How Do Washington Courts Determine Whether a Filing or Claim is Frivolous?
The recent Washington State Court of Appeals’ decision In Re Est. of Sylvester offers valuable insight into just how high the bar is for a Washington court to determine that filings or claims were frivolous so as to award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.
The Sylvester decision also concerned the issue of jurisdiction, but this blog post will focus on the issue of whether filings and claims were so frivolous as to warrant an award of attorney’s fees. Specifically, whether the trial court in Sylvester correctly awarded attorney’s fees as a sanction for frivolous filings. The Sylvester decision hinged on the definition of “frivolous” under Washington law, in the context of Civil Rule (CR) 11 or under Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 4.84.185, both of which govern frivolous actions. Ultimately, the Sylvester court reversed an award for attorney’s fees for frivolous filings.
In Sylvester, J. Elmer, a family friend, was already serving as administrator for Eva Sylvester’s deceased mother, E. Meleskie’s estate. Elmer petitioned the trial court, the Superior Court of Lewis County, for adjudication of intestacy with respect to Sylvester’s estate. Elmer was aware, by virtue of her role as administrator, that Sylvester’s estate would be inheriting from the Meleskie’s estate. The trial court granted Elmer’s petition and appointed her as administrator of Sylvester’s estate.
Sylvester’s brother, David Sylvestersen, heard about Elmer’s petition, and offered to waive involvement in the probate of Sylvester’s estate in exchange for a lump sum payment. Sylvestersen then initiated his challenges to probate Sylvester’s estate on the grounds of jurisdiction as well as claiming the Sylvester estate was insolvent as another path to defeat jurisdiction of a Washington court.
The trial court disagreed with Sylvestersen and found that Sylvestersen’s petition to dismiss Sylvester’s probate was “frivolous,” because Sylvestersen knew or should have known that the basis for filing in Washington was the anticipated inheritance from Meleskie’s estate, due to substance of the correspondence between the parties, as well as the pleadings. The trial court also found Sylvestersen’s claim that Sylvester’s estate was insolvent to support his jurisdictional argument was undermined by his attorney acknowledging Sylvester’s anticipated inheritance. The trial court ordered Sylvestersen to pay attorney’s fees to Sylvester’s estate as a sanction for his frivolous filings. After unsuccessfully seeking reconsideration, Sylvestersen appealed.
On appeal, the Sylvester Court examined the award of attorney’s fees and noted that the trial court did not identify the authority it relied on to make its award of attorney’s fees. The Sylvester Court found that because the trial court had crossed out a reference to CR 11 in the final written order, that it had likely relied on RCW 4.84.185, which allows an award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party when the court makes a written finding that a claim was frivolous. A claim is considered frivolous under RCW 4.84.185 if it cannot be supported by any rational argument based in fact or law when considering the action in its entirety.
The Sylvester Court reversed the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees on the basis that Sylvestersen’s jurisdictional argument, although unsuccessful, did not meet the high bar of being entirely frivolous. The Sylvester Court acknowledged the complexities inherent in interstate jurisdiction and the “debatable question” presented by the specific facts of the case. For a claim to be considered “frivolous,” there must be no reasonable argument to support it. A claim is not considered frivolous merely because it was unsuccessful following litigation.
The Sylvester decision serves as a critical reminder that a case or claim is only frivolous if there is no reasonable argument to support it. Whether the plaintiff or the defendant, any party asserting frivolous claims or defenses could be exposing themselves to a substantial expense should the opposing party obtain an award for attorney’s fees. This is especially important to remember for a party contemplating which claims to assert prior to filing, or in defense of, a lawsuit.
For anyone contemplating or facing anticipated litigation, it is essential to understand the potential for sanctions and/or an adverse attorney fee award. Filing or asserting baseless claims or defenses can lead to significant financial penalties. Conversely, defending against genuinely frivolous actions may allow you to recover your attorney’s fees.
To learn more about how Washington Courts Determine Whether a Filing or Claim is Frivolous, please contact Beresford Booth at info@beresfordlaw.com or by phone at (425) 776-4100.
