In the Matter of the Marriage of: Talesha Sophia Sams & Darla Nicole Sams

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: March 5, 2026
• Docket: 40791-8
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED MARCH 5, 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In the Matter of the Marriage of: ) No. 40791-8-III ) TALESHA SOPHIA SAMS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) and ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) DARLA CARPENTER-SAMS, ) ) Respondent. )

LAWRENCE-BERREY, C.J. — Talesha Sams appeals after a superior court judge

concluded that her motion to revise a court commissioner’s order was untimely. On

appeal, she argues the judge erred because her motion to revise was timely. She also

argues the court commissioner erred because the order it entered violated the automatic

stay in her bankruptcy action. No. 40791-8-III Marriage of Sams

We agree with the superior court judge that the 10-day deadline to file a motion to

revise runs from the time the court commissioner’s order is entered, even if supporting

findings and conclusions are entered later. We defer the question of whether the

commissioner’s order violated the automatic stay to the court that issued the stay—the

bankruptcy court.

FACTS

The August 2019 final divorce order in this dissolution proceeding awarded Darla

Carpenter1 one-half of Talesha Sams’ Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS)

account from the date of the parties’ marriage through the date of their separation and

ordered the account to be divided by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO).

In July 2021, Sams filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy. On the day she filed

bankruptcy, Sams’ attorney issued a notice of stay in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 362.

In a March 2022 settlement agreement in the bankruptcy proceedings, the parties agreed

to cooperate in good faith to enter a QDRO to effectuate the ordered division of Sams’

PERS account.

1 Although the case caption reads “Darla Carpenter-Sams,” we refer to her as “Darla Carpenter,” her preferred name, as shown on the title page of her brief.

2 No. 40791-8-III Marriage of Sams

On February 20, 2024, a court commissioner entered a property division order,

concluding that it effectuated the terms of the final divorce order. More than three

months later, on May 28, 2024, the court commissioner signed the findings of fact and

conclusions of law in support of the order.

On June 7, 2024, Sams filed a motion for revision of the commissioner’s order and

the later entered findings and conclusions. On June 21, 2024, a superior court judge

entered an amended order denying revision of the court commissioner’s order, reasoning

that expiration of the 10 days allowed for filing a motion to revise under RCW 2.24.050

precluded review of the order. And, because it could not provide any relief from the

order even were it to vacate the findings and conclusions, the judge denied the motion for

revision.

Sams appealed the superior court judge’s amended order on July 3, 2024.

ANALYSIS

SAMS’ MOTION FOR REVISION WAS UNTIMELY

Sams argues that Carpenter’s failure to timely present findings and conclusions

prejudiced her right to file a motion to revise the court commissioner’s order. She offers

no argument, much less any legal analysis, to support the notion that the time to file a

3 No. 40791-8-III Marriage of Sams

motion to revise should commence after the entry of a commissioner’s findings and

conclusions. We nevertheless address the issue.

We start our analysis with the statute cited by the superior court, RCW 2.24.050,

which provides in relevant part:

All of the acts and proceedings of court commissioners hereunder shall be subject to revision by the superior court. . . . Such revision shall be upon the records of the case, and the findings of fact and conclusions of law entered by the court commissioner, and [1] unless a demand for revision is made within ten days from the entry of the order or judgment of the court commissioner, the orders and judgments shall be and become the orders and judgments of the superior court, and [2] appellate review thereof may be sought in the same fashion as review of like orders and judgments entered by the judge.

(Emphasis added.)

In In re Marriage of Robertson, 113 Wn. App. 711, 714, 54 P.3d 708 (2002), we

concluded that the above-quoted language following the first bracketed portion of

RCW 2.24.050 clearly and unambiguously requires a motion to revise a commissioner’s

ruling to be filed within 10 days of the commissioner’s order.

We conclude that the trial court did not err by dismissing Sams’ motion for

revision as untimely. Sams should have timely moved to revise the commissioner’s order

and asked the superior court judge to extend the time for filing a supporting brief until

after the findings and conclusions were entered.

4 No. 40791-8-III Marriage of Sams

WE MAY NOT REVIEW THE ORDER ENTERED BY THE COURT COMMISSIONER

Sams argues the court commissioner entered the property division order in

violation of the bankruptcy stay, so the order is void. For the reason explained below, we

decline to address this argument.

In Marriage of Robertson, we held that the above-quoted language following the

second bracketed portion of RCW 2.24.050 “clearly and unambiguously provides that a

party who fails to act within the 10 days [to revise a court commissioner’s order] must

seek relief from the appellate court.” Id. A party generally has 30 days to appeal a

superior court order to this court. RAP 5.2(a). Therefore, Sams had 30 days from

February 20, 2024, to appeal the order entered by the court commissioner. Sams’ July 3,

2024, appeal is thus untimely. An untimely appeal must be dismissed without

consideration of the underlying merits. Schaefco, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Comm’n,

121 Wn.2d 366, 368, 849 P.2d 1225 (1993).

5 No. 40791-8-III Marriage of Sams

CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s determination that Sams’ motion to revise was

untimely, and we dismiss her challenge of the court commissioner’s property division

order.2

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.

_________________________________ Lawrence-Berrey, C.J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________ _________________________________ Staab, J. Hill, J.

2 We note that the August 2019 final divorce order divided Sams’ PERS, and the court commissioner’s February 2024 order merely effectuated that division. Sams (and her bankruptcy estate) had no interest in that portion of the PERS account awarded to Carpenter by the 2019 divorce order. We express no opinion whether the court commissioner’s February 2024 order violated the bankruptcy court’s automatic stay, other than to suggest that 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(2)(A)(iv) seems to control the question. Sams may file an appropriate motion in bankruptcy court if she wishes to pursue her argument.