IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the Matter of the Marriage of No. 81700-1-I YVONNE BAKER, DIVISION ONE Appellant, and UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MARK BAKER,
Respondent.
COBURN, J. — Mark and Yvonne Baker, while individually represented by
attorneys, met with a mediator and signed a settlement agreement in a marriage
dissolution proceeding. Yvonne, appearing pro se, 1 appeals from the trial
court’s entry of its final orders. We affirm.
FACTS
The Bakers were married on January 23, 1996 in China and have two
teenage children, but only one child was a minor at the time of the dissolution.
After 22 years of marriage, Yvonne, a stay-at-home mother, filed for dissolution
of the marriage in King County Superior Court.
On July 18, 2019, the parties, each represented by an attorney, met with a
For clarity, we refer to the parties by their first names because they have 1
the same last name. Mark also appears pro se on appeal.
Citations and pin cites are based on the Westlaw online version of the cited material. No. 81700-1-I/2
mediator and entered into a CR 2A stipulation and agreement. 2 The agreement
addressed a parenting plan, child support, spousal maintenance, division of
property, and allocation of debts. The agreement stated that “[e]ach party agrees
and stipulates this is a full and complete agreement between the parties and is
enforceable in court.” In addition, the agreement provided that any disputes in
drafting the final documents or other unresolved issues would be submitted to an
arbitrator for binding arbitration. The agreement also included a provision stating
that “both parties acknowledge that this Agreement is just and equitable.”
Pursuant to the agreement, Mark’s attorney drafted the proposed findings
and conclusions and final orders, and he sent copies to Yvonne’s attorney. On
August 16, 2019, Yvonne’s attorney withdrew as her counsel. After Yvonne
refused to sign the proposed pleadings, Mark requested arbitration to resolve the
drafting disputes. Yvonne also submitted a list of unresolved issues to the
arbitrator.
The arbitrator considered submissions from the parties and issued a
decision on March 27, 2020. The arbitrator resolved several disputes but
concluded that unresolved issues were to be decided in separate arbitration
decisions. The arbitrator directed the parties to submit responses and replies in
support of the other unresolved issues with the latest deadline of May 29, 2020.
The arbitrator revised the draft proposed orders to conform to the arbitrator’s
decisions. The arbitrator also determined the CR 2A agreement did not require
2In Washington State a trial court’s authority to compel enforcement of a settlement agreement is governed by Civil Rule (CR) 2A. 2 No. 81700-1-I/3
drafting issues and other unresolved issues to be decided at the same time or
require other unresolved issues to be decided prior to entry of the final orders.
The arbitrator directed Mark’s attorney to enter the orders as soon as possible.
The arbitrator filed her decision on May 14, 2020.
On May 21, 2020, Mark filed a motion for entry of final pleadings. In
response, Yvonne filed a motion on June 5, 2020, for a new trial date and to set
aside the CR 2A agreement. The court held a hearing on June 22, 2020, but the
record does not include the transcript from that hearing. However, in the court’s
findings and conclusions entered on June 30, 2020, the court wrote:
The parties entered into an [sic] CR2A agreement on August 30, 2019. After the final orders were drafted, Petitioner refused to sign the orders. The parties then held an arbitration with the CR2A mediator, Cheryl Russell, and she found that the parties are bound by the terms of the parties’ CR2A agreement. Before this Court, Petitioner again raised the same arguments and a hearing was held on June 22, 2020. The Court finds that the terms of the final orders are governed by the parties’ CR2A agreement and the arbitration findings.
The court also entered the final dissolution decree, child support order, child
support worksheet, and parenting plan. Yvonne appeals.
DISCUSSION
We review dissolution orders for abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of
Wilson, 165 Wn. App. 333, 339, 267 P.3d 485 (2011). Because Yvonne does not
challenge the trial court’s findings, they are verities on appeal. In re Marriage of
Fiorito, 112 Wn. App. 657, 665, 50 P.3d 298, 303 (2002) (citing State v. Stenson,
132 Wn.2d 668, 697, 940 P.2d 1239 (1997)). This court does not review the trial
3 No. 81700-1-I/4
court's credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence. In re Marriage of
Black, 188 Wn.2d 114, 127, 392 P.3d 1041 (2017).
Procedural rules apply to both litigants who choose to proceed pro se and
those who seek assistance of counsel. In re Marriage of Olson, 69 Wn. App.
621, 626, 850 P.2d 527 (1993) (citing In re Marriage of Wherley, 34 Wn. App.
344, 349, 661, P.2d 155 (1983)). “Appellate courts need not consider arguments
that are unsupported by pertinent authority, references to the record, or
meaningful analysis.” Cook v. Brateng, 158 Wn. App. 777, 794, 262 P.3d 1228,
(2010) (citing Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801, 809, 828
P.2d 549 (1992)); State v. Elliott, 114 Wn.2d 6, 15, 785 P.2d 440 (1990); State v.
Camarillo, 54 Wn. App. 821, 829, 776 P.2d 176 (1989); RAP 10.3(a).
Yvonne’s failure to follow procedures precludes our ability to review many
of her claims. She rarely cites to the record. While she cites authority, she does
so without providing meaningful analysis beyond conclusory statements.
However, to the extent possible, we consider the merits of her claims.
Child Support Deviation
Yvonne first contends that the trial court erred in granting the motion to
enter final orders because the respondent’s child support obligation in the child
support order deviates from the Washington State child support economic table
without providing valid reasons for the deviation. We disagree.
When a trial court issues a child support order, it begins by determining
the basic child support obligation from an economic table in the child support
schedule, RCW 26.19.020, based on the parents’ combined monthly net income
4 No. 81700-1-I/5
and the number and age of the children. McCausland v. McCausland, 159
Wn.2d 607, 611, 152 P.3d 1013 (2007).
According to the child support economic table, a combined monthly net
income greater than $7,600 but less than $7,700 lists the family obligation per
child as $1,231.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the Matter of the Marriage of No. 81700-1-I YVONNE BAKER, DIVISION ONE Appellant, and UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MARK BAKER,
Respondent.
COBURN, J. — Mark and Yvonne Baker, while individually represented by
attorneys, met with a mediator and signed a settlement agreement in a marriage
dissolution proceeding. Yvonne, appearing pro se, 1 appeals from the trial
court’s entry of its final orders. We affirm.
FACTS
The Bakers were married on January 23, 1996 in China and have two
teenage children, but only one child was a minor at the time of the dissolution.
After 22 years of marriage, Yvonne, a stay-at-home mother, filed for dissolution
of the marriage in King County Superior Court.
On July 18, 2019, the parties, each represented by an attorney, met with a
For clarity, we refer to the parties by their first names because they have 1
the same last name. Mark also appears pro se on appeal.
Citations and pin cites are based on the Westlaw online version of the cited material. No. 81700-1-I/2
mediator and entered into a CR 2A stipulation and agreement. 2 The agreement
addressed a parenting plan, child support, spousal maintenance, division of
property, and allocation of debts. The agreement stated that “[e]ach party agrees
and stipulates this is a full and complete agreement between the parties and is
enforceable in court.” In addition, the agreement provided that any disputes in
drafting the final documents or other unresolved issues would be submitted to an
arbitrator for binding arbitration. The agreement also included a provision stating
that “both parties acknowledge that this Agreement is just and equitable.”
Pursuant to the agreement, Mark’s attorney drafted the proposed findings
and conclusions and final orders, and he sent copies to Yvonne’s attorney. On
August 16, 2019, Yvonne’s attorney withdrew as her counsel. After Yvonne
refused to sign the proposed pleadings, Mark requested arbitration to resolve the
drafting disputes. Yvonne also submitted a list of unresolved issues to the
arbitrator.
The arbitrator considered submissions from the parties and issued a
decision on March 27, 2020. The arbitrator resolved several disputes but
concluded that unresolved issues were to be decided in separate arbitration
decisions. The arbitrator directed the parties to submit responses and replies in
support of the other unresolved issues with the latest deadline of May 29, 2020.
The arbitrator revised the draft proposed orders to conform to the arbitrator’s
decisions. The arbitrator also determined the CR 2A agreement did not require
2In Washington State a trial court’s authority to compel enforcement of a settlement agreement is governed by Civil Rule (CR) 2A. 2 No. 81700-1-I/3
drafting issues and other unresolved issues to be decided at the same time or
require other unresolved issues to be decided prior to entry of the final orders.
The arbitrator directed Mark’s attorney to enter the orders as soon as possible.
The arbitrator filed her decision on May 14, 2020.
On May 21, 2020, Mark filed a motion for entry of final pleadings. In
response, Yvonne filed a motion on June 5, 2020, for a new trial date and to set
aside the CR 2A agreement. The court held a hearing on June 22, 2020, but the
record does not include the transcript from that hearing. However, in the court’s
findings and conclusions entered on June 30, 2020, the court wrote:
The parties entered into an [sic] CR2A agreement on August 30, 2019. After the final orders were drafted, Petitioner refused to sign the orders. The parties then held an arbitration with the CR2A mediator, Cheryl Russell, and she found that the parties are bound by the terms of the parties’ CR2A agreement. Before this Court, Petitioner again raised the same arguments and a hearing was held on June 22, 2020. The Court finds that the terms of the final orders are governed by the parties’ CR2A agreement and the arbitration findings.
The court also entered the final dissolution decree, child support order, child
support worksheet, and parenting plan. Yvonne appeals.
DISCUSSION
We review dissolution orders for abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of
Wilson, 165 Wn. App. 333, 339, 267 P.3d 485 (2011). Because Yvonne does not
challenge the trial court’s findings, they are verities on appeal. In re Marriage of
Fiorito, 112 Wn. App. 657, 665, 50 P.3d 298, 303 (2002) (citing State v. Stenson,
132 Wn.2d 668, 697, 940 P.2d 1239 (1997)). This court does not review the trial
3 No. 81700-1-I/4
court's credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence. In re Marriage of
Black, 188 Wn.2d 114, 127, 392 P.3d 1041 (2017).
Procedural rules apply to both litigants who choose to proceed pro se and
those who seek assistance of counsel. In re Marriage of Olson, 69 Wn. App.
621, 626, 850 P.2d 527 (1993) (citing In re Marriage of Wherley, 34 Wn. App.
344, 349, 661, P.2d 155 (1983)). “Appellate courts need not consider arguments
that are unsupported by pertinent authority, references to the record, or
meaningful analysis.” Cook v. Brateng, 158 Wn. App. 777, 794, 262 P.3d 1228,
(2010) (citing Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801, 809, 828
P.2d 549 (1992)); State v. Elliott, 114 Wn.2d 6, 15, 785 P.2d 440 (1990); State v.
Camarillo, 54 Wn. App. 821, 829, 776 P.2d 176 (1989); RAP 10.3(a).
Yvonne’s failure to follow procedures precludes our ability to review many
of her claims. She rarely cites to the record. While she cites authority, she does
so without providing meaningful analysis beyond conclusory statements.
However, to the extent possible, we consider the merits of her claims.
Child Support Deviation
Yvonne first contends that the trial court erred in granting the motion to
enter final orders because the respondent’s child support obligation in the child
support order deviates from the Washington State child support economic table
without providing valid reasons for the deviation. We disagree.
When a trial court issues a child support order, it begins by determining
the basic child support obligation from an economic table in the child support
schedule, RCW 26.19.020, based on the parents’ combined monthly net income
4 No. 81700-1-I/5
and the number and age of the children. McCausland v. McCausland, 159
Wn.2d 607, 611, 152 P.3d 1013 (2007).
According to the child support economic table, a combined monthly net
income greater than $7,600 but less than $7,700 lists the family obligation per
child as $1,231. RCW 26.19.020. The court’s final child support worksheet
calculated the Bakers’ combined monthly net income as $7,646.12. Because the
Bakers had one minor age child, the court determined the basic child support
obligation was $1,231. This calculation was consistent with the child support
economic table. After the court considered the $4,000 in maintenance income
that Yvonne would be receiving, and the health insurance premiums Mark pays
for the child, the court determined the proportional share of the standard
calculation of child support as $734.81 from Yvonne and $496.19 from Mark.
Under RCW 26.19.075, the court may deviate from the standard
calculation for multiple reasons. RCW 26.19.075(1)(a)-(e). If a party requests a
deviation, “[t]he court shall enter findings that specify reasons for any deviation or
any denial of a party's request.” RCW 26.19.075(3). If reasons exist for
deviation, “the court shall exercise discretion in considering the extent to which
the factors would affect the support obligation.” RCW 26.19.075(4).
The monthly child support order reflected the same standard calculation
from the child support worksheets. However, the monthly child support payment
amount in the child support order totaled $4,000. The court explained the
deviation: “[t]he parties reached an agreement in mediation of undifferentiated
child support/maintenance of $4,000.00 a month that [Mark] will pay to [Yvonne].”
5 No. 81700-1-I/6
The CR 2A agreement states, “[Mark]’s child support obligation is included in
[Mark]’s monthly payment to [Yvonne]” and that the husband is to pay the wife
monthly maintenance of $4,000. “Agreement of the parties is not by itself
adequate reason for any deviations from the standard calculation.” RCW
26.19.075(5). However, Yvonne fails to articulate what the monthly child support
payment should be or how exactly the court erred.
Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion.
Imputed Income
Yvonne next contends that the trial court improperly imputed income to her.
We disagree.
RCW 26.19.071(6) provides, “A court shall not impute income to a parent
who is gainfully employed on a full-time basis, unless the court finds that the
parent is voluntarily underemployed and finds that the parent is purposely
underemployed to reduce the parent's child support obligation. Income shall not
be imputed for an unemployable parent.”
Although Yvonne alleges that the court improperly imputed income to her,
the record does not support this. The only income listed for Yvonne was the
$4,000 monthly maintenance that she agreed to receive from Mark. Nothing is
listed on the child support worksheets for imputed income. Thus, there is no
alleged error to review.
Outstanding Arbitration Issues
Yvonne claims that the court erred in entering final orders when the
arbitrator had not yet made final rulings on several major issues, errors and
6 No. 81700-1-I/7
omissions, and the arbitrator was still accepting corrections from Yvonne with a
documentation due date on June 12. Yvonne cites to two documents in the
record, (1) the declaration she filed the same day she filed a motion to set a new
trial date and set aside the CR 2A agreement; and (2) the arbitrator’s decision.
Neither support her claim that the arbitrator was accepting documents from her
until June 12. Based on the record before us, the arbitrator’s decision directed
Yvonne to submit documents prior to June 12 on unresolved issues and also
determined that any unresolved issues were to be decided in a separate
arbitration decision to avoid further delay in entering the final orders.
Furthermore, the court held a hearing prior to entering final orders, and the
court found that Yvonne raised the same arguments previously submitted to the
It is the appellant’s burden to perfect the record on appeal so that we have
all the information and evidence relevant to the issues raised. See RAP 9.2(b);
Bulzomi v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 72 Wn. App. 522, 525, 864 P.2d 996 (1994).
“An insufficient record on appeal precludes review of the alleged errors.” Id. “An
appellate court may decline to address a claimed error when faced with a
material omission in the record.” State v. Wade, 138 Wn.2d 460, 465, 979 P.2d
850 (1999).
Without the report of proceedings from the hearing, we are unable to
determine if there were outstanding arbitration issues that should have precluded
the court from entering final orders.
7 No. 81700-1-I/8
Evidentiary Hearing
Without citing to the record or making any meaningful argument, Yvonne
contends that the trial court erred in enforcing the CR 2A agreement without first
holding an evidentiary hearing on issues of material fact raised by Yvonne. She
also claims “[t]he trial court erred in conducting a hearing in which the opposing
parties were not given equal treatment.”
It is unclear what hearing Yvonne is referring to or if she is referring to her
motion to set aside the CR 2A agreement. We know from the court’s findings
that it did hold a hearing eight days before entering its final orders, and that
Yvonne raised the same arguments previously submitted to the arbitrator.
However, that is all we know about the hearing. Yvonne failed to sufficiently brief
these claims or provide a complete record for proper review.
Unconscionability
Beyond claiming that “[t]he Separation Agreement was Unconscionable,”
Yvonne merely cites cases without explaining how they apply to her case or
citing to the record. We decline to consider this claim.
Affirmed.
WE CONCUR: