Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two
November 14, 2017
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II JOHN C. HAWTHORNE, No. 48745-4-II
Appellant,
v.
KRISTINA POMERLEAU, Any Subtenants, UNPUBLISHED OPINION and All Others Acting By Or Through Them,
Respondents.
JOHANSON, P.J. — John C. Hawthorne appeals from the superior court commissioner’s
ex parte orders that granted stays of writs of restitution and that waived bond pending hearings on
the merits. Even though the issues raised are moot, we reach the merits of the case because they
raise issues of important public policy that are likely to recur. We hold that the superior court
commissioner erred when it heard the ex parte motions to stay execution of the writs of restitution
and waived the bond without notice to Hawthorne in violation of the notice and hearing
requirements provided in RCW 59.18.390(1). We reverse.
FACTS
On January 14, 2016, Kristina Pomerleau had failed to pay past-due rent and Hawthorne,
the landlord, served Pomerleau with a three-day notice to pay rent or vacate and with notice
terminating her tenancy. Pomerleau failed to pay the past-due rent and also failed to vacate or No. 48745-4-II
surrender the premises, so Hawthorne filed an unlawful detainer action to evict Pomerleau. The
complaint sought restitution of the premises, forfeiture of Pomerleau’s tenancy, judgment against
Pomerleau for rent and damages, and reasonable costs and attorney fees.
On January 29, Pomerleau did not appear at the show cause hearing, and Hawthorne
obtained a judgment and writ of restitution. However, several days after the show cause hearing,
Pomerleau brought an ex parte motion to stay execution of the writ, claiming that she had not been
properly served with notice. The superior court commissioner granted the stay on the basis that
“there is a dispute about service of process.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 25. The order staying the writ
waived the bond requirement using a preprinted form that stated, “Bond is waived until the hearing
on the merits of this motion.” CP at 25.
On February 12, in a subsequent show cause hearing, Hawthorne argued that the ex parte
hearing to stay the writ was improper and that the stay was invalid because Pomerleau was required
under RCW 59.18.390(1) to post a bond when retaining possession of the premises and before
obtaining a stay of a writ of restitution. At the show cause hearing, attended by both parties, the
superior court commissioner ruled that Hawthorne needed to re-serve the summons and complaint
to Pomerleau. And at the hearing, Pomerleau was served with a second amended summons and
complaint, and she acknowledged being served.
On March 4, Pomerleau failed to appear at the show cause hearing for the summons and
complaint re-served on February 12, and judgment was entered and a writ of restitution was
entered.
On March 10, Pomerleau again sought and was granted an ex parte stay of the writ issued
on March 4, based on the false claim that she was not properly served. Again, the bond
2 No. 48745-4-II
requirement was waived on the same preprinted form. On March 11, the superior court
commissioner lifted the stay and authorized a writ of restitution for the sheriff to evict Pomerleau.
The sheriff executed the writ on March 15, two months after Pomerleau first received notice
terminating her tenancy. The superior court commissioner also entered four supplemental
judgments for damages, attorney fees, and costs.
ANALYSIS
I. MOOTNESS
Hawthorne acknowledges that the matters presented are moot but argues that we should
consider them because they involve “issues of continuing and substantial public interest.” Br. of
Appellant at 7-9. We agree.
A. RULES OF LAW
A case is moot if “‘the court can no longer provide effective relief.’” In re Detention of
M.W., 185 Wn.2d 633, 648, 374 P.3d 1123 (2016) (quoting State v. Hunley, 175 Wn.2d 901, 907,
287 P.3d 584 (2012)). Even when cases are moot, we have discretion to address questions “of
continuing and substantial public interest.” M.W., 185 Wn.2d at 648. When considering whether
a case involves issues of continuing and substantial public interest, we consider (1) “‘the public or
private nature of the question presented,’” (2) “‘the desirability of an authoritative determination
for the future guidance of public officers,’” and (3) “‘the likelihood of future recurrence of the
question.’” M.W., 185 Wn.2d at 648 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hunley, 175
Wn.2d at 907).
3 No. 48745-4-II
B. ANALYSIS
The superior court commissioner issued judgment in favor of Hawthorne and granted a
writ of restitution authorizing the sheriff to evict Pomerleau. And Pomerleau has been evicted.
Thus, the superior court commissioner necessarily lifted the writ’s stay, and we can no longer
provide effective relief regarding the stay and the waiver of bond pending the show cause hearing.
See M.W., 185 Wn.2d at 648. As such, the case is moot. M.W., 185 Wn.2d at 648.
However, the three factors for determining whether a matter is of continuing and
substantial public interest each weigh in favor of a conclusion that we should reach the merits of
the issues. We analyzed these three factors under virtually identical circumstances to those
presented here. See Randy Reynolds & Associates, Inc. v. Harmon, No. 49588-1-II, slip op. at 4
(Wash. Ct. App., Oct. 31, 2017). There, as here, we concluded that this matter raises issues of
continuing and substantial public interest such that we should reach the merits of the case.
II. CR 5(a) AND RCW 59.18.390(1)
Hawthorne argues that the superior court commissioner erred when the commissioner
heard, ex parte, the motions to stay execution of writs of restitution and when the commissioner
waived bond without notice to Hawthorne and an opportunity to be heard. We agree.
Reynolds presented identical issues and is controlling here. No. 49588-1-II, slip op. at 10,
11-12. Thus, we conclude that the superior court commissioner erred when the commissioner heard
the motion to stay the writ of restitution ex parte and the commissioner erred when the
commissioner waived the bond in violation of the notice and hearing requirements provided in
RCW 59.18.390(1).
4 No. 48745-4-II
III. ATTORNEY FEES
Hawthorne requests attorney fees and costs, arguing that his rental agreement provides that
he is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs accrued on appeal. We agree.
Under RAP 18.1(a), “[i]f applicable law grants to a party the right to recover reasonable
attorney fees or expenses on review before either the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, the party
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two
November 14, 2017
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II JOHN C. HAWTHORNE, No. 48745-4-II
Appellant,
v.
KRISTINA POMERLEAU, Any Subtenants, UNPUBLISHED OPINION and All Others Acting By Or Through Them,
Respondents.
JOHANSON, P.J. — John C. Hawthorne appeals from the superior court commissioner’s
ex parte orders that granted stays of writs of restitution and that waived bond pending hearings on
the merits. Even though the issues raised are moot, we reach the merits of the case because they
raise issues of important public policy that are likely to recur. We hold that the superior court
commissioner erred when it heard the ex parte motions to stay execution of the writs of restitution
and waived the bond without notice to Hawthorne in violation of the notice and hearing
requirements provided in RCW 59.18.390(1). We reverse.
FACTS
On January 14, 2016, Kristina Pomerleau had failed to pay past-due rent and Hawthorne,
the landlord, served Pomerleau with a three-day notice to pay rent or vacate and with notice
terminating her tenancy. Pomerleau failed to pay the past-due rent and also failed to vacate or No. 48745-4-II
surrender the premises, so Hawthorne filed an unlawful detainer action to evict Pomerleau. The
complaint sought restitution of the premises, forfeiture of Pomerleau’s tenancy, judgment against
Pomerleau for rent and damages, and reasonable costs and attorney fees.
On January 29, Pomerleau did not appear at the show cause hearing, and Hawthorne
obtained a judgment and writ of restitution. However, several days after the show cause hearing,
Pomerleau brought an ex parte motion to stay execution of the writ, claiming that she had not been
properly served with notice. The superior court commissioner granted the stay on the basis that
“there is a dispute about service of process.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 25. The order staying the writ
waived the bond requirement using a preprinted form that stated, “Bond is waived until the hearing
on the merits of this motion.” CP at 25.
On February 12, in a subsequent show cause hearing, Hawthorne argued that the ex parte
hearing to stay the writ was improper and that the stay was invalid because Pomerleau was required
under RCW 59.18.390(1) to post a bond when retaining possession of the premises and before
obtaining a stay of a writ of restitution. At the show cause hearing, attended by both parties, the
superior court commissioner ruled that Hawthorne needed to re-serve the summons and complaint
to Pomerleau. And at the hearing, Pomerleau was served with a second amended summons and
complaint, and she acknowledged being served.
On March 4, Pomerleau failed to appear at the show cause hearing for the summons and
complaint re-served on February 12, and judgment was entered and a writ of restitution was
entered.
On March 10, Pomerleau again sought and was granted an ex parte stay of the writ issued
on March 4, based on the false claim that she was not properly served. Again, the bond
2 No. 48745-4-II
requirement was waived on the same preprinted form. On March 11, the superior court
commissioner lifted the stay and authorized a writ of restitution for the sheriff to evict Pomerleau.
The sheriff executed the writ on March 15, two months after Pomerleau first received notice
terminating her tenancy. The superior court commissioner also entered four supplemental
judgments for damages, attorney fees, and costs.
ANALYSIS
I. MOOTNESS
Hawthorne acknowledges that the matters presented are moot but argues that we should
consider them because they involve “issues of continuing and substantial public interest.” Br. of
Appellant at 7-9. We agree.
A. RULES OF LAW
A case is moot if “‘the court can no longer provide effective relief.’” In re Detention of
M.W., 185 Wn.2d 633, 648, 374 P.3d 1123 (2016) (quoting State v. Hunley, 175 Wn.2d 901, 907,
287 P.3d 584 (2012)). Even when cases are moot, we have discretion to address questions “of
continuing and substantial public interest.” M.W., 185 Wn.2d at 648. When considering whether
a case involves issues of continuing and substantial public interest, we consider (1) “‘the public or
private nature of the question presented,’” (2) “‘the desirability of an authoritative determination
for the future guidance of public officers,’” and (3) “‘the likelihood of future recurrence of the
question.’” M.W., 185 Wn.2d at 648 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hunley, 175
Wn.2d at 907).
3 No. 48745-4-II
B. ANALYSIS
The superior court commissioner issued judgment in favor of Hawthorne and granted a
writ of restitution authorizing the sheriff to evict Pomerleau. And Pomerleau has been evicted.
Thus, the superior court commissioner necessarily lifted the writ’s stay, and we can no longer
provide effective relief regarding the stay and the waiver of bond pending the show cause hearing.
See M.W., 185 Wn.2d at 648. As such, the case is moot. M.W., 185 Wn.2d at 648.
However, the three factors for determining whether a matter is of continuing and
substantial public interest each weigh in favor of a conclusion that we should reach the merits of
the issues. We analyzed these three factors under virtually identical circumstances to those
presented here. See Randy Reynolds & Associates, Inc. v. Harmon, No. 49588-1-II, slip op. at 4
(Wash. Ct. App., Oct. 31, 2017). There, as here, we concluded that this matter raises issues of
continuing and substantial public interest such that we should reach the merits of the case.
II. CR 5(a) AND RCW 59.18.390(1)
Hawthorne argues that the superior court commissioner erred when the commissioner
heard, ex parte, the motions to stay execution of writs of restitution and when the commissioner
waived bond without notice to Hawthorne and an opportunity to be heard. We agree.
Reynolds presented identical issues and is controlling here. No. 49588-1-II, slip op. at 10,
11-12. Thus, we conclude that the superior court commissioner erred when the commissioner heard
the motion to stay the writ of restitution ex parte and the commissioner erred when the
commissioner waived the bond in violation of the notice and hearing requirements provided in
RCW 59.18.390(1).
4 No. 48745-4-II
III. ATTORNEY FEES
Hawthorne requests attorney fees and costs, arguing that his rental agreement provides that
he is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs accrued on appeal. We agree.
Under RAP 18.1(a), “[i]f applicable law grants to a party the right to recover reasonable
attorney fees or expenses on review before either the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, the party
must request the fees or expenses as provided in this rule.” “A contract providing for an award of
attorney fees at trial . . . supports such an award on appeal.” Hall v. Feigenbaum, 178 Wn. App.
811, 827, 319 P.3d 61 (2014).
Under Hawthorne’s rental agreement with Pomerleau, “[i]f by reason of any default on the
part of the Tenant, in the performance of any provisions of this agreement it becomes necessary,
in the opinion of Owner to employ an attorney, the Tenant agrees to pay all costs, expenses and
attorney fees expended or incurred by Owner in connection therewith in accordance with the
[Residential] Landlord-Tenant Act[ of 1973], Chapter 59.18 RCW.” CP at 13. Hawthorne’s
unlawful detainer action is an action resulting from Pomerleau’s defaulting on the rent payment
provisions of the rental agreement, so Hawthorne is entitled to attorney fees and costs, including
those associated with the appeal. See Hall, 178 Wn. App. at 827. Hawthorne is the prevailing
party in this appeal. Thus, subject to his compliance with RAP 18.1, we award Hawthorne attorney
fees on appeal in an amount to be determined by a commissioner of this court. See Hall, 178 Wn.
App. at 827.
5 No. 48745-4-II
We reverse.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040,
it is so ordered.
JOHANSON, P.J. We concur:
LEE, J.
MELNICK, J.