Sheri M. Oertel v. Adriana L. Lopez d/b/a Art's Landscaping

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: October 2, 2025
• Docket: 40387-4
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED OCTOBER 2, 2025 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

SHERI M. OERTEL, ) No. 40387-4-III ) Respondent, ) ) v. ) PUBLISHED OPINION ) ADRIANA L. LOPEZ, DBA ART’S ) LANDSCAPING, & ARTURO LOPEZ, ) ) Petitioners. )

LAWRENCE-BERREY, C.J. — The Civil Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction

(CRLJ) do not apply to proceedings in small claims court. But once a case is appealed

from small claims court to superior court, CRLJ 72-75A applies to the superior court

proceeding.

Here, the superior court sitting in review of a small claims court decision

determined that CRLJ 73 did not apply and denied a motion to dismiss the appeal for the

appealing party’s failure to file a bond as required by CRLJ 73(c). We conclude (1) the

superior court erred by determining that CRLJ 73 did not apply in superior court, and

(2) CRLJ 73(c) does not require the superior court to promptly dismiss an appeal for

failure to file such a bond. No. 40387-4-III Oertel v. Lopez

FACTS

Sheri Oertel hired Adriana Lopez to perform landscaping work on her property.

Oertel later brought an action against Lopez in small claims court for breach of contract,

among other theories. The court rejected most of Oertel’s claims but found that Lopez

breached the contract with respect to the retaining wall. The court entered judgment for

Oertel and against Lopez for $3,861.50.

Oertel appealed the small claims court decision to superior court. Later, Lopez

moved to dismiss the appeal because Oertel failed to file a $100 bond as required by

CRLJ 73(c). The trial court, relying on unpublished authority, concluded that CRLJ 73

did not apply to the appeal and denied Lopez’s motion to dismiss.

Lopez sought discretionary review with this court. Our commissioner granted

discretionary review because the superior court’s decision conflicted with Goodeill v.

Madison Real Estate, 191 Wn. App. 88, 97, 362 P.3d 302 (2015).

LAW

The proper construction of our court rules is a question of law that we review de

novo. Jafar v. Webb, 177 Wn.2d 520, 526, 303 P.3d 1042 (2013).

CRLJ 73 applies to appeals of limited jurisdictional court proceedings that are not

reviewed under the Rules for Appeal of Decisions of Courts of Limited Jurisdiction

(RALJ). CRLJ 73(a). Appeals from small claims courts are not reviewed under the

2 No. 40387-4-III Oertel v. Lopez

RALJ rules. RALJ 1.1(b). Thus, CRLJ 73 applies to appeals from small claims court

decisions. Goodeill, 191 Wn. App. at 97.

Ortel cites CRLJ 81 to support her argument that CRLJ 73 does not apply to

appeals of small claims court decisions. We disagree. CRLJ 81(a) states in relevant part,

“These rules do not apply to proceedings in small claims court.” Here, the appeal was in

superior court. Thus, CRLJ 81 does not support Oertel’s argument.1

Having concluded that CRLJ 73 applies to a superior court’s review of a small

claims court decision, we must now decide whether CRLJ 73 requires the superior court

to dismiss Oertel’s appeal for not filing a bond.

CRLJ 73(c) states a bond “shall be . . . filed with and approved by the court of

limited jurisdiction . . . in the sum of $100, conditioned that the appellant will pay all

costs that may be awarded against appellant on appeal.” CRLJ 73(f) states, “No appeal

. . . shall be dismissed on account of any defect in the bond on appeal, if the appellant,

before the motion is determined, shall execute and file in the superior court [a proper

bond] and pay all costs that may have accrued by reason of such defect.”

1 In Last Chance Riding Stable, Inc. v. Stephens, 66 Wn. App. 710, 712, 832 P.2d 1353 (1992), we quoted CRLJ 81 and noted that CRLJ 73(b) does not apply to small claims proceedings. To the extent Last Chance can be construed as saying CRLJ 73 does not apply to superior court proceedings, we disagree with it.

3 No. 40387-4-III Oertel v. Lopez

Lopez argues that CRLJ 73(f) requires the superior court to dismiss the appeal

because Oertel did not file the $100 bond. To the extent her argument implies that the

superior court lacks discretion to do anything other than to promptly dismiss Oertel’s

appeal, we disagree. CRLJ 73(c) requires an appellant to file a bond, but nothing in

CRLJ 73 forbids the superior court from giving the appellant additional time to comply

with the rule’s bonding and payment of costs requirements. The only limitation on the

court’s discretion is that it cannot dismiss an appeal if the appellant files the bond and

pays the respondent its associated costs before the motion is determined. Read as a

whole, although the rule requires an appellant to file a bond, it does not limit the court’s

discretion to give the appellant additional time to comply with the rule’s bonding and

payment of costs requirements.

On remand, Oertel must file a $100 bond and pay all of Lopez’s costs that may

have accrued by Oertel’s failure to file a bond. If Oertel fails to do both before the

superior court decides Lopez’s motion to dismiss, the superior court may dismiss the

appeal or it may give Oertel additional time to comply with the rule’s bonding and

4 No. 40387-4-III Oertel v. Lopez

Reversed.

WE CONCUR:

d ~ ..:17 Fearing, J. ~ • )

Cooney, J.