Snypp appeals the superior court's order granting partial
summary judgment to Larson Motors, Inc., and entering
judgment against him. Snypp argues that Larson Motors
recorded telephone calls they had with him without his
permission, that the telephone calls were private, and the
calls were not admissible. He also argues that there were
genuine issues of material fact as to whether he authorized
the car repairs made by Larson Motors. Thus, he argues that
the superior court erred by granting partial summary judgment
to Larson Motors, awarding Larson Motors its attorney fees
and costs, and entering judgment against Snypp. Larson Motors
cross appeals, arguing that the superior court abused its
discretion by denying its motion to sanction Snypp for his
that the recorded telephone calls that Snypp had with Larson
Motors were private and that the calls were not admissible at
summary judgment. Because there are genuine issues of
material fact as to whether Snypp authorized the car repairs,
we reverse the superior court's order granting partial
summary judgment and we reverse the related judgment in its
entirety. Further, because the superior court did not abuse
its discretion by not sanctioning Snypp, we affirm the
superior court's order denying Larson Motors' motion
for sanctions. Lastly, we deny both parties' request for
attorney fees on appeal.
Motors performed repairs on Snypp's car in February and
April of 2015. On February 11, Snypp brought the car in for
an oil change and for other repairs that Snypp claims Larson
Motors previously said it would fix at the next scheduled
appointment. Snypp later claimed that he changed his mind and
called Larson Motors the next day to cancel the repairs, but
that the repair work had already been done without his
authorization. Then, on February 19, Snypp took his car back
to Larson Motors because his car was having a different
and Larson Motors also spoke over the telephone in March and
April to discuss the car repairs. Snypp admits that he
authorized Larson Motors to "install new belts"
during a telephone conversation and claims that Larson Motors
said it would not charge him. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 92.
On April 13, Snypp retrieved his car and Larson Motors
charged him for the repair work done.
Larson Motors had completed the car repairs, it provided
Snypp with invoices totaling $892.00 for February's
repairs and $8, 189.42 for April's repairs. Snypp paid
the invoices, but later disputed both charges with his credit
card company and the credit card company reversed both
transactions. Thus, Larson Motors was never paid.
Motors sued Snypp alleging breach of contract and unjust
enrichment. Larson Motors sought damages in the amount of $9,
081.42 for the car repair work and requested an award of
reasonable attorney fees and costs under RCW
4.84.250. In his answer to the complaint, Snypp
alleged that the repair work was not authorized by him.
Snypp refused to pay the February invoice, Larson Motors
recorded their telephone calls with Snypp on March 17 and
April 2 without Snypp's knowledge. The transcripts of the
telephone recordings do not contain any authorization by
Snypp permitting the telephone calls to be recorded. Larson
Motors claims that these recorded telephone calls prove that
Snypp authorized the car repairs. During Snypp's
deposition, counsel for Larson Motors asked Snypp multiple
times whether he had any conversations with the dealership
that were "secret, " and whether he said anything
to Larson Motors that Snypp "wouldn't tell the
judge, " or whether Snypp did not want any calls
"documented." CP at 94, 95. Snypp replied,
"No" to these questions and stated that he wished
that the communications had been documented. CP at 94, 95, 97.
Motors filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the
breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims and argued
that the car repairs were made based on Snypp's
authorization. Snypp responded that he did not authorize the
car repairs and that because there were genuine issues of
material fact, partial summary judgment was not appropriate.
Snypp also filed a declaration that disputed whether he
authorized the February and April car repairs.
Motors filed a motion for sanctions under CR 11, CR 26, CR
37, and RCW 7.21.010, as well as under the superior
court's inherent ability to sanction bad faith
litigation. Larson Motors argued that Snypp had lied under
oath and that he should be sanctioned. In support of the
motion for sanctions, Larson Motors sought to admit the
transcripts of the recorded telephone calls.
response, Snypp filed a motion to strike the transcripts of
the recorded telephone calls and all documents attached to
Larson Motors' motion for summary judgment that reference
the telephone calls. In his declaration attached to the
response, Snypp stated that the recorded telephone calls were
intended to be private, that he had no knowledge that the
calls were being recorded at that time, and that the
transcripts that Larson Motors sought to admit lacked the
authorization to allow the calls to be recorded as required
under RCW 9.73.030 and .050.
superior court denied Snypp's motion to strike, but
declined to consider the recorded telephone calls, stating,
"I don't know how you [Larson Motors] get around RCW
[9.J73.030." Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP)
(8/19/16) at 18. After a hearing, the superior court granted
partial summary judgment to Larson Motors, but denied Larson
Motors' motion for sanctions.
Motors then filed a motion requesting an award of attorney
fees and costs. After a hearing, the superior court ruled
that Larson Motors was the prevailing party under RCW
4.84.010, .030, and 4.84.250-.280. VRP (9/16/26) at 16. The
superior court entered judgment against Snypp in the amount
of $9, 081.42 for the car repair work and awarded $30, 350.73
in attorney fees and costs to Larson Motors. Subsequently,
the superior court amended the order granting partial summary
judgment and certified the partial summary judgment order as
a final judgment for appeal under CR 54(b).
appeals the order granting partial summary judgment, the
award of attorney fees and costs, and the judgment entered
against him in the amount of $39, 432.15. Larson Motors ...