[WSBAPT] TEDRA Attorney Fees and default order question

[Kris Z]

Hi Team -

I am in need of some guidance. I apologize for the following long post..
but details matter :-)

Weird  TEDRA attorney fees and costs issue in Kent RJC.  I have spoken to a
colleague who gave me some  ideas and suggested that I also reach out to
the listserv to see if anyone has other thoughts, ideas and or tips.

Sorry for the long story – I wish I had a Readers digest version:

TEDRA petition filed naming 3 respondents ( 2 individuals and 1 LLC under
agency theory).   No respondent appears or responds by deadline. The LLC
appears at 2pm the day before the hearing and we discuss resolving our
issues with them. Primary issue is respondents have put their name on a
title to home (undue influence).

That night before the hearing I file a motion for default against the 2
respondents out of an abundance of caution thinking I might need this even
though the TEDRA statute provides for default.

We resolve the issue with the LLC prior  on the day of the hearing and
agree to dismiss them. The Court signs an order granting our request for
quiet title of home and expressly awards fees and costs in the order and
stating that I am to present to the court at a later date for approval of
the amount of reasonable fees and costs.  Admittedly, the order we drafted
in the court was poorly written.

The court does not indicate this is a default judgment on the order itself
even though we discuss a default on the record based on the fact the
respondents (other than LLC) did not appear.  The court tells me that I did
not need the previously filed default motion because the TEDRA RCW provides
for default under this scenario – so the motion I filed never comes before
the court.  I have the transcript of the hearing and the court states
 regarding the default “You get that even without a motion”

So the following week I file the motion and fee declaration by the
deadline. The court denies it because I forgot to sign the order – oops.
The court says to resubmit the completed order with signature along with
the other documents I filed.

I refile the corrected order with my other documents (dec and mtn). The
court again denies my order but this time stating that *"Though a Motion
for Default was filed, there has been no Order of Default entered.
Therefor, Respondents are entitled to Notice of the hearing on Petitioner's
Motion for fees.”*

So here lies the challenge –

Do I need to refile Motion for Default or can I move the court for
clarification that the original order signed at the TEDRA hearing is a
default order? Do respondents who failed to appear need to be given notice?
Doesn’t that give them an unfair and unjustified second bite at the apple?

My suspicion is that because I have had 3 different commissioners on this
case and the poorly written order, that there is a lack of continuity in
following this matter. Based on the last denial  as noted by the court
regarding the comment about the default motion, I am assuming that the
Court is unaware that the default motion I filed prior to the TEDRA hearing
was never before the court and I am simply providing a fee declaration and
motion to approve the reasonable fees. Should I just file a motion and
declaration explaining the procedural history and my position that
respondents are not due notice and include the fee petition and order?
Or?????

Court Rules and  RCWs do not indicate specifically either way  - RCW 11.96
states however that the court may grant petitioners requests without
further notice…  CR55 does not indicate much either.

I am hoping to avoid incurring additional costs to serve respondents and
the time associated with that. But if I do have to give notice, can I do
certified mail or will it require personal service being that TEDRA allows
for service by certified mail?

Yes, I am sure I am overthinking this. 😊

Thanks in advance.
*Kris Zucconi*
Attorney
Member WSAJ, TPCBA, WSBA, WELA
(206)255-3869

Retired US Army Veteran
"Women belong in all places where decisions are being made. It shouldn't be
that women are the exception." Ruth Bader Ginsburg







NOTICE: This communication and any attachments may contain privileged
or otherwise
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient or believe
that you may have received this communication in error, please reply to the
sender indicating that fact and delete the copy you received without printing,
copying, retransmitting, disseminating, or otherwise using the information.
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20250723/0ccbb778/attachment.html>