Seattle Attorneys Blog
A Washington protection order generally must state the date when it expires. If the order is to be permanent, the court should set its expiration date at 99 years from the date it is issued. RCW 7.105.310(5). A former wife recently appealed an order purportedly clarifying the expiration date of a renewal of a domestic violence protection order (“DVPO”) against her former husband.
According to the unpublished opinion of the appeals court, the ex-wife moved to renew a DVPO against her ex-husband in November 2023. She indicated she wanted the order to remain in effect “permanently” and asked the court to renew the order for the “maximum period allowed by law.” She described ongoing communication and contact by the ex-husband. The ex-husband denied the allegations and asked the court to deny the renewal.
The ex-wife and her attorney appeared in person at the hearing, while the husband and his attorney appeared by video conference. The court granted the renewal motion. The body of the renewal order did not identify the expiration date. Instead, there was a line in the caption of the order that stated: “Renewal Expires: 11/21/2122.”
The ex-husband moved to clarify the termination date of the protection order. He stated that the court had not made any specific findings at the hearing that extended the order beyond a year.
The ex-wife opposed the ex-husband’s motion, and stated in her declaration that her motion had asked for the order to be permanent, which meant 99 years under RCW 7.105.310(5). She argued the court could make the renewal permanent pursuant to RCW 7.105.405(8). She argued the ex-husband had the opportunity to address “all issues” at the hearing and sought attorney’s fees.
The court held another hearing in February 2024. It then amended the order renewing the DVPO for one year. The following note was handwritten under the heading of “Findings:” “[a] permanent order of 99 years was not argued, this court did not have intentions of issuing a 99 year order. The signing of the previous order was an oversight.”
The ex-wife appealed, arguing the trial court erred in granting the ex-husband’s motion to clarify the expiration of the DVPO, changing the order’s length from 99 years to one year, and not granting her attorney’s fees for responding to the motion.
A court may correct a clerical or technical error in a protection order at any time, pursuant to RCW 7.105.365. A court’s decision to correct a clerical error is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. CR 60(a). CR 60(a) provides that a court may correct clerical mistakes resulting from oversight or omission. A mistake is clerical if it accurately reflects the court’s original intent when corrected, while a judicial error is a mistake in reasoning or decision-making. CR 60(a) does not permit correction of a judicial error.
The appeals court noted that the ex-wife had asked that the renewal remain in effect “permanently” and “for the maximum period allowed by law.” The appeals court noted it would be reasonable to expect the issue of a permanent renewal to be raised at the hearing if that was what the petitioner sought. It was also reasonable that the judge reasonably considered the order in place was for one-year and that if the petitioner wanted to renew for a different duration, she would raise that request. The appeals court determined that the lack of discussion of the order’s duration at the hearing suggested the term stated in the order was an oversight.
The appeals court also determined the ex-husband’s motion to clarify complied with the requirement for the court to be notified of a clerical or technical error under RCW 7.105.365. The ex-wife argued the motion was a veiled modification motion, but the appeals court disagreed.
At the clarification hearing, the court issued an amended order, including findings that the parties had not argued the issue of a permanent order for 99 years and the court had not intended to issue a 99-year order.
The appeals court found the court’s actions to be consistent with the statute and the rule, as well as the record from the renewal hearing. The appeals court concluded the correction reflected the court’s original intent and was supported by the record.
The appeals court rejected the wife’s request for attorney’s fees, concluding she had not prevailed on appeal.
The length of the protection order can have a meaningful effect on both parties. Whether you are seeking or opposing a Washington DVPO, a skilled Washington civil protection order attorney can help. At Blair & Kim, PLLC, we have the experience in family law and criminal defense to assist you with related family law or criminal matters as well. Call us at (206) 622-6562 to set up a consultation.