City of Richland v. Linda Alexander, et al

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
CITY OF RICHLAND, a municipal
corporation,
Respondent,
v.
LINDA ALEXANDER; LIVE
VICTORIOUSLY MINISTRIES,
Appellants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 39361-5-III
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
STAAB, A.C.J. — Linda Alexander and Live Victoriously Ministries (Alexander)
appeal from an order on summary judgment and order for abatement of nuisance
violations granted to the city of Richland. We affirm the order and deny the appeal
because Alexander has failed to comply with several provisions of the Rules of Appellate
Procedure (RAP), including RAP 10.3, 10.4, and 18.7. These errors go beyond technical
violations and impede effective appellate review.
BACKGROUND
The following facts are unchallenged and treated as verities on appeal. In re
Marriage of Akon, 160 Wn. App. 48, 248 P.3d 94 (2011).
FILED
OCTOBER 29, 2024
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

No. 39361-5-III
City of Richland v. Alexander
2
Linda Alexander, who is responsible for Live Victoriously Ministries, owns real
property located in Richland, Washington. The city of Richland sent Alexander notice
that the property was in violation of several provisions of the Richland Municipal Code
(RMC). Alexander failed to attend a hearing on the alleged violations, and a default
judgment was entered against her, declaring the property a nuisance. Alexander failed to
timely appeal the notice of decision, and the code violations remained outstanding.
When Alexander failed to abate the nuisance issues, the city of Richland served
her with a summons and complaint seeking injunctive relief along with a court order
allowing abatement of the nuisances on the property. Alexander submitted an answer to
this complaint, but the trial court found that the answer did not contain an issue of
material fact and granted summary judgment. The trial court ordered that the property be
abated and that Alexander be assessed all expenses incurred by the city of Richland.
Alexander appeals.
ANALYSIS
Although Alexander appears before this court pro se, she is held to the same
standard as an attorney and must comply with all procedural rules. See In re Marriage of
Olson, 69 Wn. App. 621, 626, 850 P.2d 527 (1993).
Under the RAPs, an appellant is required to identify assignments of error, which
contain a “concise statement of each error a party contends was made by the trial court”
along with reference to material portions of the challenged finding in the brief or

No. 39361-5-III
City of Richland v. Alexander
3
appendix. RAP 10.3(a)(4), 10.4(c). Additionally, the RAPs require “[r]eference to the
record . . . for each factual statement” along with “a fair statement of the facts and
procedure relevant to the issues.” RAP 10.3(a)(5). Furthermore, the brief must contain
“argument in support of the issues presented for review, together with citations to legal
authority and references to relevant parts of the record.” RAP 10.3(a)(6).
Alexander’s brief fails to comply with these rules. Nevertheless, “‘technical
violations of the rules will not ordinarily bar appellate review.’” State v. Olson, 126
Wn.2d 315, 322, 893 P.2d 629 (1995) (quoting Daughtry v. Jet Aeration Co., 91 Wn.2d
704, 710, 592 P.2d 631 (1979)). RAP 1.2(a) states that “[c]ases and issues will not be
determined on the basis of compliance or noncompliance with these rules except in
compelling circumstances where justice demands.” In Olson, the Supreme Court held
that:
[A]n appellate court may exercise its discretion to consider cases and issues
on their merits. This is true despite one or more technical flaws in an
appellant’s compliance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. This
discretion, moreover, should normally be exercised unless there are
compelling reasons not to do so. In a case where the nature of the appeal is
clear and the relevant issues are argued in the body of the brief and citations
are supplied so that the Court is not greatly inconvenienced and the
respondent is not prejudiced, there is no compelling reason for the appellate
court not to exercise its discretion to consider the merits of the case or
issue.
Olson, 126 Wn.2d at 323.

No. 39361-5-III
City of Richland v. Alexander
4
Here, the violations in Alexander’s brief go beyond technical violations and
impede effective review. Her brief does not list her assignments of error, she does not
reference the record or provide a statement of the case, and she fails to provide any
analysis or reference to relevant parts of the record. Instead, Alexander merely provides
excerpts from the United States Constitution. It is also unclear what relief she seeks.
Notably, the city of Richland was unable to respond to the contentions. For these
reasons, we deny relief and affirm the order on summary judgment.
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.
_________________________________
Staab, A.C.J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________________
Fearing, J.
_________________________________
Pennell, J.