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In the Matter of the Marriage of: ) ) No. 41215-6-III LORI LEE ANN YOUNG, ) ) Respondent, ) ) and ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) SEAN RICHARD YOUNG, ) ) Appellant. ) )
COONEY, A.C.J. — Lori Young petitioned to dissolve her marriage to Sean
Young. 1 Thereafter, the court found Sean in contempt on three separate occasions due to
his failure to comply with its “Automatic Temporary Restraining Order” (ATRO) and
contempt and discovery orders. Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 86. The court ultimately ordered
incarceration for Sean pending his compliance with its orders.
1 We use first names where individuals share a last name. No disrespect is intended. No. 41215-6-III In re the Marriage of Young
Sean appeals the court’s “Order Imposing Jail Time,” (CP at 71) arguing: (1) the
court’s discovery orders were void for lack of jurisdiction; (2) the contempt orders were
invalid and an abuse of discretion; (3) his due process rights were violated; and (4) the
court abused its discretion in denying his motion to vacate without meaningful
consideration. Because Sean did not timely appeal the contempt orders, discovery orders,
and the order denying his motion to vacate, we decline to review the claimed errors
related to those orders. Further, we dismiss Sean’s appeal of the Order Imposing Jail
Time as the issue is moot. Lastly, we deny Lori’s request for attorney fees.
BACKGROUND
Sean and Lori married on July 20, 2008. Lori filed a petition to dissolve the
marriage on April 18, 2024. The court entered an ATRO upon the filing of Lori’s
petition. The ATRO “restrained [the parties] from transferring, removing, encumbering,
concealing, damaging or in any way disposing of any property,” required the parties
“have access to all tax, financial, legal, and household records,” and ordered both parties’
“[r]easonable access to records . . . not be denied without order of the court.” CP at 86.
On November 7, 2024, Lori filed a motion for contempt and a motion to compel
discovery. Lori claimed the parties’ “Visa Citi Card for Costco,” “PENNYMAC
Mortgage company,” and “BREA (Benton Rural Electric Association)” accounts each
had specific passwords that she used during the marriage, and she could not determine
the community’s liabilities without the passwords. CP at 103.
2 No. 41215-6-III In re the Marriage of Young
On December 3, 2024, the court found Sean in contempt for failing to comply with
the ATRO by changing the passwords on the parties’ accounts and “fail[ing] to provide
[Lori] with the passwords.” CP at 7. The court also granted Lori’s motion to compel
discovery and ordered Sean to “produce, in proper discovery form, all incomplete
discovery responses as noted in the declaration.” CP at 110. Sean filed a motion to
vacate the December 3 orders. Sean also moved the court to vacate its ATRO during the
hearing on his motion. The court denied his motions.
On December 24, 2024, a hearing was held to review Sean’s compliance with the
court’s ATRO and contempt order. At the hearing, the court found Sean in contempt for
a second time for changing the passwords on the parties’ accounts and failing to disclose
the passwords to Lori.
On March 19, 2025, the court found Sean in contempt for a third time based on his
failure to comply with its orders. The court imposed a sanction of $25 per day for Sean’s
failure to provide Lori with current passwords to their accounts and an additional
sanction of $25 per day for Sean’s failure to provide Lori with discovery materials.
On April 2, 2025, the court entered an Order Imposing Jail Time against Sean
based on his failure to comply with the December 24 and March 19 orders. Sean was
“immediately taken into custody” where he was ordered to either remain for 30 days or
provide the passwords to Lori. CP at 71. The court released Sean from the Benton
County Jail on April 23 and again ordered him to disclose the passwords.
3 No. 41215-6-III In re the Marriage of Young
Sean filed this appeal on April 28, 2025, designating the Order Imposing Jail Time
for our review.
ANALYSIS
Sean contends that the trial court erred by enforcing its discovery and contempt
orders, violating his due process rights, and denying his motion to vacate the contempt
orders. We decline review of these claimed errors because Sean failed to timely appeal
these orders. Further, we dismiss Sean’s appeal of the Order Imposing Jail Time because
the issue is moot.
Generally, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of the decision
being appealed. RAP 5.2(a). The notice of appeal must “designate the decision or part of
decision which the party wants reviewed,” among other requirements. RAP 5.3(a)(3).
Nevertheless, “[t]he appellate court will review a trial court order or ruling not designated
in the notice, including an appealable order, if (1) the order or ruling prejudicially affects
the decision designated in the notice, and (2) the order is entered, or the ruling is made,
before the appellate court accepts review.” RAP 2.4(b). RAP 2.4(b) does not, however,
revive a final order that has not been appealed. Kelsey v. Kelsey, 179 Wn. App. 360, 369,
317 P.3d 1096 (2014).
A previous order “prejudicially affects the order designated in the notice of appeal
if the order appealed cannot be decided without considering the merits of the previous
order.” Right-Price Recreation, LLC v. Connells Prairie Cmty. Council, 105 Wn. App.
4 No. 41215-6-III In re the Marriage of Young
813, 819, 21 P.3d 1157 (2001). This requires a nexus between the orders beyond the
filing of the order on appeal being predicated on the filing of the previous order. Id.
Rather, the issues in the orders “must be so entwined that to resolve the order appealed,
the court must consider the order not appealed.” Id.
Here, Sean timely appealed the Order Imposing Jail Time. However, Sean assigns
error in his opening brief to the prior discovery orders, contempt orders, and the order
denying his motion to vacate. Sean also claims due process violations. Sean failed to
timely appeal the December 3, December 24, and March 19 orders. He also failed to
appeal the order denying his motion to vacate. Sean now seeks review of these orders
under the guise of his timely appeal of the Order Imposing Jail Time. Sean fails to
address RAP 2.4(b) or to present argument as to how the court’s previous contempt
orders prejudicially affected the Order Imposing Jail Time. Thus, we decline review of
claimed errors related to orders that were not timely appealed. See In re Marriage of
Maxfield, 47 Wn. App. 699, 702-03, 737 P.2d 671 (1987).
Turning to Sean’s timely appeal of the Order Imposing Jail Time, we will
generally not review an issue on appeal if it is moot. RAP 18.9(c). An appeal is moot if
the issue is “‘purely academic’” such that we are unable to provide effective relief. City
of Sequim v. Malkasian, 157 Wn.2d 251, 258, 138 P.3d 943 (2006) (internal quotation
marks omitted) (quoting Grays Harbor Paper Co. v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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. 41215-6-III LORI LEE ANN YOUNG, ) ) Respondent, ) ) and ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) SEAN RICHARD YOUNG, ) ) Appellant. ) )
COONEY, A.C.J. — Lori Young petitioned to dissolve her marriage to Sean
Young. 1 Thereafter, the court found Sean in contempt on three separate occasions due to
his failure to comply with its “Automatic Temporary Restraining Order” (ATRO) and
contempt and discovery orders. Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 86. The court ultimately ordered
incarceration for Sean pending his compliance with its orders.
1 We use first names where individuals share a last name. No disrespect is intended. No. 41215-6-III In re the Marriage of Young
Sean appeals the court’s “Order Imposing Jail Time,” (CP at 71) arguing: (1) the
court’s discovery orders were void for lack of jurisdiction; (2) the contempt orders were
invalid and an abuse of discretion; (3) his due process rights were violated; and (4) the
court abused its discretion in denying his motion to vacate without meaningful
consideration. Because Sean did not timely appeal the contempt orders, discovery orders,
and the order denying his motion to vacate, we decline to review the claimed errors
related to those orders. Further, we dismiss Sean’s appeal of the Order Imposing Jail
Time as the issue is moot. Lastly, we deny Lori’s request for attorney fees.
BACKGROUND
Sean and Lori married on July 20, 2008. Lori filed a petition to dissolve the
marriage on April 18, 2024. The court entered an ATRO upon the filing of Lori’s
petition. The ATRO “restrained [the parties] from transferring, removing, encumbering,
concealing, damaging or in any way disposing of any property,” required the parties
“have access to all tax, financial, legal, and household records,” and ordered both parties’
“[r]easonable access to records . . . not be denied without order of the court.” CP at 86.
On November 7, 2024, Lori filed a motion for contempt and a motion to compel
discovery. Lori claimed the parties’ “Visa Citi Card for Costco,” “PENNYMAC
Mortgage company,” and “BREA (Benton Rural Electric Association)” accounts each
had specific passwords that she used during the marriage, and she could not determine
the community’s liabilities without the passwords. CP at 103.
2 No. 41215-6-III In re the Marriage of Young
On December 3, 2024, the court found Sean in contempt for failing to comply with
the ATRO by changing the passwords on the parties’ accounts and “fail[ing] to provide
[Lori] with the passwords.” CP at 7. The court also granted Lori’s motion to compel
discovery and ordered Sean to “produce, in proper discovery form, all incomplete
discovery responses as noted in the declaration.” CP at 110. Sean filed a motion to
vacate the December 3 orders. Sean also moved the court to vacate its ATRO during the
hearing on his motion. The court denied his motions.
On December 24, 2024, a hearing was held to review Sean’s compliance with the
court’s ATRO and contempt order. At the hearing, the court found Sean in contempt for
a second time for changing the passwords on the parties’ accounts and failing to disclose
the passwords to Lori.
On March 19, 2025, the court found Sean in contempt for a third time based on his
failure to comply with its orders. The court imposed a sanction of $25 per day for Sean’s
failure to provide Lori with current passwords to their accounts and an additional
sanction of $25 per day for Sean’s failure to provide Lori with discovery materials.
On April 2, 2025, the court entered an Order Imposing Jail Time against Sean
based on his failure to comply with the December 24 and March 19 orders. Sean was
“immediately taken into custody” where he was ordered to either remain for 30 days or
provide the passwords to Lori. CP at 71. The court released Sean from the Benton
County Jail on April 23 and again ordered him to disclose the passwords.
3 No. 41215-6-III In re the Marriage of Young
Sean filed this appeal on April 28, 2025, designating the Order Imposing Jail Time
for our review.
ANALYSIS
Sean contends that the trial court erred by enforcing its discovery and contempt
orders, violating his due process rights, and denying his motion to vacate the contempt
orders. We decline review of these claimed errors because Sean failed to timely appeal
these orders. Further, we dismiss Sean’s appeal of the Order Imposing Jail Time because
the issue is moot.
Generally, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of the decision
being appealed. RAP 5.2(a). The notice of appeal must “designate the decision or part of
decision which the party wants reviewed,” among other requirements. RAP 5.3(a)(3).
Nevertheless, “[t]he appellate court will review a trial court order or ruling not designated
in the notice, including an appealable order, if (1) the order or ruling prejudicially affects
the decision designated in the notice, and (2) the order is entered, or the ruling is made,
before the appellate court accepts review.” RAP 2.4(b). RAP 2.4(b) does not, however,
revive a final order that has not been appealed. Kelsey v. Kelsey, 179 Wn. App. 360, 369,
317 P.3d 1096 (2014).
A previous order “prejudicially affects the order designated in the notice of appeal
if the order appealed cannot be decided without considering the merits of the previous
order.” Right-Price Recreation, LLC v. Connells Prairie Cmty. Council, 105 Wn. App.
4 No. 41215-6-III In re the Marriage of Young
813, 819, 21 P.3d 1157 (2001). This requires a nexus between the orders beyond the
filing of the order on appeal being predicated on the filing of the previous order. Id.
Rather, the issues in the orders “must be so entwined that to resolve the order appealed,
the court must consider the order not appealed.” Id.
Here, Sean timely appealed the Order Imposing Jail Time. However, Sean assigns
error in his opening brief to the prior discovery orders, contempt orders, and the order
denying his motion to vacate. Sean also claims due process violations. Sean failed to
timely appeal the December 3, December 24, and March 19 orders. He also failed to
appeal the order denying his motion to vacate. Sean now seeks review of these orders
under the guise of his timely appeal of the Order Imposing Jail Time. Sean fails to
address RAP 2.4(b) or to present argument as to how the court’s previous contempt
orders prejudicially affected the Order Imposing Jail Time. Thus, we decline review of
claimed errors related to orders that were not timely appealed. See In re Marriage of
Maxfield, 47 Wn. App. 699, 702-03, 737 P.2d 671 (1987).
Turning to Sean’s timely appeal of the Order Imposing Jail Time, we will
generally not review an issue on appeal if it is moot. RAP 18.9(c). An appeal is moot if
the issue is “‘purely academic’” such that we are unable to provide effective relief. City
of Sequim v. Malkasian, 157 Wn.2d 251, 258, 138 P.3d 943 (2006) (internal quotation
marks omitted) (quoting Grays Harbor Paper Co. v. Grays Harbor County, 74 Wn.2d 70,
73, 442 P.2d 967 (1968)). Although we do not generally review moot issues, we may
5 No. 41215-6-III In re the Marriage of Young
exercise our discretion to decide an issue when there is a substantial and continuing
public interest. Dzaman v. Gowman, 18 Wn. App. 2d 469, 476, 491 P.3d 1012 (2021).
Three factors are considered in determining whether a case involves an issue of
substantial and continuing public interest: “‘(1) whether the issue is of a public or private
nature; (2) whether an authoritative determination is desirable to provide future guidance
to public officers; and (3) whether the issue is likely to recur.’” In re Marriage of
Horner, 151 Wn.2d 884, 892, 93 P.3d 124 (2004) (quoting Westerman v. Cary, 125
Wn.2d 277, 286-87, 892 P.2d 1067 (1994)). This exception applies “in cases dealing
with constitutional interpretation, the validity of statutes or regulations, and matters that
are sufficiently important to the appellate court” but not in matters that are limited to their
specific facts. State v. Beaver, 184 Wn.2d 321, 331, 358 P.3d 385 (2015).
Sean was released from jail on April 23, 2025. We are therefore unable to provide
Sean with effective relief from the consequences of the Order Imposing Jail Time. As
such, the matter is moot. Moreover, this issue does not present a question of continuing
and substantial public interest because it is limited to the specific facts of this case. Thus,
we dismiss Sean’s appeal of the Order Imposing Jail Time.
Lori requests an award of attorney fees against Sean for filing this frivolous
appeal. We decline her request.
Under RAP 18.9(a), this court may order a party who files a frivolous appeal or
who fails to comply with the rules of appellate procedure to pay compensatory damages
6 No. 41215-6-III In re the Marriage of Young
to a party who was harmed as a result or to pay sanctions to the court. Attorney fees and
costs may be awarded as sanctions when a party files a frivolous appeal. Granville
Condo. Homeowners Ass’n v. Kuehner, 177 Wn. App. 543, 556, 312 P.3d 702 (2013).
An appeal is frivolous “if no debatable issues are presented upon which reasonable minds
might differ, and it is so devoid of merit that no reasonable possibility of reversal exists.”
Chapman v. Perera, 41 Wn. App. 444, 455-56, 704 P.2d 1224 (1985).
Here, Sean failed to appeal the orders he dedicated the entirety of his opening brief
to, and the order he did timely appeal is moot. In his briefs, Sean cites cases in support of
his arguments, but misstates many of the propositions of those cases, cites inapplicable
case law, and cites nonexistent cases. 2 Notwithstanding Sean’s rule-based violations, we
dismiss his appeal as moot based on the reasons stated above, not based on his failure to
present debatable issues. See Boyles v. Dep’t of Ret. Sys., 105 Wn.2d 499, 507, 716 P.2d
869 (1986). Thus, we decline Lori’s request for an award of attorney fees.
CONCLUSION
We decline review of Sean’s claimed errors related to the trial court’s contempt
orders, discovery orders, and its order denying his motion to vacate. We dismiss Sean’s
2 The cases cited by Sean that are nonexistent are Burke v. City of Seattle, 168 Wash. 187 (1932), and In re Marriage of Guffin, 190 Wn. App. 389, 360 P.3d 818 (2015).
7 No. 41215-6-III In re the Marriage of Young
appeal of the Order Imposing Jail Time as the issue is moot. Lastly, we deny Lori’s
request for attorney fees.
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.
Cooney, A.C.J.
WE CONCUR:
Murphy, J.
Hill, J.