City of Richland v. Linda Alexander

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: October 29, 2024
• Docket: 39361-5
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED OCTOBER 29, 2024 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

CITY OF RICHLAND, a municipal ) corporation, ) No. 39361-5-III ) Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION LINDA ALEXANDER; LIVE ) VICTORIOUSLY MINISTRIES, ) ) Appellants. )

STAAB, A.C.J. — Linda Alexander and Live Victoriously Ministries (Alexander)

appeal from an order on summary judgment and order for abatement of nuisance

violations granted to the city of Richland. We affirm the order and deny the appeal

because Alexander has failed to comply with several provisions of the Rules of Appellate

Procedure (RAP), including RAP 10.3, 10.4, and 18.7. These errors go beyond technical

violations and impede effective appellate review.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are unchallenged and treated as verities on appeal. In re

Marriage of Akon, 160 Wn. App. 48, 248 P.3d 94 (2011). No. 39361-5-III City of Richland v. Alexander

Linda Alexander, who is responsible for Live Victoriously Ministries, owns real

property located in Richland, Washington. The city of Richland sent Alexander notice

that the property was in violation of several provisions of the Richland Municipal Code

(RMC). Alexander failed to attend a hearing on the alleged violations, and a default

judgment was entered against her, declaring the property a nuisance. Alexander failed to

timely appeal the notice of decision, and the code violations remained outstanding.

When Alexander failed to abate the nuisance issues, the city of Richland served

her with a summons and complaint seeking injunctive relief along with a court order

allowing abatement of the nuisances on the property. Alexander submitted an answer to

this complaint, but the trial court found that the answer did not contain an issue of

material fact and granted summary judgment. The trial court ordered that the property be

abated and that Alexander be assessed all expenses incurred by the city of Richland.

Alexander appeals.

ANALYSIS

Although Alexander appears before this court pro se, she is held to the same

standard as an attorney and must comply with all procedural rules. See In re Marriage of

Olson, 69 Wn. App. 621, 626, 850 P.2d 527 (1993).

Under the RAPs, an appellant is required to identify assignments of error, which

contain a “concise statement of each error a party contends was made by the trial court”

along with reference to material portions of the challenged finding in the brief or

2 No. 39361-5-III City of Richland v. Alexander

appendix. RAP 10.3(a)(4), 10.4(c). Additionally, the RAPs require “[r]eference to the

record . . . for each factual statement” along with “a fair statement of the facts and

procedure relevant to the issues.” RAP 10.3(a)(5). Furthermore, the brief must contain

“argument in support of the issues presented for review, together with citations to legal

authority and references to relevant parts of the record.” RAP 10.3(a)(6).

Alexander’s brief fails to comply with these rules. Nevertheless, “‘technical

violations of the rules will not ordinarily bar appellate review.’” State v. Olson, 126

Wn.2d 315, 322, 893 P.2d 629 (1995) (quoting Daughtry v. Jet Aeration Co., 91 Wn.2d

704, 710, 592 P.2d 631 (1979)). RAP 1.2(a) states that “[c]ases and issues will not be

determined on the basis of compliance or noncompliance with these rules except in

compelling circumstances where justice demands.” In Olson, the Supreme Court held

that:

[A]n appellate court may exercise its discretion to consider cases and issues on their merits. This is true despite one or more technical flaws in an appellant’s compliance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. This discretion, moreover, should normally be exercised unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. In a case where the nature of the appeal is clear and the relevant issues are argued in the body of the brief and citations are supplied so that the Court is not greatly inconvenienced and the respondent is not prejudiced, there is no compelling reason for the appellate court not to exercise its discretion to consider the merits of the case or issue.

Olson, 126 Wn.2d at 323.

3 No. 39361-5-III City of Richland v. Alexander

Here, the violations in Alexander’s brief go beyond technical violations and

impede effective review. Her brief does not list her assignments of error, she does not

reference the record or provide a statement of the case, and she fails to provide any

analysis or reference to relevant parts of the record. Instead, Alexander merely provides

excerpts from the United States Constitution. It is also unclear what relief she seeks.

Notably, the city of Richland was unable to respond to the contentions. For these

reasons, we deny relief and affirm the order on summary judgment.

Affirmed.

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.

_________________________________ Staab, A.C.J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________________ Fearing, J.

_________________________________ Pennell, J.