Pierce County, V. Richard E. Sorrels
This text of Pierce County, V. Richard E. Sorrels (Pierce County, V. Richard E. Sorrels) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two
July 12, 2022 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II PIERCE COUNTY, a municipal corporation, No. 55231-1-II
Respondent,
v.
RICHARD E. SORRELS, a single person, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant,
CONRAD VELEZ and JANE DOE VELEZ, husband and wife; EARL F. SORRELS and DORIS E. SORRELS, husband and wife; and the RES TRUST,
Defendants.
LEE, J. — Richard E. Sorrels appeals the superior court’s order authorizing a warrant of
abatement for the public nuisance on Sorrels’ property. Sorrels argues that emergency orders
issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic required the superior court to continue the hearing
on Pierce County’s motion to authorize the re-issuance of a warrant of abatement. Sorrels’ claim
lacks merit. Accordingly, we affirm the superior court’s order and grant Pierce County’s request
for attorney fees on appeal.
FACTS
In June 2002, Pierce County initiated an action to have Sorrels’ property declared a public
nuisance. Following a bench trial, the superior court found that Sorrels maintained a public
nuisance on the property. The superior court issued an order of abatement and a permanent
injunction prohibiting further public nuisance on the property. No. 55231-1-II
In November 2017, Pierce County filed a motion to show cause, alleging Sorrels had again
allowed his property to become a public nuisance. The superior court found that Sorrels had
violated the 2002 permanent injunction. The superior court’s order was affirmed and mandated in
June 2020.
On August 5, 2020, Pierce County moved to have the superior court authorize the re-
issuance of a warrant of abatement against Sorrels for the public nuisance on his property based
on the mandate, noting the hearing for August 28. On August 25, Sorrels moved to continue the
hearing, claiming that the COVID-19 pandemic prevented him from doing legal research or
obtaining an attorney. Then Christopher Sorrels filed a declaration on August 27, responding to
Pierce County’s motion to re-issue the warrant of abatement.
Sorrels did not appear for the hearing on Pierce County’s motion to authorize the re-
issuance of a warrant of abatement. The superior court noted that Sorrels had filed a motion to
continue the hearing due to difficulties arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and asked if Pierce
County would agree to the continuance. Pierce County declined and asked the superior court to
authorize the re-issuance of a warrant of abatement. The superior court entered an order
authorizing a warrant of abatement.
Sorrels appeals.
2 No. 55231-1-II
ANALYSIS
A. CONTINUANCE OF CIVIL MOTION
Sorrels argues that the superior court erred by authorizing the warrant of abatement because
the Pierce County Superior Court’s emergency orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic required
that the superior court grant his continuance request.1 We disagree.
On March 17, 2020, Pierce County Superior Court issued Emergency Order 20-04, which
provided, in relevant part, regarding civil matters:
1. Civil bench trials, including family court trials, scheduled through April 24, 2020, will be held on a voluntary basis, and may be held telephonically at the Court’s discretion. During this period, parties may not subpoena witnesses to testify. Any witnesses must appear voluntarily. If any party requests a continuance the court will grant the continuance and set a new trial date. Attorneys and/or parties requesting a continuance must contact the assigned judicial department either by telephone or email. Failure to contact the Court may result in dismissal of the case. Social distancing will be implemented for all trial participants, including observers. 2. For trial dates scheduled after April 24, 2020, the Court will consider, and liberally grant, requests to continue trial dates. Signed orders continuing trial dates shall be submitted via email to the judicial assistant. 3. All confirmed civil motions scheduled before a judge, will be heard or decided by the assigned judicial officer without the necessity of a personal appearance. Each judicial officer will determine whether a motion shall be heard based upon the pleadings or telephonically and notify the parties accordingly. Proposed and signed orders shall be submitted via email to the judicial assistant prior to the scheduled motion date.
Ex. 4 (Emergency Order No. 20-04, In re Response by Pierce County Superior Court to the Public Health Emergency in Washington State (Pierce County Super. Ct., Wash. Mar. 17, 2020), https://perma.cc/USE8-C6UN) (emphasis added).
1 Sorrels also argues that he was unable to appear at the hearing on the motion because the superior court failed to inform him of how to participate in a Zoom hearing. However, the facts related to Sorrels’ failure to appear at the hearing are not in the record before us. Because we do not consider facts outside the record on appeal, we decline to consider Sorrels’ argument. Bartz v. State Dep’t of Corr. Pub. Disclosure Unit, 173 Wn. App. 522, 528 n.7, 297 P.3d 737, review denied, 177 Wn.2d 1024 (2013).
3 No. 55231-1-II
On May 13, 2020, Pierce County Superior Court issued Emergency Order 20-15, which
provided that “[n]on-jury civil trials shall proceed as scheduled at the discretion of the court via
video, telephone or other means beginning May 4, 2020,” and “[n]on-emergency civil matters
may, at the discretion of the court, be continued until after June 1, 2020.” Ex. 15 (Emergency
Order No. 20-15, In re Response by Pierce County Superior Court to the Public Health Emergency
in Washington State (Pierce County Super. Ct., Wash. May 13, 2020), https://perma.cc/6LQG-
MWY2) (emphasis added).
Here, Pierce County’s motion to authorize the re-issuance of a warrant of abatement did
not require a trial. Therefore, nothing in the Pierce County Superior Court’s emergency orders
required the superior court to continue the matter. The matter before the superior court was a non-
emergency civil motion and whether to grant a continuance was entirely within the discretion of
the superior court. Accordingly, Sorrels’ argument that the superior court was required to grant
his continuance lacks merit.
B. ATTORNEY FEES ON APPEAL
Pierce County requests attorney fees under RAP 18.9 for opposing a frivolous appeal. RAP
18.9(a) allows us to impose sanctions against a party for filing a frivolous appeal. “An appeal is
frivolous when the appeal presents no debatable issues on which reasonable minds could differ
and is so lacking in merit that there is no possibility of reversal.” Stiles v. Kearney, 168 Wn. App.
250, 267, 277 P.3d 9, review denied, 175 Wn.2d 1016 (2012).
Here, Sorrels relies on provisions in Pierce County Emergency Orders related to civil jury
trials—which are obviously inapplicable—to argue that the superior court was required to continue
the hearing on Pierce County’s motion to authorize the re-issuance of a warrant of abatement.
Sorrels also relies on evidence outside the record on appeal that cannot be considered by this court.
4 No. 55231-1-II
Sorrels’ appeal is completely devoid of merit and presents no possibility of reversal. Therefore,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Pierce County, V. Richard E. Sorrels, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierce-county-v-richard-e-sorrels-washctapp-2022.