The Court of Appeals, Division Three, reversed a superior court order and held that the Civil Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (CRLJ) 73 applies to superior-court review of small claims appeals and that a superior court need not promptly dismiss an appeal for an appellant’s failure to file a $100 bond required by CRLJ 73(c). The published opinion, filed Oct. 2, 2025, appears as No. 40387-4-III in Oertel v. Lopez.

Sheri M. Oertel had hired Adriana L. Lopez to perform landscaping work and recovered a small-claims judgment of $3,861.50 for breach of contract. Oertel appealed the small claims judgment to superior court. Lopez moved to dismiss the superior-court appeal, arguing Oertel failed to file the $100 bond required by CRLJ 73(c). The superior court denied the motion, concluding that CRLJ 73 did not apply; Lopez sought discretionary review with the Court of Appeals.

Chief Judge Lawrence-Berrey, writing for the court, held that CRLJ 73 applies to appeals from small claims courts because appeals from small claims courts are not governed by the Rules for Appeal of Decisions of Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (RALJ). The opinion notes that RALJ 1.1(b) excludes small claims appeals from RALJ review and that, read together, CRLJ 73(a) covers appeals of limited-jurisdiction proceedings not reviewed under RALJ. The opinion expressly disagreed with any earlier construction that would treat a superior-court appeal as outside CRLJ 73’s scope.

The court rejected Oertel’s argument based on CRLJ 81(a), which states, “These rules do not apply to proceedings in small claims court.” The opinion explained that CRLJ 81’s exclusion applies to proceedings conducted in small claims court itself; an appeal heard in superior court is a superior-court proceeding, so CRLJ 81 does not prevent application of CRLJ 73 in that setting.

On the bond issue, the Court of Appeals analyzed CRLJ 73(c), which requires filing a bond with the court of limited jurisdiction, and CRLJ 73(f), which states that an appeal shall not be dismissed for a defect in the bond if the appellant, before the motion is determined, files a proper bond and pays any costs that accrued due to the defect. The court concluded that although CRLJ 73(c) requires an appellant to file a bond, the rule does not forbid a superior court from giving an appellant additional time to comply. The opinion said the only limitation is that if the appellant files the correct bond and pays associated costs before the motion is decided, the court may not dismiss the appeal for that defect.

The Court of Appeals reversed the superior court’s ruling and remanded. The opinion directed that on remand Oertel must file the $100 bond and pay all of Lopez’s costs that accrued because Oertel failed to file a bond; if Oertel fails to do so before the superior court decides Lopez’s motion to dismiss, the superior court may either dismiss the appeal or grant additional time to comply with the rule’s bonding and costs requirements.

The opinion cites Goodeill v. Madison Real Estate, 191 Wn. App. 88, 362 P.3d 302 (2015), and addresses Last Chance Riding Stable, Inc. v. Stephens, 66 Wn. App. 710, 832 P.2d 1353 (1992), to clarify prior treatments of CRLJ 73 and CRLJ 81. The court reviewed questions of rule construction de novo and reversed the superior court’s contrary determination.

On remand, the superior court will determine whether Oertel files the bond and pays costs before resolving Lopez’s motion to dismiss.