In the Matter of the Marriage of: Keisha Shavers & Tyrone David Shavers

Opinion

FILED JULY 9, 2026 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

In the Matter of the Marriage of ) ) No. 40779-9-III KEISHA SHAVERS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) and ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) TYRONE DAVID SHAVERS, ) ) Respondent. )

STAAB, C.J. — Keisha Shavers appeals the trial court’s order dismissing her

petition for legal separation for lack of personal jurisdiction over Tyrone Shavers.1

Keisha argues the court erred because Tyrone established minimum contact with

Washington through certain financial transactions and his physical visit to the state.

We conclude Keisha failed to provide the necessary record for review and decline

to decide the issue.

1 Because the parties share the same last name, we refer to them by their first name for clarity. No disrespect is intended. No. 40779-9-III In re Marriage of Shavers

BACKGROUND

Keisha Shavers and Tyrone Shavers were married in Arkansas in October 2020

and later moved to Texas. They have no children in common.

Tyrone and Keisha separated on November 1, 2023. Keisha moved to Spokane

County and Tyrone remained in Texas. On May 1, 2024, Keisha filed a petition for legal

separation in Spokane County Superior Court. Tyrone filed a response to the petition,

raising a challenge to the court’s personal jurisdiction. He requested the court move the

case to Texas where they previously lived together.

Keisha moved for default because she did not receive Tyrone’s response and he

had not filed a notice of appearance. The court granted her motion, concluding it had

personal jurisdiction over Tyrone. Tyrone later moved to dismiss or vacate for lack of

personal jurisdiction. The court granted Tyrone’s motion, dismissing the case for lack of

personal jurisdiction.

Keisha appeals.

ANALYSIS

Keisha contends the court erred by dismissing her petition for lack of personal

jurisdiction over Tyrone. She argues Tyrone had more than minimum contact with

Washington because he physically visited the state and certain financial transactions were

conducted on his behalf within the state. We decline to address the issues raised by

Keisha because the record on appeal is inadequate.

2 No. 40779-9-III In re Marriage of Shavers

An appellant “has the burden of perfecting the record so that the reviewing court

has before it all of the relevant [materials].” Bulzomi v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 72 Wn.

App. 522, 525, 864 P.2d 996 (1994). De novo review requires this court to perform an

“independent analysis of the same record as was before the trial court.” Butler v. Craft

Eng. Const. Inc., 67 Wn. App. 684, 692, 843 P.2d 1071 (1992).

Here, the trial court relied on the parties’ briefing to make its determination.

Keisha informs this court that Tyrone’s motion to dismiss or vacate was accompanied by

his declaration in support of the motion and two supporting memorandums of law.

However, Keisha concedes these materials were not designated as clerk’s papers on

appeal. The record on appeal is not the same record as was before the trial court.

Consequently, we are unable to perform a de novo review.

Dismissed.

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, C.J. WE CONCUR:

_________________________________ _________________________________ Lawrence-Berrey, J. Murphy, J.