Jump To

Top Caption Lead Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 16, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In Re Guardianship/conservatorship Of: Evan Christopher Stocker

Court of Appeals of Washington

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 87732-1

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (3.8K)

• PDF

Lead Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

In re Guardianship/Conservatorship of: No. 87732-1-I

EVAN CHRISTOPHER STOCKER DIVISION ONE

Petitioner. UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FELDMAN, J. — Victoria Stocker, proceeding pro se, appeals the trial court’s

order dismissing her guardianship complaint against Summit NPC regarding the

care of her adult son. Because Stocker fails to comply with the basic appellate

rules in several meaningful respects, we dismiss her appeal without reaching the

merits and grant Summit NPC’s request for attorney fees incurred herein.

Stocker summarily argues that the trial court erred by failing to acknowledge

the seriousness of a conservator refusing to pay rent for a vulnerable adult and by

failing to acknowledge a professional guardian’s testimony. Although Stocker

represents herself on appeal, pro se litigants must comply with the same

procedural and substantive requirements as attorneys. In re Vulnerable Adult Pet.

for Winter, 12 Wn. App. 2d 815, 844, 460 P.3d 667 (2020). If a litigant fails to do

so, the court may decline to reach the merits of that party’s arguments. See State
No. 87732-1-I

v. Wheaton, 121 Wn.2d 347, 365, 850 P.2d 507 (1993); Rhinevault v. Rhinevault,

91 Wn. App. 688, 692, 959 P.2d 687 (1998).

Contrary to basic appellate rules, Stocker’s argument is conclusory, lacks

citation to any legal authority, and is unsupported by legal analysis. RAP

10.3(a)(6). Such “[p]assing treatment of an issue” and “lack of reasoned argument”

does not merit judicial consideration. Holland v. City of Tacoma, 90 Wn. App. 533,

538, 954 P.2d 290 (1998). Nor does Stocker provide record citations in stating the

operative facts, as required by RAP 10.3(a)(5). Because Stocker’s two-page brief

consists entirely of bald assertions lacking cited factual and legal support, she “has

failed to present developed argument for our consideration on appeal.” West v.

Thurston County., 168 Wn. App. 162, 187, 275 P.3d 1200 (2012). Accordingly, we

do not—because we cannot—address any asserted errors. We therefore grant

Summit NPC’s request that we dismiss Stocker’s appeal on this basis.

Summit NPC also requests an award of attorney fees pursuant to RAP 18.1

and RCW 11.96A.150 for fees incurred in responding to Stocker’s appeal. RAP

18.1(a) allows a party to recover attorney fees incurred on appeal where applicable

law permits such a recovery. RCW 11.96A.150(1) provides an appellate court with

discretion to award costs, including reasonable attorney fees, in guardianship

litigation. Matter of Guardianship of Mesler, 21 Wn. App. 2d 682, 720, 507 P.3d

864 (2022) (awarding fees to substantially prevailing party in guardianship appeal).

Stocker has not filed a reply brief opposing this request. Because Stocker’s brief

fails to comply with the applicable rules in numerous respects and fails to present

any reasoned argument, we exercise our discretion under RCW 11.96A.150(1) to

-2-
No. 87732-1-I

award Summit NPC its reasonable attorney fees on appeal subject to compliance

with RAP 18.1.

DISMISSED.

WE CONCUR:

-3-