Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two October 19, 2021 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II TATYANA MASON, No. 51642-0-II Appellant, v. JOHN MASON AND LAURIE ROBERTSON, PUBLISHED IN PART OPINION Respondents. CRUSER, J. — Tatyana Mason appeals from the trial court’s orders dismissing personal injury claims she filed against her former husband, John Mason, and his attorney, Laurie Robertson, who represented John1 during the dissolution proceedings. She argues that the trial court erred in dismissing her abuse of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims because (1) the trial court failed to apply the proper standard of review under CR 12(b)(6), (2) she was denied a due process and statutory right when the trial courts in prior family law proceedings and in the instant case did not provide her with an interpreter, (3) the statute of limitations does not bar her claims, (4) neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel bar her claims, (5) the litigation privilege does not apply to bar her abuse of process claim against Robertson, (6) her abuse of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims should have survived 1 This opinion will refer to members of the same family by their first names to avoid confusion. No. 51642-0-II both Robertson’s and John’s motions to dismiss, and (7) sanctions should not have been awarded to John and Robertson under CR 11 or RCW 4.84.185. Tatyana also (8) moved for sanctions on appeal, alleging that John’s appellate counsel has a conflict of interest and that the statement of facts in his response brief is improperly argumentative. In the published portion of this opinion, we hold that (1) the summary judgment standard of review applies because the trial court considered material beyond the pleadings; (2) the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to determine whether Tatyana required an interpreter in the instant case; (3) the statute of limitations does not bar Tatyana’s claims; (4) the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel do not bar Tatyana’s claims; and (5) litigation privilege does not bar Tatyana’s abuse of process claim against Robertson or her intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against John or Robertson. In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we hold that (6) the trial court erred in dismissing Tatyana’s abuse of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against John on summary judgment; (7) the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded sanctions pursuant to CR 11 to John and Robertson and pursuant to RCW 4.84.185 to Robertson; and we (8) deny Tatyana’s motion for appellate sanctions. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s orders granting Robertson’s and John’s motions to dismiss, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 2 No. 51642-0-II FACTS I. MARRIAGE AND DISSOLUTION Tatyana Mason came to the United States from the Ukraine under a fiancé visa sponsored by John Mason. The two married several months later, on August 19, 1999. While married, Tatyana and John had …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals