Appeals court hears Pelaschini v. Hawke over conflicting judgments and contested attorneys’ fees

An appellate panel heard argument in Pelaschini v. Hawke after counsel for the appellants told judges the trial court entered conflicting final judgments and asked for reversal or remand.

"It makes no sense to have 2 orders of judgment and judgment entered simultaneously that conflict each other," said James Ware, who identified himself as counsel for the appellants, arguing the December 13 judgments were internally inconsistent and that the record left unresolved whether liability was properly assessed against the spouse or the marital community.

Respondents’ counsel Nicole Hay told the panel the discrepancy was not a mere clerical mistake. "A clerical error is mechanical. It does not require any independent judgment," Hay said, and she urged the court to uphold the trial court’s decisions on the merits, noting the complaint was filed in 2022 and the record spans about three years of proceedings.

The panel focused much of its questioning on two discrete problems: whether the presence of multiple, differing judgments in the docket reflects a clerical error subject to correction under CR 60, or a substantive ruling that must be challenged on appeal; and whether the record supports the trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees.

On preservation and pleadings, the judges and counsel debated whether the marital-community issue was properly joined below or waived under appellate rule 2.5(a). Counsel for appellants said the clerk’s papers and docket are incomplete and that key operative pleadings are missing, which complicates determining what issues were litigated at trial. Hay countered that the record and the court’s orders show the marital community was litigated and that enforcement questions about what constitutes one-half of the community interest are properly resolved in post-judgment proceedings.

The panel also pressed counsel on the award of attorneys’ fees. Judges asked whether the declaration relied on by the trial court and an emailed exhibit (referred to in argument as "attachment A") were contemporaneous and sufficient under applicable precedent to support a lodestar calculation. Nicole Hay said the declaration and materials could suffice and acknowledged that, if the record does not show the judge actually reviewed the exhibit, remand would be appropriate to permit fuller factual development. Ware said attachment A arrived on reply and the record does not show the judge received or relied on it before entering the fee award.

At one point a panel member summarized the stakes: "there's a judgment against your client and his marital community for it looks like north of 1000000 dollars," and noted the remanded issue under discussion involved a roughly $14,000 fee award. Counsel told the court they had asked for a substantially larger relief in briefing but agreed the narrow question before the panel could be remand for recalculation of fees if the fee record is inadequate.

The argument concluded without a decision from the bench. The court did not announce a ruling during argument; the case remains under submission for a written opinion.