel on
that basis.
IV. MOTION TO STRIKE
Heidi next argues that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to strike Ronald’s
letter and the September and November settlement offers. However, we need not consider the
arguments on the merits given our holdings and reasoning in this opinion.
Abriel offered Ronald’s letter and the two settlement offers only to rebut Heidi’s
argument that she was entitled to attorney fees for being forced to pursue litigation against
Abriel. Heidi does not argue on appeal that the trial court erred in not awarding her attorney fees
and costs. Thus, the main purpose for which Abriel offered the evidence is not an issue before
this court.
Further, although the trial court relied on Ronald’s letter and the settlement offers to
determine that Heidi had pursued frivolous litigation, we determined above that the trial court
abused its discretion by awarding attorney fees to Abriel on that basis. Given our holding, Heidi
is not prejudiced by these documents.8 For these reasons, we do not further address the propriety
of admitting Ronald’s letter and the settlement offers.
V. ATTORNEY FEES ON APPEAL
Finally, Abriel asks for attorney fees on appeal under JCLR 7.8 and RAP 18.1. Under
RAP 18.1(a), we may award attorney fees on appeal if applicable law authorizes them. More
specifically, if applicable law permits recovery of attorney fees at trial, the prevailing party may
8
We also note that the trial court in part relied on Ronald’s letter to determine that his violations
of the orders were not purposeful. However, we assumed above that Ronald had intentionally
violated the orders and had unclean hands in analyzing the reasonableness of the trial court’s
equitable determination.
18
No. 48971-6-II
recover fees on appeal under the same law. See Landberg v. Carlson, 108 Wash. App. 749, 758,
33 P.3d 406 (2001). However, we decline Abriel’s request for attorney fees because, as already
determined in Part III, Sager and the other seminal cases did not involve a situation where the
decedent violated two dissolution orders. Thus, Heidi had at least a reasonable argument that she
was entitled to more than what Ronald owed her under the final dissolution decree.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s distribution of the life insurance proceeds, but reverse its
sanction awarding attorney fees to Abriel. We decline Abriel’s request for attorney fees on
appeal.
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.
BJORGEN, C.J.
We concur:
LEE, J.
MELNICK, J.
19