|
DO NOT CITE. SEE GR 14.1(a).
Court of Appeals Division I
State of Washington
Opinion Information Sheet
| Docket Number: |
65743-7 |
| Title of Case: |
In Re The Marriage Of: Moninder Pal, Respondent V. Kuljit Singh, Appellant |
| File Date: |
03/12/2012 |
SOURCE OF APPEAL
----------------
| Appeal from Snohomish Superior Court |
| Docket No: | 04-3-00537-1 |
| Judgment or order under review |
| Date filed: | 06/25/2010 |
| Judge signing: | Honorable Eric Z Judge Lucas |
JUDGES
------
| Authored by | Ronald Cox |
| Concurring: | Michael S. Spearman |
| Anne Ellington |
COUNSEL OF RECORD
-----------------
Counsel for Appellant(s) |
| | Kuljit Singh (Appearing Pro Se) |
| | 9900 12th Ave W. Apt. # A205 |
| | Everett, WA, 98204 |
Counsel for Respondent(s) |
| | Lisa K. Clark |
| | Law Office of Lisa K Clark |
| | 2803 Boylston Ave E |
| | Seattle, WA, 98102-3005 |
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In re the Marriage of ) No. 65743-7-I
)
MONINDER PAL, ) DIVISION ONE
)
Respondent, )
)
and )
)
KULJIT SINGH, ) UNPUBLISHED
)
Appellant. ) FILED: March 12, 2012
COX, J. -- Kuljit Singh appeals an order enforcing a decree of dissolution
distributing marital property and a subsequent order denying revision of an order
denying reconsideration. Because Singh's appeal from the order denying
revision lacks merit, we affirm that order. His appeal from the order enforcing
the decree is untimely. We dismiss it. Respondent Moninder Pal's request for
attorney fees on appeal is granted.
In 2005, Singh and Pal negotiated a dissolution decree awarding Pal a
$20,000 judgment as "a property equalizing payment. . . ."1 The decree provided
that if Singh did not satisfy the judgment, "the wife shall be able to collect said
judgment from the Boeing [retirement] assets awarded to husband above."2
Singh filed a bankruptcy petition. In February 2006, the federal
bankruptcy court entered an order granting Singh a discharge under 11 U.S.C.
1 Clerk's Papers at 30.
2 Clerk's Papers at 210
No. 65743-7-I/2
sec. 727.
In September 2009, Pal moved for an order enforcing the decree. She
alleged that Singh had not paid the judgment in the decree, and therefore she
was entitled, under the terms of the decree, to collect the judgment from his
retirement benefits. The court granted the motion and specifically ordered that
the judgment amount "shall be obtained from the first available Boeing
retirement account of the respondent . . . ."3 There is no indication in the record
that the court was informed of Singh's bankruptcy filing.
In March 2010, Pal again moved for an order enforcing the decree.
Noting that the Boeing plan administrator was requesting clarification in light of
Singh's bankruptcy, Pal argued that Singh was bound by the 2009 order
enforcing the decree, and that she was entitled to the judgment amount
regardless of the bankruptcy order.
On April 28, 2010, the court granted the motion, stating in its order that
"even if Respondent successfully bankrupted the judgment on page one of the
decree of dissolution, the Respondent's obligation to pay to the Petitioner her
share of community asset[s] from his Boeing retirement benefits remains."4 The
clerk's minute entry states:
The decree in this matter clearly states that either the amounts get
paid directly by the husband, or the amounts will come out of the
retirement asset. Despite the husband's bankruptcy, he still owes
the money, and must pay it from the retirement asset. . . . The
3 Clerk's Papers at 181.
4 Clerk's Papers at 82.
- 2 -
No. 65743-7-I/3
court has considered the bankruptcy issue, and the court finds that
there is no discharge in the bankruptcy of the amounts specified in
the decree.[5]
On May 19, 2010, Singh filed an untimely motion for reconsideration of
the order enforcing the decree.
On June 1, 2010, the court denied the motion for reconsideration.
On June 11, 2010, Singh filed a declaration and motion in which he
sought "review" of the order denying reconsideration and the underlying order
enforcing the decree. In her responsive declaration, Pal alleged that Singh had
never served his untimely motion for reconsideration, and that his motion to
review or revise the decision denying reconsideration of the enforcement order
was untimely.
On June 25, 2010, the court denied Singh's motion for review or revision
for failure to follow court rules.
On July 23, 2010, Singh filed a notice of appeal from the June 25 order
and the underlying April 28, 2010 order enforcing the decree.
Singh contends the court commissioner erred in granting Pal's motion to
enforce the decree and judgment because the debt had been discharged in his
bankruptcy proceedings. He contends the commissioner also erred in awarding
Pal interest and attorney fees. We do not consider these claims because, for
the reasons set forth below, Singh's appeal of the commissioner's order
5 Clerk's Papers at 81.
- 3 -
No. 65743-7-I/4
enforcing the decree is untimely.
A party must normally file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the decision
for which review is sought. RAP 5.2(a). The 30-day period is extended,
however, by a timely motion for reconsideration. RAP 5.2(a), (e). In this case,
the order enforcing the decree was entered on April 28, 2010. Absent a timely
motion for reconsideration, the notice of appeal should have been filed within 30
days.6 Singh did not file a notice of appeal within the 30-day period. Nor did he
file a timely motion for reconsideration. Under CR 59(b), a motion for
reconsideration had to be filed within 10 days of the April 28, 2010 decision.
Singh, however, did not file his motion until May 19, 2010. The motion was
therefore untimely.
Singh timely moved to revise the ruling denying reconsideration. But he
offered no basis for concluding that the motion for reconsideration was timely
filed. And while he timely appealed the superior court's denial of his motion to
revise, he still fails to provide any basis for concluding that his motion for
reconsideration was timely filed. Accordingly, his motion to revise the order on
reconsideration was properly denied, his appeal of the June 25, 2010 order
denying revision is without merit, and his appeal of the underlying April 28, 2010
6 Griffin v. Draper, 32 Wn. App. 611, 613, 649 P.2d 123 (1982) (untimely motion for
reconsideration has no effect on commencement of the time for filing an appeal from the
underlying judgment); Schaefco, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission, 121 Wn.2d 366,
367-68, 849 P.2d 1225 (1993) (because motion for reconsideration was untimely, it did not
extend the 30-day limit for filing the notice of appeal).
- 4 -
No. 65743-7-I/5
order enforcing the decree is untimely and must be dismissed.7
ATTORNEY FEES
Pal requests attorney fees on appeal under RCW 4.84.185. That statute
authorizes an award of fees if an appeal is frivolous. 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.8
Because Singh's appeal of the order denying revision is frivolous, and because
there are no debatable issues regarding the untimeliness of Singh's appeal of
the order enforcing the decree, we award Pal fees on appeal, subject to her
compliance with RAP 18.1(d).
We affirm in part, dismiss in part, and award fees.
WE CONCUR:
7 Schaefco, Inc., 121 Wn.2d at 368.
8 Building Industry Association of Washington v. McCarthy, 152 Wn. App. 720, 746, 218
P.3d 196 (2009).
- 5 -
|
