Adam Corbit, et ux v. Andrey Samolovov

CourtCourt of Appeals of Washington
DecidedJune 25, 2019
Docket36135-7
StatusUnpublished

This text of Adam Corbit, et ux v. Andrey Samolovov (Adam Corbit, et ux v. Andrey Samolovov) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Adam Corbit, et ux v. Andrey Samolovov, (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

FILED JUNE 25, 2019 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

ADAM CORBIT and JILL CORBIT, ) Husband and Wife, ) No. 36135-7-III ) Respondents, ) ) v. ) ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ANDREY SAMOLOVOV, a single ) person, and LYUDMILA GREBEN, a ) single person, ) ) Appellants. )

FEARING, J. — Andrey Samolovov and Lyudmila Greben appeal a default order

and judgment entered against them. Because they fail to address the validity of the

default order and judgment, we affirm the trial court and grant Adam and Jill Corbit

reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred on appeal. No. 36135-7-III Corbit v. Samolovov

FACTS

Appellants Andrey Samolovov and Lyudmila Greben’s statement of the case in

their opening brief is sparse with facts and lacks any citation to the trial court record in

violation of RAP 10.3(a)(5). Therefore, we glean facts from the citations to the record

afforded in respondent Adam and Jill Corbit’s brief and the findings of fact entered by

the trial court.

On October 30, 2017, Adam and Jill Corbit purchased 9522 West Nelson Drive,

Nine Mile Falls, from a third party. The Corbits then received and recorded a statutory

warranty deed for the property. At the time of closing, the Corbits’ escrow agent paid the

property’s 2015, 2016, and 2017 real property taxes totaling $7,661.99. Without the

Corbits’ knowledge or consent, Andrey Samolovov and Lyudmila Greben also paid

$7,661.99 for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 property taxes on the property before the Corbits’

purchase.

The Spokane County Treasurer, having received multiple payments for taxes on

the same real property, reimbursed Andrey Samolovov and Lyudmila Greben $7,661.99

on November 9, 2017. Despite the reimbursement, Samolovov and Greben recorded a

“Tax Lien Notice” with the Spokane County Auditor on the property on December 5,

2017. On January 2, 2018, the Corbits’ attorney sent a letter via certified mail to

Samolovov and Greben requesting that they release the lien on the property. Samolovov

and Greben refused.

2 No. 36135-7-III Corbit v. Samolovov

On March 26, 2018, the Corbits listed the Nine Mile Falls property for sale. The

property’s preliminary title commitment reported the Samolovov/Greben “Tax Lien

Notice” as an encumbrance on the Corbits’ title. The unresolved “Tax Lien Notice”

frustrated the Corbits’ ability to sell the property.

PROCEDURE

On March 29, 2018, Adam and Jill Corbit filed this action seeking an order

quieting title in the Corbits’ favor, extinguishing the Samolovov/Greben “Tax Lien

Notice” as an encumbrance on the property, and an award of damages for slander of title.

The Corbits served Andrey Samolovov and Lyudmila Greben with the summons and

complaint by personal service on April 6, 2018. On April 16, 2018, Samolovov and

Greben filed a document with the trial court and served a copy on the Corbits’ counsel.

The responding document states, in its entirety:

“COMES NOW, ANDREY SAMOLOVOV and LYUDMILA GREBEN, Husband and Wife, to response, representing themselves.”

Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 30, 144.

On April 26, 2018, the time for answering Adam and Jill Corbit’s complaint

expired. On April 27, the Corbits filed a motion for default and noted a hearing on their

motion for May 11, 2018. On April 30, the Corbits delivered a copy of the motion and

notice of hearing to Andrey Samolovov and Lyudmila Greben. On April 30, the trial

court rescheduled the default hearing to May 18, 2018, at 11:00 a.m. On May 3, the

3 No. 36135-7-III Corbit v. Samolovov

Corbits delivered a new notice of hearing with the new hearing date and time to

Samolovov and Greben.

On May 14, 2018, Andrey Samolovov and Lyudmila Greben filed a written

document with the trial court requesting a “Russian independent translator.” CP at 31.

The trial court arranged for a translator to be present at the May 18 hearing. On May 18,

2018, at 11:00 a.m., the trial court began the hearing on Adam and Jill Corbit’s motion

for default. The Corbits, their counsel, and the translator attended the hearing.

Samolovov and Greben did not appear. During the hearing, the Corbits’ counsel

represented to the trial court that the attorney fees and costs incurred through the default

proceedings totaled $2,754.77. An affidavit of Adam Corbit filed with the court on May

7, 2018, confirmed that the Corbits had incurred fees and costs in the amount of

$2,754.77.

Based on its review of the record, the trial court concluded that (1) Adam and Jill

Corbit owned in fee simple the Nine Mile Falls property, (2) the lien filed by Andrey

Samolovov and Lyudmila Greben encumbered the Corbits’ property and prevented the

Corbits from closing on the sale of the property, and (3) the Corbits had no alternative but

to resort to litigation to remove the lien. The trial court also concluded that Samolovov

and Greben’s April 18 one-page response did not meet the requirements of an answer,

under CR 8(b), because the response failed to respond to or defend the averments

asserted in the Corbits’ complaint. The trial court further ruled that Samolovov and

4 No. 36135-7-III Corbit v. Samolovov

Greben received notice of the default hearing, but did not respond to the Corbits’ motion

for default and failed to appear at the hearing. The trial court entered a default order, an

order quieting title in the Corbits’ favor, an order declaring slander of title, and a

judgment for attorney fees and costs of $2,754.77.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Substance or Lack Thereof of Appeal

Andrey Samolovov and Lyudmila Greben present this court with an opening brief

devoid of RAP 10.3 requirements. Samolovov and Greben’s statement of the case

provides few facts and lacks references to the procedural aspects of the case in violation

of RAP 10.3(a)(5). Their argument section appears in a table of contents format and has

no citations to legal authority and references no part of the record in violation of RAP

10.3(a)(6).

The entirety of Andrey Samolovov and Lyudmila Greben’s argument reads:

ARGUMENT

VII. THIS CASE IS MUDDED BY QUESTIONS OF AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE VIII. PAYMENT OF TAXES IX. IMPROPER CLOSING X. NOT ADDRESSING XI. NO BOND WAS PUT IN PLACE XII. WE HAVE ASKED FOR A COPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY XIII. WE HAVE A SIGNED STATEMENT THAT THE SIGNATURE WAS NOT OF THE MOTHER.

5 No. 36135-7-III Corbit v. Samolovov

Br. of Appellant at 6. They assign no error to the trial court’s findings of fact or

conclusions of law. Their argument section is preceded by a summary but that summary

fails to provide clarity as to what exactly Samolovov and Greben argue. It reads:

Andrey Samolovov paid three years of property tax for said property. The house was going into foreclosure, we were asked by member of family to solve the loss of said home. Funds to be given to “said” party for their efforts on saving the house. We put lien by the law. The other party did not provide any power of attorney. Without a proper power of attorney and proper dating this would be an invalid sale.

Br. of Appellant at 5. Nowhere do Samolovov and Greben address the validity of the

default order entered against them for failing to properly answer the complaint. Finally,

and in violation of RAP 10.3(a)(7), Samolovov and Greben do not state the precise relief

they seek.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rorvig v. Douglas
873 P.2d 492 (Washington Supreme Court, 1994)
Valente v. Bailey
447 P.2d 589 (Washington Supreme Court, 1968)
Avellaneda v. State
273 P.3d 477 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2012)
Meeks v. Meeks
379 P.2d 982 (Washington Supreme Court, 1963)
Avellaneda v. State
167 Wash. App. 474 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2012)
Protect the Peninsula's Future v. City of Port Angeles
304 P.3d 914 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Adam Corbit, et ux v. Andrey Samolovov, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adam-corbit-et-ux-v-andrey-samolovov-washctapp-2019.