IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
SANDRA L. FERGUSON and THE
FERGUSON FIRM, PLLC, DIVISION ONE
Appellants, No. 81662-4-I
v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN J. WAID,
BRIAN J. WAID and JANE DOE WAID,
and their marital community.
Respondents.
DWYER, J. — Sandra Ferguson and The Ferguson Firm, PLLC (collectively
Ferguson) appeal from the judgment awarding an amount due, plus prejudgment
interest, on an account stated counterclaim filed by Brian Waid, d/b/a Law Office
of Brian J. Waid. Ferguson contends that Waid was required to prove that he
fulfilled his contractual obligations to Ferguson in order to be entitled to the
amount due on his account stated counterclaim. Because Ferguson fails to
establish an entitlement to relief, we affirm.
I
The factual basis for this appeal is set forth in Ferguson v. Law Office of
Brian J. Waid, No. 74512-3-I (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2019) (unpublished),
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/745123.pdf. In that opinion, we provided
that, “[o]n remand, the trial court must grant [Brian] Waid partial summary
judgment as to his account stated established at the time of [Sandra] Ferguson’s
No. 81662-4-I/2
January 2012 payment.” Ferguson, No. 74512-3-I, slip op. at 21. On March 27,
2020, we issued a mandate, which provided that the “case is mandated to the
Superior Court from which the appeal was taken for further proceedings in
accordance with the attached true copy of the decision.”
On remand, Waid moved to enforce the mandate in the superior court.1
On June 26, 2020, the superior court entered an order granting Waid’s motion.
This order provided, in part,
that Judgment be rendered in favor of Plaintiff-in-Counterclaim,
Brian J. Waid d/b/a Law Office of Brian J. Waid, against
Defendants-in-Counterclaim Sandra L. Ferguson and The
Ferguson Firm, PLLC, jointly and severally, in the amount of
$59,764.42, together with legal interest at the rate of 12% per
annum from February 14, 2012 until paid.
Accordingly, that same day, the superior court entered judgment in favor
of Waid pursuant to CR 54(b). The judgment provided, in part:
A. The mandate of Division I directed that, on remand,
this Court “must grant Waid partial summary judgment as to his
account stated established at the time of Ferguson’s January 2012
payment.”
B. Pursuant to RAP 12.2, Defendants-in-Counterclaim
SANDRA L. FERGUSON and THE FERGUSON FIRM, PLLC
cannot dispute that the principal amount of $59,764.42 remains due
and owing and unpaid and cannot appeal from the judgment
awarding that amount to Plaintiff-in-Counterclaim.
C. The amounts indisputably due Plaintiff-in-
Counterclaim by Defendants-in-Counterclaim were incurred by
Defendants-in-Counterclaim during the period from May 2011
through mid-February 2012.
D. Plaintiffs/Defendants-in-Counterclaim Ferguson and
The Ferguson Firm, PLLC initiated this lawsuit in October 2014.
E. Under these circumstances, it would be unjust to
continue to delay entry of a final judgment in favor of Plaintiff-in-
Counterclaim Waid for the fees and litigation expenses incurred
with him by Defendants-in-Counterclaim Sandra L. Ferguson and
1 This motion does not appear in the record on appeal. However, the superior court’s
order on the motion makes clear that Waid filed a motion to enforce the mandate.
2
No. 81662-4-I/3
The Ferguson Firm, PLLC. No other litigation is pending that might
reduce or nullify this award.
On July 29, 2020, Waid filed a motion to dismiss “ALL REMAINING
CLAIMS BY ALL PARTIES, WITH RESERVATIONS OF RIGHTS.” On August
13, the superior court entered an order granting the motion. The order provided,
in part:
All remaining claims by all parties are hereby DISMISSED,
subject to the following reservations:
A. Sandra L. Ferguson and The Ferguson Firm, PLLC
reserve their right to appeal from the June 26, 2020
judgment against them.
Ferguson appeals.
II
Ferguson contends that the superior court erred by not properly enforcing
our mandate. This is so, she asserts, because Waid did not prove that he
fulfilled his contractual obligations to Ferguson. We disagree.
In Ferguson, we stated that the trial court
denied summary judgment [on Waid’s account stated counterclaim]
based on its erroneous belief that whether Waid performed the
work to earn the attorney fees claimed to be due was material to his
account stated counterclaim. Instead, the trial court should have
considered solely whether the undisputed facts established that
Waid presented written invoices to Ferguson setting forth the state
of the account between Waid and Ferguson and whether Ferguson
assented to the account as presented in such invoices.
No. 74512-3-I, slip op. at 19 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted).
Additionally, we stated that, “[o]n remand, the trial court must grant Waid
partial summary judgment as to his account stated established at the time of
Ferguson’s January 2012 payment.” Ferguson, No. 74512-3-I, slip op. at 21.
3
No. 81662-4-I/4
On March 27, 2020, we issued a mandate, which provided that the “case
is mandated to the Superior Court from which the appeal was taken for further
proceedings in accordance with the attached true copy of the decision.”
Under RAP 12.2:
Upon issuance of the mandate of the appellate court as provided in
rule 12.5, the action taken or decision made by the appellate court
is effective and binding on the parties to the review and governs all
subsequent proceedings in the action in any court, unless
otherwise directed upon recall of the mandate as provided in rule
12.9, and except as provided in rule 2.5(c)(2).
Thus, our decision in Ferguson, No. 74512-3-I, was binding on the
superior court on remand. As such, Waid was not required to establish any
additional facts in order to be entitled to the amount due on his account stated
counterclaim.
Ferguson asserts that the following language from our opinion required
Waid to establish that he fulfilled his contractual obligations to Ferguson before
he was entitled to final judgment on the account stated counterclaim:
[U]nlike the account stated claim, whether Waid actually performed
the work pursuant to his contract with Ferguson is material to
whether Ferguson owes Waid damages for a breach of that
contract. If Waid did not fulfill all of his obligations pursuant to his
contract with Ferguson, then he may not be entitled to his claimed
fees as damages.
Ferguson, No. 74512-3-I, slip op. at 19 n.15.
But Ferguson attempts to misuse this passage. This language provides
only that Waid was required to prove his breach of contract counterclaim in order
to establish that he was entitled to damages for breach of contract. Waid was
entitled to judgment on his account stated counterclaim regardless of whether he
4
No. 81662-4-I/5
ever prevailed on his breach of contract counterclaim, in which he sought a
greater monetary recovery.
Nevertheless, Ferguson cites to our Supreme Court’s opinion in Northwest
Motors, Ltd. v. James, 118 Wn.2d 294, 822 P.2d 280 (1992), and a federal
appellate court’s opinion in Eimco-BSP Service Co. v. Valley Inland Pacific
Constructors, Inc., 626 F.2d 669 (9th Cir. 1980), in support of her argument that
Waid was required to establish that he fulfilled his contractual obligations before
the superior court could enter final judgment on the account stated counterclaim.
In doing so, she plainly attempts to relitigate an issue decided adversely to her in
the prior appeal. She may not do so. We say this because “‘[i]t is . . . the rule
that questions determined on appeal, or which might have been determined had
they been presented, will not again be considered on a subsequent appeal if
there is no substantial change in the evidence at a second determination of the
cause.’” Folsom v. County of Spokane, 111 Wn.2d 256, 263, 759 P.2d 1196
(1988) (quoting Adamson v. Traylor, 66 Wn.2d 338, 339, 402 P.2d 499 (1965));
see also RAP 2.5(c). Thus, we decline to address Ferguson’s argument.2
2 In her reply brief, Ferguson asserts, for the first time, that the “the trial court erred
because the amount of the judgment it certified as final and entered in favor of Mr. Waid included
the account stated after January 2012 even though the mandate directed the trial court to enter
summary judgment for Mr. Waid’s account stated through January 2012.” Reply Br. of Appellant
at 4. However, “[a]n issue raised and argued for the first time in a reply brief is too late to warrant
consideration.” Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801, 809, 828 P.2d 549
(1992); see also RAP 10.3(c). Accordingly, Ferguson waived this argument.
Ferguson also contends that, on remand, this case was improperly assigned to the
superior court judge who oversaw the case. However, Ferguson neither assigns error to nor
requests affirmative relief with regard to this issue. Indeed, Ferguson’s single assignment of error
provides:
The trial court erred when it failed to enforce this Court’s March 27, 2020
mandate and entered a final judgment in cause no. 14-2-29265-1 SEA, even
though Mr. Waid had not proven that he was entitled to collect any legal fees
from Ms. Ferguson.
Br. of Appellant at 1.
5
No. 81662-4-I/6
Accordingly, the superior court did not err by entering judgment on the
account stated counterclaim.
III
Waid requests an award of attorney fees pursuant to RAP 18.9(a). Waid
asserts that he is entitled to such an award because Ferguson filed a frivolous
appeal. See Mahoney v. Shinpoch, 107 Wn.2d 679, 692, 732 P.2d 510 (1987).
Waid also requests that we sanction Ferguson and her attorney pursuant to RAP
18.9(a) for filing a frivolous appeal. We deny Waid’s requests.3
Affirmed.
WE CONCUR:
We therefore decline to address whether the cause was improperly assigned to the
superior court judge.
3 The parties have made several other requests for affirmative relief. All such other
requests for affirmative relief are denied.
6