Jill - Wa

Court of Appeals Case No. 69928-8

COURT OF APPEALS, DIVISION I OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Jill E. Lane, Plaintiff/Appellant v.

Mark von der Burg/Coldwell Banker Bain Bellevue/Coldwell Banker Real Estate LLC, and;

Dawn GadwalFirst Citizens Bank WashingtonlFirst Citizens Bancshares, DefendantslRespondents

BRIEF OF APPELLANT

Andrew L. Magee, Esq. WSBA# 31281

Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellant(s) 44th Floor

1001 Fourth Avenue Plaza Seattle, Washington 98154

(206) 389-1675 amagee@

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I INTRODUCTION

1

II ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

2

III STATEMENT OF CASE

2

IV SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

6

V ARGUMENT

8

VI CONCLUSION

32

11

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Table of Cases

Bryant v. Joseph Tree, Inc., 57 Wn. App. 107,791 P.2d 537 (1990) 9, 13, 18

Bryant v. Joseph Tree, Inc., 119 Wn.2d 210,829 P.2d 1099 (1992) 10,13,17,18,21,29,30

Madden v. Folley, 83 Wn. App. 385, 922 P.2d 1364 (1996) 18

Roeber v. Dowty Aerospace, 116 Wn. App. 127,64 P.3d 691 (2003) 18,19,27

Constitutional Provisions

vth Amendment - U.S. Constitution

4,8,25,26,27

Statutes

RCW Chapter 9.73

4, 7, 12, 14,28

RCW 9.73.030

5, 11, 14, 15, 16, 20, 24, 27

RCW 9.73.060

5, 7, 11, 15, 16,20,21,27,28,29

III

I INTRODUCTION The trial court, in error as a matter of law, found Ms. Lane and her attorney, Mr. Magee, jointly and severally liable for sanctions imposed pursuant to CR 11. The trial court, furthermore, did so in violation of their Constitutional Due Process Rights to be heard. Ms. Lane and Mr. Magee (Ms. Lane) now respectfully submit to this Court their appeal asking for the Order of the Trial Court to be reversed and that they be exonerated entirely from the trial court order imposing sanctions, and that all costs, attorney's fees be awarded to Ms. Lane allowable under the law and/or alternatively: respectfully request that this matter be remanded to the trial court so that Ms. Lane may have preserved and exercise her Constitutional Due Process Rights to be - on the record - heard, and present evidence, and call witnesses and confront the witness(es) against her.

1

II ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 1. Did the court error as a matter of law in finding that this action was not warranted in existing case law? - YES 2. Did the court err as a matter of law when it found that Ms. Lane did not make a reasonable inquiry into the factual or legal basis of the action? - YES 3. Did the court err as a matter of law when it found that Ms. Lane's attorney had not provided evidence in support of her position? - YES 4. Did the court err as a matter of law when it considered information about the identity of an "unknown" person at the meeting in question? - YES 5. Did the court err as a matter of law and violate Ms. Lane's Due Process Rights by denying her a hearing in this matter? YES.

III STATEMENT OF CASE At the behest of Ms. Lane, on June 7, 2010, a meeting took place between two parties; (A) Ms. Lane/her real estate agent/his assistant, (Ms. Lane) and;

2

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download