Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II
In re the Marriage of CHARLES L. EAKINS, Appellant, and BEVERLY J. EAKINS, Respondent. Quinn-Brintnall, J. -- After Charles L. Eakins filed a petition for legal separation from his wife, Beverly J. Eakins, she filed a motion for temporary financial relief. Charles1 appeals the order granting Beverly's request for temporary relief, arguing that it is void because she did not properly serve him with her motion. Because Charles had actual notice of the hearing and an opportunity to attend and be heard fully, we affirm. Facts Charles and Beverly were married for approximately five years and have a seven-year-old daughter. After Charles petitioned for legal separation, Beverly moved for temporary child UNPUBLISHED OPINION No. 39929-6-II

1

We will refer to the parties by their first names for clarity; no disrespect is intended.

No. 39929-6-II support, maintenance, mortgage payments, vehicle payments, and attorney fees. On the evening of September 25, 2009, her process server posted the following documents on the door of Charles's residence: a note for motion docket, sealed financial source documents with a cover sheet, a motion and declaration for temporary support, and a financial declaration of respondent. On September 30, Charles filed a response to Beverly's motion in which he cited its improper service as one reason to deny the motion. At the beginning of the hearing on the motion, Charles noted his objections to the manner of service, and the trial court replied that it should take that issue up first "[b]ecause that's a preliminary issue whether or not it can be heard today." Report of Proceedings (RP) at 7. The court then attempted to determine whether any of the financial issues raised had already been ruled upon. When the court asked Charles whether it could go ahead with most of Beverly's financial issues, he replied, "We can go ahead." RP at 11. The issue of improper service was not mentioned again during the hearing, but after the court granted Beverly's motion and entered an order awarding her temporary maintenance and other financial relief, Charles again challenged the service in his motion for reconsideration. The court denied reconsideration without a hearing. Charles then sought discretionary review of the order awarding Beverly temporary financial relief. Although he challenged the order on several procedural and substantive grounds, our commissioner granted review on the deficient service issue only.2

2

The commissioner held that Charles did not show that the motion's service was untimely, that the financial declaration contained misstatements of fact, that Beverly's counsel violated CR 11, or that the order failed to satisfy statutory requirements for temporary maintenance orders. 2

No. 39929-6-II Discussion Motion Service Virtually all pleadings, motions, notices, and other documents filed with a trial court must be served on all other parties. CR 5(a); 15 Karl B. Tegland, Washington Practice: Civil

Procedure,

Download 39929-6-11-doc.pdf

Washington Law