Opinion
No. 38483-3-II.
Filed: September 9, 2009.
Appeal from the Superior Court, Pierce County, No. 08-2-02906-4, H. Edward Haarmann, J. Pro Tem., entered September 26, 2008.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Penoyar, J., concurred in by Van Deren, C.J., and Quinn-Brintnall, J.
Unpublished Opinion
Helen Immelt appeals from the trial court's order granting Wilhelm Bonneville $750 in attorney fees as part of its order dismissing her petition for a protection order. She contends that the trial court did not have the authority to grant attorney fees. We conclude that it did and affirm.
Bonneville states that his legal name is Robert William Bonneville.
A commissioner of this court initially considered Immelt's appeal as a motion on the merits under RAP 18.14 and then transferred it to a panel of judges.
FACTS
On September 9, 2008, Immelt filed a petition for an order of protection. She stated that Bonneville, from whom she was divorced in 1984:
over the last 6 months . . . has called my home and threaten[ed] my life. [T]hese calls are late at night between 1 am and 4 am. [H]e has said he would kill me for taking [sic] to the detective nelson abut [sic] his forgery issues. [T]his last weekend (Sept 7th) he called on his cell phone and threaten[ed] my life again.
Clerk's Papers (CP) at 4.
Bonneville opposed the petition. At a hearing on September 23, 2008, Immelt repeated her allegations but did not have evidence to support her claims. She asked for a short delay so that she could provide telephone records to support her claims. The court continued the hearing to September 26, 2008. In a declaration filed on September 25, 2008, Bonneville provided records from his cell phone showing that his latest calls on the weekend of September 6-7, 2008, were at 5:53 p.m. and 9:11 p.m., respectively. At the hearing on September 26, 2008, Immelt did not present any evidence to support her claims that Bonneville had called her on the weekend of September 6-7, 2008. The trial court dismissed Immelt's petition for failure of proof. The court also granted Bonneville attorney fees of $750, from which Immelt appeals.
ANALYSIS
Immelt argues that the trial court does not have the authority to award attorney fees to a respondent who successfully defends against a petition for a protection order. Hecker v. Cortinas, 110 Wn. App. 865, 870-71, 43 P.3d 50 (2002). Thus, she contends that the trial court erred in granting Bonneville his attorney fees. Bonneville responds that the attorney fees were not awarded because he successfully defended against Immelt's petition. Instead, he asserts that the trial court awarded attorney fees as terms for requiring his attorney to attend the September 26, 2008 hearing, at which Immelt did not present the evidence she swore she had. And he contends that the trial court has inherent authority to impose terms. Graves v. Duerden, 51 Wn. App. 642, 651, 754 P.2d 1027 (1988).
In contrast, the trial court can order a respondent to reimburse the petitioner for attorney fees if the petitioner is successful in obtaining a protection order. RCW 26.50.060(1)(g).
Immelt did not arrange for the filing of transcripts from either hearing. We conclude that the trial court acted within its discretion in granting Bonneville his attorney fees after Immelt required him to appear for hearing a second time after promising to provide evidence to support her petition and then failing to do so. Graves, 51 Wn. App. at 651. We affirm the trial court's order.
Bonneville requests attorney fees for Immelt's appeal. Graves, 51 Wn. App. at 651-52. Subject to his compliance with RAP 18.1, we award Bonneville his attorney fees on appeal in an amount to be determined by a commissioner of this court.
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
VAN DEREN, C.J. and QUINN-BRINTNALL, J., concur.