In re Committed Intimate Relationship of DeWitt

In the Matter of the Committed Intimate Relationship of, LEONARD CARPENTER DEWITT, Appellant, and ESTATE OF KEVIN WILLIAM HANNAN, Respondent.

No. 53794-0-II

c/w No. 54267-6-II

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II

March 16, 2021

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

MAXA, J. - In this consolidated appeal, Leonard Dewitt appeals the trial court's dismissal on summary judgment of a lawsuit he filed against Kevin Hannan¹ alleging that they had a committed intimate relationship (CIR). He also appeals the trial court's post-judgment order stating that Dewitt was not entitled to legal possession of Hannan's house and other trial court rulings.

This case arose from Dewitt's claim that he and Hannan were in a CIR from 2002 to 2018. Hannan asserted that the only "relationship" he had with Dewitt during that time was in the context of an intermittent sexual partner. Dewitt was living in a house owned by Hannanwhen this lawsuit was filed, and he refused to leave following the trial court's summary judgment ruling.

A CIR is a stable, marital-like relationship where both parties live together as a couple knowing that they are not lawfully married. If a CIR existed and then was terminated, a trial court must make an equitable distribution of property that would have been community property if the couple had been married. To determine whether a CIR existed, courts apply a five-factor analysis identified in Connell v. Francisco, 127 Wn.2d 339, 346, 898 P.2d 831 (1995).

We conclude that (1) the evidence shows that as a matter of law, application of the Connell factors shows that Dewitt and Hannan did not have a CIR at any time from 2002 to 2018; (2) because there was no CIR, the trial court was not required to equitably distribute Hannan's property; (3) the trial court did not err in ordering Dewitt to vacate Hannan's house and in ruling that Dewitt was not entitled to legal possession of Hannan's house; (4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded attorney fees as a discovery sanction; and (5) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Dewitt's additional motions.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Hannan, the post-judgment order stating that Dewitt was not entitled to legal possession of Hannan's house, and the trial court's other rulings.

FACTS

Background

Dewitt and Hannan met in 2002 when Dewitt was 21 years old and Hannan was 43. They had some type of relationship from 2002 until June 2018, including being sexual partners. However, the parties dispute the nature of that relationship.

Dewitt also had a long-term friendship with Leonard Haan, beginning in 2005. Dewitt lived with Haan at his house located at 2106 S. 25th Street in Tacoma for some period of time between 2005 and 2016. Dewitt and Haan filed petitions for domestic violence protective orders (DVPOs) against each other in May 2016. They apparently resolved their differences later.

Over the years, Haan has assisted Dewitt in various legal proceedings. Haan has submitted multiple declarations and letters on Dewitt's behalf in various cases.

In 2011, Hannan purchased a house located at 2916 North Lawrence Street in Tacoma (the Tacoma house) with his own funds. In January 2018, Hannan purchased a Cadillac with his own funds. Also in 2018, he purchased a second house in Morton in 2018 with his own funds.

Dewitt alleges that he began living full time in the Tacoma house in 2016. He continued living there for several months after the trial court dismissed his CIR complaint.

In June 2018, Dewitt filed a petition for a DVPO against Hannan, requesting that Hannan be excluded from their shared residence, the Tacoma house, and that Dewitt be granted the use of Hannan's 2018 Cadillac. The trial court issued a DVPO to Dewitt against Hannan by default because Hannan did not appear at the hearing. Hannan claimed that he was never served with the petition and did not find out about it or the order until later. The DVPO subsequently was terminated.

Complaint and Procedural History

In July 2018, Dewitt filed a "Complaint to End Committed Intimate Relationship and Divide Property and Debts - Unmarried Couple" naming Hannan as the respondent. The complaint alleged that the parties had lived in a CIR from July 2002 until June 18, 2018. The complaint further alleged that the parties owned community-like property that the court should equitably divide pursuant to the principles stated in Connell. Specifically, Dewitt requested to beawarded the Tacoma house and the Cadillac and asked the court to divide Hannan's other assets. The summons stated that Dewitt would accept legal papers at Haan's residence address.

In his answer, Hannan admitted that he and Dewitt had been acquainted for a number of years, but denied that they ever had been in a CIR. Hannan also denied that the parties owned community property and alleged that Dewitt was fraudulently attempting to take possession of his property.

In January 2019, Dewitt filed a motion for a temporary family law order. He requested an order stating that he could possess and use the Tacoma house and the Cadillac. In the motion, Dewitt stated that he had lived in the Tacoma house since 2016. In April, Hannan filed a motion for temporary family law order and restraining order, requesting an order requiring Dewitt to move out of the Tacoma house. The trial court subsequently ordered that Dewitt could reside in the Tacoma house and that Hannan would reside in his house in Morton.

On April 9, Hannan sent interrogatories and discovery requests to Dewitt. Dewitt never responded to Hannan's discovery requests in full. Hannan subsequently filed a motion to compel discovery, and on June 21 the trial court granted the motion. The order stated that Hannan did not need not provide discovery to Dewitt until Dewitt responded to Hannan's discovery. The court awarded Hannan $765 in attorney fees as a discovery sanction.

On June 12, Hannan's attorney received an unfiled, four-page complaint from Dewitt naming Hannan, his attorney, and his attorney's law firm as defendants in a tort action. There is no indication in the record that this complaint was ever filed.

On June 14, the trial court permitted Dewitt's attorney to withdraw in anticipation of a successful settlement and to permit Dewitt to file for a motion for a continuance so that he could seek new counsel if the case did not settle.

On June 24, Dewitt filed a declaration and a motion for an order that included four motions: (1) for reconsideration of the June 21 order to compel discovery, (2) to compel discovery from Hannan, (3) to stay or continue the trial to allow him to find a new attorney and to enter into more settlement negotiations, and (4) to consolidate the CIR action with the unfiled contract and tort complaint. The trial court later denied these motions as part of the summary judgment order.

Summary Judgment Motions

On July 2, Hannan filed a summary judgment motion, arguing that there was no CIR between him and Dewitt as a matter of law. Hannan also requested the court to return the Tacoma house to his possession. Dewitt did not file a response to Hannan's motion. Instead, Dewitt filed his own motion for summary judgment on July 12, arguing that there was a CIR as a matter of law. Hannan filed a response to Dewitt's motion.

In support of his summary judgment motion, Hannan did not file any new declarations. He relied on April 9 and April 23, 2019 declarations he had submitted relating to his motion for a temporary family law order. In addition, he submitted hundreds of pages of exhibits. The exhibits included three declarations from Dewitt and one declaration from Haan that had been filed in prior proceedings.

In support of his summary judgment motion, Dewitt also did not file any declarations. He submitted a number of miscellaneous documents. Hannan filed a declaration in response to Dewitt's motion.

Hannan's Evidence

In his April 9 declaration, Hannan stated:

I have known the Petitioner for fifteen or sixteen years, and during that time we have occasionally been sexually intimate. However, we never lived together, oreven dated. Our relationship was fundamentally a casual one, and certainly did not rise to the level of a committed intimate relationship, much less a marriage.

Clerk's Papers (CP) at 319. He continued:

I met Leonard DeWitt about 15 years ago at a club. We exchanged numbers and were casual acquaintances. I would see him two or three times a year, usually in social and/or public settings - such as clubs or bars. Occasionally - very rarely - if I was hosting a gathering or a dinner party, I would invite him over. We were intimate on occasion, but these were very isolated incidents - they were never more than one-night stands. Again, I only saw him a few times a year, and there were often months, or periods of two or three years when I did not see him at all.

In 2011 I moved to Tacoma and saw Mr. DeWitt somewhat more frequently, but still very rarely. Mr. DeWitt slept over at my house a few times, but we never moved in together, and we were never more than very casual (and infrequent) sexual partners. My last one-night stand with Mr. DeWitt was in May of 2018.

CP at 322.

Hannan stated that he gave Dewitt a key to his house and access to his debit cards and checkbook in April 2018 only while Dewitt was helping him with contractors who were repairing his kitchen following a fire. Hannan soon noticed a number of unauthorized purchases and cash advances. He submitted identity theft, theft, and fraud complaints to the Tacoma Police Department and Federal Trade Commission.

In addition, Hannan stated that Dewitt had been in a committed romantic relationship with Haan for over 13 years, notwithstanding Dewitt's one night stands with Hannan. Hannan stated, "As far as I know, Mr. Haan and Mr. DeWitt are a couple and have been in a committed dating relationship for years." CP at 324.

In his April 23 declaration, Hannan...