* Sheri M. Oertel v. Adriana L. Lopez d/b/a Art's Landscaping, et al

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
(not the court’s final written decision)
The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
SHERI M. OERTEL,
Respondent,
v.
ADRIANA L. LOPEZ, DBA ART’S
LANDSCAPING, & ARTURO LOPEZ,
Petitioners.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 40387-4-III
PUBLISHED OPINION
LAWRENCE-BERREY, C.J. — The Civil Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction
(CRLJ) do not apply to proceedings in small claims court. But once a case is appealed
from small claims court to superior court, CRLJ 72-75A applies to the superior court
proceeding.
Here, the superior court sitting in review of a small claims court decision
determined that CRLJ 73 did not apply and denied a motion to dismiss the appeal for the
appealing party’s failure to file a bond as required by CRLJ 73(c). We conclude (1) the
superior court erred by determining that CRLJ 73 did not apply in superior court, and
(2) CRLJ 73(c) does not require the superior court to promptly dismiss an appeal for
failure to file such a bond.
FILED
OCTOBER 2, 2025
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 40387-4-III
Oertel v. Lopez
2
FACTS
Sheri Oertel hired Adriana Lopez to perform landscaping work on her property.
Oertel later brought an action against Lopez in small claims court for breach of contract,
among other theories. The court rejected most of Oertel’s claims but found that Lopez
breached the contract with respect to the retaining wall. The court entered judgment for
Oertel and against Lopez for $3,861.50.
Oertel appealed the small claims court decision to superior court. Later, Lopez
moved to dismiss the appeal because Oertel failed to file a $100 bond as required by
CRLJ 73(c). The trial court, relying on unpublished authority, concluded that CRLJ 73
did not apply to the appeal and denied Lopez’s motion to dismiss.
Lopez sought discretionary review with this court. Our commissioner granted
discretionary review because the superior court’s decision conflicted with Goodeill v.
Madison Real Estate, 191 Wn. App. 88, 97, 362 P.3d 302 (2015).
LAW
The proper construction of our court rules is a question of law that we review de
novo. Jafar v. Webb, 177 Wn.2d 520, 526, 303 P.3d 1042 (2013).
CRLJ 73 applies to appeals of limited jurisdictional court proceedings that are not
reviewed under the Rules for Appeal of Decisions of Courts of Limited Jurisdiction
(RALJ). CRLJ 73(a). Appeals from small claims courts are not reviewed under the
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 40387-4-III
Oertel v. Lopez
3
RALJ rules. RALJ 1.1(b). Thus, CRLJ 73 applies to appeals from small claims court
decisions. Goodeill, 191 Wn. App. at 97.
Ortel cites CRLJ 81 to support her argument that CRLJ 73 does not apply to
appeals of small claims court decisions. We disagree. CRLJ 81(a) states in relevant part,
“These rules do not apply to proceedings in small claims court.” Here, the appeal was in
superior court. Thus, CRLJ 81 does not support Oertel’s argument.1
Having concluded that CRLJ 73 applies to a superior court’s review of a small
claims court decision, we must now decide whether CRLJ 73 requires the superior court
to dismiss Oertel’s appeal for not filing a bond.
CRLJ 73(c) states a bond “shall be . . . filed with and approved by the court of
limited jurisdiction . . . in the sum of $100, conditioned that the appellant will pay all
costs that may be awarded against appellant on appeal.” CRLJ 73(f) states, “No appeal
. . . shall be dismissed on account of any defect in the bond on appeal, if the appellant,
before the motion is determined, shall execute and file in the superior court [a proper
bond] and pay all costs that may have accrued by reason of such defect.”
1 In Last Chance Riding Stable, Inc. v. Stephens, 66 Wn. App. 710, 712, 832 P.2d
1353 (1992), we quoted CRLJ 81 and noted that CRLJ 73(b) does not apply to small
claims proceedings. To the extent Last Chance can be construed as saying CRLJ 73 does
not apply to superior court proceedings, we disagree with it.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 40387-4-III
Oertel v. Lopez
4
Lopez argues that CRLJ 73(f) requires the superior court to dismiss the appeal
because Oertel did not file the $100 bond. To the extent her argument implies that the
superior court lacks discretion to do anything other than to promptly dismiss Oertel’s
appeal, we disagree. CRLJ 73(c) requires an appellant to file a bond, but nothing in
CRLJ 73 forbids the superior court from giving the appellant additional time to comply
with the rule’s bonding and payment of costs requirements. The only limitation on the
court’s discretion is that it cannot dismiss an appeal if the appellant files the bond and
pays the respondent its associated costs before the motion is determined. Read as a
whole, although the rule requires an appellant to file a bond, it does not limit the court’s
discretion to give the appellant additional time to comply with the rule’s bonding and
payment of costs requirements.
On remand, Oertel must file a $100 bond and pay all of Lopez’s costs that may
have accrued by Oertel’s failure to file a bond. If Oertel fails to do both before the
superior court decides Lopez’s motion to dismiss, the superior court may dismiss the
appeal or it may give Oertel additional time to comply with the rule’s bonding and
payment of costs requirements.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 40387-4-III
Oertel v. Lopez
Reversed.
WE CONCUR:
d~ 	..:17Fearing, J.~• )
Cooney, J.
5
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.