Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two
June 24, 2025
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II In the matter of the Marriage of: No. 57509-4-II
LINDA KAY HAMMELMAN-BELD,
Appellant, UNPUBLISHED OPINION v.
SCOTT BELD,
Respondent.
PRICE, J. — Linda Hammelman1 appeals the superior court’s orders related to finding her
in contempt and imposing sanctions, including five days of jail time. Hammelman raises numerous
assignments of error. Hammelman’s former husband, Scott Beld, requests attorney fees on appeal.
We affirm the superior court and deny Beld’s request for attorney fees.
FACTS
In November 2021, the superior court entered a final divorce order dissolving the marriage
between Hammelman and Beld. The final divorce order noted that Beld had requested a restraining
order and that a final restraining order had been entered in July. The final restraining order
prohibited Hammelman from disturbing Beld’s peace; going within 500 feet of Beld’s home or
workplace; assaulting, harassing, stalking, or molesting Beld; following, keeping under physical
1 Although the case caption identifies the appellant as Linda Hammelman-Beld, the record indicates the appellant has identified herself as Linda Hammelman. Accordingly, we refer to the appellant as Linda Hammelman. No. 57509-4-II
or electronic surveillance, cyberstalking, or using telephonic, audiovisual, or other electronic
means to monitor the actions, locations, or wire or electronic communication of Beld; or having
any contact whatsoever, in person or through others, by phone, mail, email, or any means, directly
or indirectly with Beld.
The parties owned two pieces of real property—one in Washington and one in California.
The superior court ordered both properties to be sold with the net proceeds divided equally between
the parties. The superior court also ordered that the parties share equally the tax liability on the
sale of the California property; however, because the California property was titled in
Hammelman’s name the superior court ordered:
all taxes on the sale will be reported to the [Internal Revenue Service (IRS)] under her name. Her true tax consequences for 2021 will not be known until 2022. Therefore, $75,000 from the sale of the California home shall be held in [Hammelman’s] attorney’s trust account for [Hammelman’s] 2021 taxes related to the California home. Any deficiency or surplus after payment of actual taxes shall be split equally.
Clerk’s Papers at 29. The order also required the parties to sign any documents necessary to
effectuate the terms of the superior court’s orders.
In February 2022, Hammelman’s attorney filed a notice of intent to withdraw. Because
Hammelman’s attorney held the $75,000 sale proceeds from the sale of the California property in
their trust account, they also filed a motion to deposit the funds with the court clerk. A hearing on
the motion was held on March 18. The superior court granted the motion and entered an order
allowing the $75,000 to be deposited with the court clerk.
At the hearing, Beld also raised issues related to Hammelman’s refusal to sign
endorsements on the escrow checks from the sale of the parties’ properties. After hearing from
2 No. 57509-4-II
both parties, the superior court ordered Hammelman to sign the escrow checks. The superior court
also entered a written order requiring Hammelman to sign the escrow checks by the next court
appearance or Hammelman would be held in contempt.
At the next hearing, Beld outlined numerous continuing issues related to the signing and
depositing of the escrow checks. Beld also informed the superior court that, since his mother’s
recent death, Hammelman had been harassing him. The superior court expressed concern about
Hammelman’s behavior and suggested Beld file a motion for contempt if he wanted to further
address the issues.
On April 22, Beld filed a motion for contempt based on Hammelman’s conduct related to
multiple things, including the escrow checks, a phone call Hammelman made to a family friend
after Beld’s mother died, and numerous posts Hammelman made to social media websites that
were critical of Beld. After several hearings and continuances, Beld’s motion for contempt was
heard in July. The superior court found that Hammelman was in contempt for failing to sign the
escrow checks and for violating the restraining order. The superior court reserved a ruling on
Beld’s request to impose jail time as a sanction for violating the restraining order.
While the contempt proceeding was pending, Hammelman filed a petition for a protection
order against Beld under new cause number 22-2-07548-06. At an ex parte hearing in front of a
different judicial officer, Hammelman managed to obtain a temporary protection order. After Beld
3 No. 57509-4-II
notified the superior court about this temporary order that Hammelman obtained from the other
judicial officer, the superior court held a hearing and dismissed the temporary protection order.2
On September 22, after multiple additional continuances, the superior court held a hearing
on whether to impose jail time as a contempt sanction for Hammelman’s violation of the
restraining order. Ultimately, the superior court sanctioned Hammelman to five days in jail, a
$100 fine, and a total of $5,500 in attorney fees and costs awarded to Beld. The superior court
ordered that the attorney fees be paid from Hammelman’s portion of the $75,000 still being held
by the court clerk.
Hammelman appeals.
ANALYSIS
Hammelman raises seven assignments of error. Beld requests attorney fees on appeal. For
the reasons explained below, we affirm the superior court and do not award Beld attorney fees.
A. HAMMELMAN’S ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
First, Hammelman assigns error to the superior court’s ruling that ordered Hammelman to
sign the escrow checks. Hammelman seemingly argues that the superior court’s ruling was based
on bias against Hammelman and that the superior court violated the appearance of fairness
doctrine. Under the appearance of fairness doctrine, a judge must be both impartial and appear
impartial. State v. Gamble, 168 Wn.2d 161, 187, 225 P.3d 973 (2010). To overcome the
2 It appears that the superior court dismissed the temporary order but allowed Hammelman to have a hearing on her petition for a protection order. The hearing was later held in front of a superior court commissioner. Apparently, Hammelman filed a motion to recuse the superior court judge hearing the family law matter and, although the judge disagreed that there was a reason for her recusal, the judge agreed to assign the petition for a protection order to a superior court commissioner.
4 No. 57509-4-II
presumption that a superior court judge acts without bias or prejudice, the party raising the
challenge must identify specific facts raising at least a suspicion of bias or partiality, such as a
personal or pecuniary interest in the outcome of the proceedings. Tacoma S. Hosp., LLC v. Nat’l
Gen. Ins. Co., 19 Wn. App. 2d 210, 218, 494 P.3d 450 (2021), review denied, 198 Wn.2d 1041
(2022); Tatham v. Rogers, 170 Wn. App. 76, 96, 283 P.3d 583 (2012). Hammelman provides no
specific allegations demonstrating that the superior court had an interest in the case that would
overcome the presumption of impartiality.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two
June 24, 2025
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II In the matter of the Marriage of: No. 57509-4-II
LINDA KAY HAMMELMAN-BELD,
Appellant, UNPUBLISHED OPINION v.
SCOTT BELD,
Respondent.
PRICE, J. — Linda Hammelman1 appeals the superior court’s orders related to finding her
in contempt and imposing sanctions, including five days of jail time. Hammelman raises numerous
assignments of error. Hammelman’s former husband, Scott Beld, requests attorney fees on appeal.
We affirm the superior court and deny Beld’s request for attorney fees.
FACTS
In November 2021, the superior court entered a final divorce order dissolving the marriage
between Hammelman and Beld. The final divorce order noted that Beld had requested a restraining
order and that a final restraining order had been entered in July. The final restraining order
prohibited Hammelman from disturbing Beld’s peace; going within 500 feet of Beld’s home or
workplace; assaulting, harassing, stalking, or molesting Beld; following, keeping under physical
1 Although the case caption identifies the appellant as Linda Hammelman-Beld, the record indicates the appellant has identified herself as Linda Hammelman. Accordingly, we refer to the appellant as Linda Hammelman. No. 57509-4-II
or electronic surveillance, cyberstalking, or using telephonic, audiovisual, or other electronic
means to monitor the actions, locations, or wire or electronic communication of Beld; or having
any contact whatsoever, in person or through others, by phone, mail, email, or any means, directly
or indirectly with Beld.
The parties owned two pieces of real property—one in Washington and one in California.
The superior court ordered both properties to be sold with the net proceeds divided equally between
the parties. The superior court also ordered that the parties share equally the tax liability on the
sale of the California property; however, because the California property was titled in
Hammelman’s name the superior court ordered:
all taxes on the sale will be reported to the [Internal Revenue Service (IRS)] under her name. Her true tax consequences for 2021 will not be known until 2022. Therefore, $75,000 from the sale of the California home shall be held in [Hammelman’s] attorney’s trust account for [Hammelman’s] 2021 taxes related to the California home. Any deficiency or surplus after payment of actual taxes shall be split equally.
Clerk’s Papers at 29. The order also required the parties to sign any documents necessary to
effectuate the terms of the superior court’s orders.
In February 2022, Hammelman’s attorney filed a notice of intent to withdraw. Because
Hammelman’s attorney held the $75,000 sale proceeds from the sale of the California property in
their trust account, they also filed a motion to deposit the funds with the court clerk. A hearing on
the motion was held on March 18. The superior court granted the motion and entered an order
allowing the $75,000 to be deposited with the court clerk.
At the hearing, Beld also raised issues related to Hammelman’s refusal to sign
endorsements on the escrow checks from the sale of the parties’ properties. After hearing from
2 No. 57509-4-II
both parties, the superior court ordered Hammelman to sign the escrow checks. The superior court
also entered a written order requiring Hammelman to sign the escrow checks by the next court
appearance or Hammelman would be held in contempt.
At the next hearing, Beld outlined numerous continuing issues related to the signing and
depositing of the escrow checks. Beld also informed the superior court that, since his mother’s
recent death, Hammelman had been harassing him. The superior court expressed concern about
Hammelman’s behavior and suggested Beld file a motion for contempt if he wanted to further
address the issues.
On April 22, Beld filed a motion for contempt based on Hammelman’s conduct related to
multiple things, including the escrow checks, a phone call Hammelman made to a family friend
after Beld’s mother died, and numerous posts Hammelman made to social media websites that
were critical of Beld. After several hearings and continuances, Beld’s motion for contempt was
heard in July. The superior court found that Hammelman was in contempt for failing to sign the
escrow checks and for violating the restraining order. The superior court reserved a ruling on
Beld’s request to impose jail time as a sanction for violating the restraining order.
While the contempt proceeding was pending, Hammelman filed a petition for a protection
order against Beld under new cause number 22-2-07548-06. At an ex parte hearing in front of a
different judicial officer, Hammelman managed to obtain a temporary protection order. After Beld
3 No. 57509-4-II
notified the superior court about this temporary order that Hammelman obtained from the other
judicial officer, the superior court held a hearing and dismissed the temporary protection order.2
On September 22, after multiple additional continuances, the superior court held a hearing
on whether to impose jail time as a contempt sanction for Hammelman’s violation of the
restraining order. Ultimately, the superior court sanctioned Hammelman to five days in jail, a
$100 fine, and a total of $5,500 in attorney fees and costs awarded to Beld. The superior court
ordered that the attorney fees be paid from Hammelman’s portion of the $75,000 still being held
by the court clerk.
Hammelman appeals.
ANALYSIS
Hammelman raises seven assignments of error. Beld requests attorney fees on appeal. For
the reasons explained below, we affirm the superior court and do not award Beld attorney fees.
A. HAMMELMAN’S ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
First, Hammelman assigns error to the superior court’s ruling that ordered Hammelman to
sign the escrow checks. Hammelman seemingly argues that the superior court’s ruling was based
on bias against Hammelman and that the superior court violated the appearance of fairness
doctrine. Under the appearance of fairness doctrine, a judge must be both impartial and appear
impartial. State v. Gamble, 168 Wn.2d 161, 187, 225 P.3d 973 (2010). To overcome the
2 It appears that the superior court dismissed the temporary order but allowed Hammelman to have a hearing on her petition for a protection order. The hearing was later held in front of a superior court commissioner. Apparently, Hammelman filed a motion to recuse the superior court judge hearing the family law matter and, although the judge disagreed that there was a reason for her recusal, the judge agreed to assign the petition for a protection order to a superior court commissioner.
4 No. 57509-4-II
presumption that a superior court judge acts without bias or prejudice, the party raising the
challenge must identify specific facts raising at least a suspicion of bias or partiality, such as a
personal or pecuniary interest in the outcome of the proceedings. Tacoma S. Hosp., LLC v. Nat’l
Gen. Ins. Co., 19 Wn. App. 2d 210, 218, 494 P.3d 450 (2021), review denied, 198 Wn.2d 1041
(2022); Tatham v. Rogers, 170 Wn. App. 76, 96, 283 P.3d 583 (2012). Hammelman provides no
specific allegations demonstrating that the superior court had an interest in the case that would
overcome the presumption of impartiality.
Further, Hammelman fails to allege how the superior court may have abused its discretion
in ordering her to sign the escrow checks. The superior court “abuses its discretion if its decision
is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds or untenable reasons.” In re Marriage
of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39, 46, 940 P.2d 136 (1997). Here, the final orders in the dissolution
required the parties to sign any documents required to effectuate the terms of the property
distribution orders. Hammelman has not shown that signing the escrow checks from the sales of
the properties was unnecessary to effectuate the distribution of funds from the sales of the parties’
properties as provided for in the dissolution orders. Thus, Hammelman has failed to show that the
superior court abused its discretion in ordering her to sign the escrow checks.
Second, Hammelman assigns error to the superior court “practicing law from the bench”
while threatening Hammelman with being taken into custody. Br. of Appellant at 11. Hammelman
cites to only an American Bar Association rule to support her assignment of error. However,
Hammelman cites to no authority adopting this rule as part of the Code of Judicial Conduct (CJC).
See In re Keenan, 199 Wn.2d 87, 93, 502 P.3d 1271 (2022) (The CJC governs judicial conduct in
Washington.). Further, we do not enforce the CJC or regulate judicial ethics. See id. at 93-94 (The
5 No. 57509-4-II
CJC investigates complaints against judicial officer, conducts hearings, and makes
recommendation for discipline to the Supreme Court; the ultimate decision regarding judicial
discipline rests with our Supreme Court.). Accordingly, we reject this assignment of error.
Third, Hammelman assigns error to the superior court’s ruling finding her in contempt for
failing to sign the bank escrow checks. Here, Hammelman’s attempt at argument contains only
factual assertions, many of which are not supported with citation to the record. See RAP 10.3(a)(6)
(“The argument in support of the issues presented for review, together with citations to legal
authority and references to relevant parts of the record.”). Hammelman has failed to present any
argument or citation to legal authority supporting her assignment of error. See RAP 10.3(a)(6);
Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801, 809, 828 P.2d 549 (1992); State v. Cox,
109 Wn. App. 937, 943, 38 P.3d 371 (2002). Accordingly, we do not address this assignment of
error.
Fourth, Hammelman assigns error to the superior court imposing sanctions of five days’
jail time. Per the superior court’s order, Hammelman was released from custody the morning of
Monday, September 26, 2022. “We generally decline to address moot issues.” State v. Shreve, 28
Wn. App. 2d 785, 789, 538 P.3d 958 (2023). An issue is moot if a court can no longer provide
effective relief. See Maldonado v. Maldonado, 197 Wn. App. 779, 790, 391 P.3d 546 (2017).
Because Hammelman has already been released from custody, we cannot provide effective relief.
Therefore, this issue is moot.
Fifth, Hammelman assigns error to the superior court’s ruling dispersing funds from the
court registry to pay Beld’s attorney fees. Hammelman notes that the funds deposited with the
court clerk were originally held to pay taxes related to the sale of the California property.
6 No. 57509-4-II
However, Hammelman provides no argument or citation to legal authority establishing that it was
error for the superior court to later determine a portion of the funds should be distributed to pay
Beld’s attorney fees resulting from Hammelman’s contempt. Accordingly, we do not address this
issue. See RAP 10.3(a)(6); Cowiche Canyon Conservancy, 118 Wn.2d at 809; Cox, 109 Wn. App.
at 943.
Sixth, Hammelman assigns error to the superior court “finding harrassement [sic] in case
#22-2-07548-06 as she accepted filed recusal under RCW 4.12.050 on 7-19-2022 to Commissioner
Sasser.” Br. of Appellant at 12. This appeal is limited to the orders designated in the notice of
appeal: order requiring signature (Mar. 18, 2022), order of contempt (Sept. 21, 2022), and
contempt hearing order (Sept. 21, 2022). All of the appealed orders were entered in Clark County
Superior Court Cause Number 19-3-01866-06. An assignment of error to a finding in the case
under cause number 22-2-07548-06 is outside the scope of this appeal. See RAP 2.4. Accordingly,
we do not address this assignment of error.
Seventh, Hammelman assigns error to the superior court’s finding that Hammelman
violated the restraining order. However, Hammelman does not include any argument or citation
to authority attempting to support this assignment of error at all. Accordingly, we do not address
it.
B. BELD’S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY FEES
Beld requests attorney fees under RAP 18.1 and RCW 7.21.030(3). Under RAP 18.1, we
will award attorney fees if applicable law entitles a party to an award of attorney fees. RCW
7 No. 57509-4-II
7.21.030(3) gives the court discretion to award attorney fees related to a contempt action. Under
the circumstances of this case, we do not award attorney fees to Beld.3
CONCLUSION
We affirm the superior court’s orders and deny Beld’s request for attorney fees.
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.
PRICE, J. We concur:
MAXA, P.J.
GLASGOW, J.
3 On June 6, 2025, Hammelman filed a financial affidavit, which included a request for costs and fees if she prevailed on appeal. RAP 18.1, Affidavit of Fees and Expenses Per Rule 18.14 (June 6, 2025) at 2. Because Hammelman does not prevail on appeal, there is no basis for awarding her attorney fees.