wos So ena a 12 13] 14 15] 16| 17 18} 19! 20} 2 2| 23; 24 25 OfT ig 28 SUM@atecauer cg: En DAVID WiTtEN IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON, IN AND FOR KING COUNTY Inre the Mariage of : ) ) TWILA MARKHAM, ) NO. 13-3-08383-7 SEA ) Petitioner, ) | ORDER DENYING HUSBAND’S and } MOTION FOR ORDER OF ) DISMISSAL GERALD WAYNE MARKHAM, ) ) Respondent. _ ) 1 BASIS This matter came before the Court on the Husband’s Motion for Order of Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Washington Civil Rule 12(6)(1). ‘The Court heard oral argument by counsel for the Wife, Karma L. Zaike and counsel for the Husband, Anthony Urie and Daisuke Takahashi. The Court considered the pleadings filed in support of the Motion for Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and in Response to the Motion, to wit: 1. Respondent’s Motion for Order of Dismissal; 2. Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Motion for Order of Dismissal; 3. Declaration of Twila Markham; FEI MICHAEL W. BUGNI & ASSOC. PLLC 11320 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATILE. WA 98125 (206) 355800» FACSIMILE (206) 365-0067 ORIGINAL FINDINGS AND ORDER - 11, The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Wife’s petition for dissolution of 2. The Court finds it has personal jurisdiction over the Wife. To have properly filed for 3. The Court finds it has personal jurisdiction over the Husband. The Husband was 5. Husband’ s maction was filed to hard$s the Wife, wa frivolot | ¢ litigati 1¢ Court finds the“ttomey fees arfd costs below“are ‘and should etter a judgment jointly and severally4gainst the Husband and i ri} 16,2012 [2013 . 6. The Cour sina He Aftidavit of Twila Menthanl ender suppor a WW OFFICE FINDINGS AND ORDER -2 MICHAEL W. BUGNI& ASSOC, PLLC {1320 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST 4, Declaration of Adam Logghe. Il. RULING OF THE COURT Based on the argument of counsel and the evidence presented, the Court finds: marriage. The Court finds the Wife was a Washington State resident at the time of filing. RCW 26.09.030. The Wife has strong connections to Washington: she lives in Seaitie, her son lives across the street from her, and her support network is here. Because the Wife is physically present in Washington and intends to make it her home, she is domiciled in Washington. In re Marriage of Strohmaier, 34 Wash.App. 14 (1983); Stevens v. Stevens, 7 Wash. App. 79 (1971). the dissolution, the Wife must have been a Washington resident. RCW 326.09.010(2);, In re Marriage of Strohmaier, 34 Wash. App. 14 (1983). The Wife did file for dissolution in Washington, and this gives the Court personal jurisdiction over the Wife. personally served the petition for dissolution of marriage while he was voluntarily present in Washington State, thereby conferring personal jurisdiction. Burnham v. Superior Court of California, 495 U.S. 604 (1990); In re Marriage of Peterson, 68 Wash.App. 70 (1993). RoE SEATTLE, WA 93125 (206) 385.5500 « FACSIMILE (206) 269-808719) i 12] 13 14 15 16] 17] 181 19) 20) n 22 23 24 25 7. All jurisdictional requirements are met and the Court shall proceed with the dissolution matter on the merits. II. ORDER THIS MATTER having come on regularly before the above-entitled Court, the undersigned Judge presiding, the Husband’s August Leonia ‘Motion for Order of Dismissal of Wife’s Petition for Dissolution, the Petitioner appearing with oral argument and by and through her attomey of record, Karma L. Zaike, the Respondent appearing with oral argument and by and through his attorneof record, Daisuke rane foi ee considered the Motion, the Wife’s Response and Proposed Order and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, NOW, THEREFORE, IT 1S HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of Wife’s petition for dissolution and personal jurisdiction over the Wife and Husband; AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Husband’s motion for dismissal | jon was frivolous, is DENIED; AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DEC] that the Husband's unduly delayed the litigation, and was Aféd to harass the Wife. Theflusband’s motion failed ‘to contain any testimony or oit€f evidence to support his cJaffns and the evidence upon which ty. The court takes judicial notice of Husband in this matter arising out of an 4 LAW OFFICES. PND Ne AND ORES 4 Michae. W. BUGNI & ASSOC., PLLC 11320 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125 (206) 265.5500 « FACSIALE (206) 263.9067 Reservedee a oa 10| i 12) 13] 44 15 16 17] 18 19] 20| 21 24 had established residency in Washington by May 7, 2013 when the Wife filed for dissotution iesue of thewalidity ofthe Wife! stestimeny in-said affidavit es fie court accepts that the Wife \ in Washington; AND IT IS FURTHER . Attornenp fees are reered. ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED Wife is awarded her attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $ intransigence of the Husband and his attomey in bringing @ motion withoyt€identiary support and for the Husband’s improper use ofthe cours. A judgment jsi&cy entered against Respondent/counsel for Respondent | ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that. DATED: \ 13 JUDGE T° Gary Presented by: Varo hee KARMA L. ZAIKE, WSBA#30137 Ath ony Uvi ¢, WSBAAE TRINA S. NIKOLAYEV, WSBA# 46338 Av Respondent 7 ‘Attomeys for Petitioner/Mother Weydyey FEICES FINDINGS AND ORDER -4 MICHAEL W. BUGNI & AssOc., PLLC “1920 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE. WA 99123 (20s) 36518500 FACSIMILE (209) 365-9067