IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In the Matter of the Marriage of No. 76551-5-1 c=, cpp, 5; Iti?.3 .4 JOSEPHENE CHOI, rnc, DIVISION ONE Respondent, c.n UNPUBLISHED OPINION 77 , rn and , .• NATHAN CHOI, Appellant. FILED: November 5, 2018 APPELWICK, C.J. — Upon the dissolution of their marriage, the trial court appointed a special master/arbitrator for all disputes surrounding the sale of Nathan and Josephene Choi's commercial property and implementation of their dissolution decree. Nathanl argues that the special master's rulings should be vacated under RCW 7.04A.230, because he exceeded his powers and showed evident partiality. We affirm. FACTS On January 13, 2016, the marriage of Nathan and Josephene Choi was dissolved after a four day trial. In the dissolution decree, the trial court appointed Lawrence Besk as "Special Master/Arbitrator" (special master) to arbitrate all 1 We use first names for clarity. No. 76551-5-1/2 disputes surrounding the sale of the parties' commercial property and implementation of the decree pursuant to chapter 7.04A RCW. After the dissolution but before the special master's rulings, Nathan filed a $1,000.00 supersedeas bond with the trial court. He also filed a certificate of service stating that he served Gary Taylor, Josephene's attorney, with notice of the bond. Nathan intended the bond to stay enforcement of the dissolution decree pending his appeal in that case.2 Josephene never objected to the bond amount. Nathan did not serve the special master with notice of the bond. Instead, he sent the special master an e-mail stating that there was "a stay." The special master responded to Nathan, stating that nothing had been provided to him confirming that there had been a hearing or that the trial court had approved any bond amount. Absent that information, he stated that the case would proceed. The special master then issued three rulings involving the parties' commercial property, tax returns, and dissolution decree requirements. Nathan moved to vacate and alternatively modify those rulings. Among his many arguments, he asserted that the reasons the special master gave for his decisions were a direct result of their conflict over the interpretation of RAP 8.1 and Nathan's filing of a $1,000.00 supersedeas bond. He stated that the special master 2 On January 14, 2016, Nathan filed a notice of appeal of the dissolution decree, challenging the parenting plan, denial of his request to relocate, and award of property. In re Marriage of Choi, No. 74569-7-1, slip op. at 7, 2017 WL 1533241 (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2017)(unpublished), http://www.courts. wa.gov/opinions /pdfR45697.pdf, review denied, 189 Wn.2d 1032, 407 P.3d 1154 (2018). This court affirmed in all respects on April 24, 2017. Id. at 1. 2 No. 76551-5-1/3 "unilaterally objected" on Josephene's behalf to him filing the bond and, from that point, "took every opportunity to grant anything requested by Josephene" and ignored all of his "valid concerns." (Boldface omitted.) At the motion hearing, Josephene's attorney stated that she did not object to the supersedeas bond because Nathan never served her ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals