The question this page answers is straightforward: what did the absence of proper process actually cost — to both parties — compared to what it would have cost if the rules had been followed?
The answer is not that Petitioner would have received nothing, or even necessarily less. Under the Final Decree of Dissolution, Petitioner was entitled to a larger share of the net proceeds. Under the corrected math in the Motion to Vacate (Exhibit B — Corrected Distribution Spreadsheet), her correct share was $120,927.43. What the improper process produced was $220,359.79 — a $99,432.36 overpayment at Respondent's expense.
What makes this case a public interest matter — not just a private dispute — is what happened next. Because the sale was executed without proper process, without notice, and without a verified market transaction, it triggered a civil lawsuit (Case No. 25-2-01481-37, damages sought exceeding $2,750,000), a pending appeal, a title cloud on the property now held by third-party buyers, and legal costs to both parties that dwarf what a proper FSBO sale with completed repairs and a standard distribution hearing would have cost either of them.
Every dollar figure on this page is drawn from a specific document: the ALTA Settlement Statement dated May 17, 2024 (Whatcom Land Title, Escrow No. W-206602); the Whatcom County Superior Court Clerk's Registry and Trust Transaction Detail (printed November 19, 2025); the July 9, 2024 Order Regarding Disbursement of Funds; the November 8, 2024 Order on Revision; and the Declaration of Costs and Time Expended filed November 7, 2025 in Case No. 22-3-00270-37. No figures are estimated unless expressly noted.
Combined litigation costs to both parties — and growing
$22,853+
Respondent's documented and estimated costs ($10,853+) plus Petitioner's estimated attorney fees defending the litigation ($12,000) — costs that would not exist if the FSBO plan had proceeded with proper process and the repairs had been completed.
What a proper noticed motion would have cost both parties
~$200
Estimated cost of a properly filed and served motion with a noticed hearing — the standard process used in Skagit, Snohomish, and King counties for the same type of request. The only dispute remaining would have been the distribution math under Exhibit A to the Decree.
Gross sale price
$725,000.00
Estimated fair market value with completed repairs (owner's estimate — not a certified appraisal)
$795,000–$800,000
Below-market shortfall — off-market sale, buyer had pre-existing personal relationship with Petitioner, sale not reported to NWMLS, unsupported "repair credit" reductions with no inspection report or bid
Source: FAC §§ 4.12, 4.16, 4.17; DOL correspondence (Exhibit U)
−$70,000 to −$75,000
Mortgage payoff (Flagstar Bank + HUD)
−$341,105.02
Closing fees, title insurance, commissions, taxes
Including EXP Realty listing commission $21,750 (Carter had represented 2%; 3% was charged)
−$56,090.08
Lien payoffs applied at closing
Stolzenburg ($51,927.94), Crown Asset/Gordon ($17,516.01), Metz ($4,163.40), Oliphant ($15,034.09)
−$89,085.95
Net proceeds available after mortgage and liens
ALTA line "Net proceeds after early payouts" — source of all distributions
$239,543.76
Whatcom Land Title pre-registry disbursements — made WITHOUT court authorization
· $15,837.00 — May 11, 2023 contempt judgment (WLT treated as lien; order never recorded, never reduced to judgment under RCW 4.64.030)
· $20,000.00 — "down-payment reimbursement" (paid directly to Petitioner at closing)
· $6,394.88 — 4 months "mortgage reimbursements" (Decree authorized 3 months only; April 2023 — a month in which no payment was made by either party — was added and then double-counted against Respondent's share)
Source: ALTA Settlement Statement; Declaration of David Snowden, ¶4; Motion to Vacate §§ III–V
−$42,231.88
Amount actually deposited into court registry
Source: Clerk's Registry Ledger (original amount $195,098.60; ALTA final statement confirms $197,311.88)
$197,311.88
July 9, 2024 distribution — Petitioner (registry withdrawal)
Source: Clerk's Registry Transaction Detail, Receipt #93055 — July 15, 2024
$171,671.28 to Petitioner
July 9, 2024 distribution — PSE utility on Petitioner's behalf
Source: Clerk's Registry Transaction Detail, Receipt #93057
$6,456.63 to PSE
July 9, 2024 distribution — Respondent
Source: Clerk's Registry Transaction Detail, Receipt #93289 — September 12, 2024 · This was Respondent's entire distribution from a $725,000 sale
$16,970.32 to Respondent
Unallocated registry balance — status unconfirmed
ALTA final statement shows $2,213.28 to be deposited; Clerk's ledger shows $0 remaining; WLT has been directed to file certified accounting
$2,213.28 disputed
Petitioner's total benefit (pre-registry + registry withdrawals + PSE)
$220,359.79
Below-market sale price
Off-market sale to buyer with pre-existing relationship with Petitioner. No MLS reporting. Unsupported repair credit reductions. Respondent had ongoing improvements underway at time of forced removal.
Documented in FAC §§ 4.12, 4.14, 4.16; owner estimates $795K–$800K FMV with completed repairs
−$70,000+
Unauthorized pre-registry disbursements by Whatcom Land Title
Paid directly to Petitioner before depositing in court registry. No court authorization obtained for these payments.
ALTA Statement, WLT May 17, 2024; Motion to Vacate § III
−$42,231.88
Incorrect lien treatment of May 11 contempt judgment
WLT treated the May 11, 2023 contempt judgment as a lien in the title commitment and paid it at closing. The order was never reduced to a judgment under RCW 4.64.030 and was never recorded as a lien against the property.
Included within the $42,231.88 above; Motion to Vacate § V
−$15,837.00
Double-counted April 2023 mortgage installment
WLT paid 4 months of mortgage reimbursement (adding April 2023 — a month neither party paid). That same installment was then counted a second time as a 50% deduction from Respondent's share in the distribution math.
Motion to Vacate § IV; Declaration of David Snowden ¶9
~−$2,400
100% lien liability imposed on Respondent
Distribution orders applied the full lien total ($89,085.95) against Respondent's share, rather than 50% as required by the plain language of the Final Decree's Exhibit A § B.
Motion to Vacate § VII-B; Corrected Distribution Spreadsheet, Exhibit B
−$44,542.98
Respondent's documented litigation costs — post-sale (corrective proceedings only)
Attorney Luke Larson representation at July 2024 distribution hearing ($2,500), motion drafting ($750), copying/service ($110), mileage ($268), 35 hours preparation time at $35/hour ($1,225).
Declaration of Costs and Time Expended, filed Nov. 7, 2025 — No. 22-3-00270-37
−$4,853.00
Additional litigation costs and unpaid leave
Costs beyond the documented declaration: additional legal assistance, unpaid leave from work to attend hearings and conduct research. Not included in formal declaration.
Owner's estimate
~−$6,000
Statutory interest accruing on underpayment (July 9, 2024 – Oct. 26, 2025)
12% per annum, compounded annually on $33,200.00 principal underpayment (RCW 4.56.110).
Exhibit H — Interest Computation Worksheet, filed Nov. 24, 2025
−$5,183.36
Commission overcharge
Carter represented her commission at 2% in June 2023 communication. 3% was charged at closing — approximately $7,250 above the represented rate.
FAC § 4.14A; ALTA Statement
~−$7,250
Unallocated registry balance — not confirmed disbursed
ALTA shows $2,213.28 to be deposited; Clerk's ledger shows $0 remaining. Respondent has requested a certified accounting from Whatcom Land Title.
Motion to Vacate § XII
$2,213.28 in dispute
Respondent received from
$725,000 sale
$16,970.32
Written motion filed with Clerk's office
CR 7(b)(1) requires a written motion before any court order may be obtained. Filing fee for a civil motion in Whatcom County Superior Court.
Standard Whatcom County motion filing fee
~$30–50
Service on Respondent
CR 5 requires service of the motion and supporting declaration on all parties. Certified mail, return receipt.
Standard service cost
~$20–30
Response period or noticed hearing
Respondent would have had opportunity to present his April 3 email (conditions, not refusal) and April 4 email (contesting non-cooperation claim) as evidence. Commissioner would make on-the-record finding.
No additional filing fee; standard motion calendar
$0 additional
Timeline delay
A noticed motion in Whatcom County would typically be heard within 30–60 days. This is the entire additional "cost" of proper process — a brief delay before a valid, reviewable order.
Standard family law motion calendar
30–60 days
Pre-registry disbursements
Under proper process with court oversight, disbursements would occur only as authorized by court order — with full accounting to both parties before any funds moved.
Required by May 11, 2023 order's own terms
$0 unauthorized
On-the-record finding of non-cooperation
Required before commissioner signature authority could be exercised. Respondent's documented communications — showing conditions, not refusal — would have been part of the record.
Condition precedent in May 11, 2023 order
$0 additional
Court registry deposit as ordered
All net proceeds deposited in Whatcom County Superior Court registry before any distribution — as the May 11, 2023 order explicitly required.
Terms of May 11, 2023 Order (Order Requiring Respondent to Cooperate)
$0 cost to comply
Reviewed, authorized distribution math
Distribution figures presented to both parties for review before entry. Errors in the July 9, 2024 distribution — the double-counted mortgage installment, the 100% lien allocation — identified and corrected before becoming an order.
Basic requirement of adversarial distribution hearing
$0 additional
No corrective litigation required
Respondent incurred $4,853 in documented costs plus approximately $6,000 in additional costs to correct errors that proper process would have prevented. Those costs would not exist.
Declaration of Costs and Time Expended, Nov. 7, 2025
$0 avoided
Reviewable, appellate-ready order
A properly noticed order with on-the-record findings is reviewable on revision and appeal. An order entered through an unrecorded ex parte process — with no intake log, no routing slip, no chain-of-custody record — is structurally unreviewable.
The value of proper process is not only financial
$0 additional
Total cost of
proper process
~$200
April 3–4, 2024 · 21 Hours
Ex Parte Execution — No Motion, No Service, No Hearing
$0 received at this stage
Respondent's first notification of an offer arrived at 1:07 PM on April 3. Commissioner Henley's signature was claimed by 11:32 AM on April 4 — approximately 21 hours later. No motion was filed. No service occurred. No finding of non-cooperation was made on the record. Respondent's April 3 and April 4 emails — showing conditions, not refusal — were never reviewed by any judicial officer before the signature was executed.
April 25, 2024 · Closing
Sale Closed — Proceeds Diverted Before Court Registry
−$42,231.88 diverted pre-registry
Whatcom Land Title closed the transaction and, before depositing the balance into the court registry, made $42,231.88 in pre-registry disbursements directly to Petitioner — including the May 11, 2023 contempt amount (treated as a lien despite never being recorded as one), a down-payment reimbursement, and four months of mortgage payments. The court registry received $197,311.88 instead of the full net proceeds of $239,543.76.
July 9, 2024 · Distribution Order
Commissioner Henley's Distribution Order — Mathematical Errors Introduced
Respondent allocated $16,970.32
The distribution order — prepared by Petitioner's counsel — applied 100% of lien amounts against Respondent's share rather than the 50% the Final Decree's Exhibit A § B required. A non-existent April 2023 mortgage payment was added to the reimbursement total and then double-counted as a deduction from Respondent's share. Respondent retained attorney Luke Larson for $2,500 to appear at this hearing.
August 9, 2024 · Revision Hearing
Judge Freeman Acknowledges "Calculation Issue" — No Correction Made
−$750 attorney drafting costs
Respondent moved for revision. Judge Freeman acknowledged a "calculation issue" on the record (DVD Exhibit C, approx. 19:12 mark) but adopted Commissioner Henley's figures without independent recalculation. The November 8, 2024 Order on Revision contained no written findings, no recalculation, and no statement of reasoning — adopting the prior order verbatim despite the acknowledged concern.
November 2025 · Corrective Motion
Motion to Vacate Filed — Corrective Litigation Costs Mount
−$4,853 documented + ~$6,000 additional
After obtaining the Whatcom Land Title Settlement Statement in early 2025 — a document Respondent had not received at closing — the full scope of the pre-registry disbursements and mathematical errors became verifiable. A Motion to Vacate was filed in November 2025 seeking correction. The documented corrective litigation costs ($4,853, declared under penalty of perjury) plus approximately $6,000 in additional costs and unpaid leave represent expenses that would not have existed if the original process had included proper notice, a hearing, and an on-the-record finding.
Ongoing · Interest Accruing
12% Statutory Interest Accruing on $33,200 Principal Underpayment
$5,183.36 as of Oct. 26, 2025 — growing at 12% per annum
Under RCW 4.56.110, the statutory judgment interest rate is 12% per annum. Applied to the $33,200.00 principal underpayment from July 9, 2024 through October 26, 2025 (approximately 15.5 months), accrued interest totals $5,183.36. Interest continues to compound annually until paid. Source: Exhibit H — Interest Computation Worksheet, filed November 24, 2025.
What Proper Process Would Have Cost: A Step-by-Step
Under the procedure used in Skagit, Snohomish, and King counties, here is the complete sequence that would have preceded any commissioner signature — and what each step would have cost.
Step 01
Written Motion Filed with Clerk's Office
Motion requesting determination of non-cooperation and authorization to proceed with commissioner signature. Logged, stamped, and docketed on filing.
~$30–50 filing fee
Step 02
Service on Respondent
Motion and supporting declaration served on Respondent by certified mail under CR 5. Respondent receives copy of the specific claim of non-cooperation being asserted.
~$20–30 postage
Step 03
Response Period
Respondent has opportunity to respond in writing. His April 3 email (conditions, not refusal) and April 4 email (contesting non-cooperation claim before commissioner acted) become part of the record.
$0 additional cost
Step 04
On-the-Record Finding
Commissioner makes a finding — based on evidence — that non-cooperation has or has not occurred. That finding is reviewable. The entire process would have taken 30–60 days on the normal motion calendar.
$0 additional · reviewable result
Step 05
Authorized Signature, Verified Documents
Commissioner signs only documents verified to conform to the court's authorizing order. Chain-of-custody record generated. Both parties have record of what was signed.
$0 additional
Step 06
Proceeds to Court Registry as Ordered
Net proceeds deposited in Whatcom County Superior Court registry per the May 11, 2023 order's explicit terms, before any distribution to either party. No pre-registry diversions.
$0 additional · no unauthorized disbursements
Respondent — David Snowden
Correct entitlement (corrected math, Exhibit B)
$47,955.61
Actually received
$16,970.32
Principal underpayment
−$30,985.29
Unallocated registry balance (unconfirmed)
−$2,213.28
Statutory interest at 12% (to Oct. 26, 2025)
−$5,183.36
Documented corrective litigation costs
−$4,853.00
Additional costs and unpaid leave (estimate)
~−$6,000.00
Sale below FMV — lost equity (owner estimate)
~−$70,000 to −$75,000
Total shortfall vs. correct entitlement
−$119,234+
Petitioner — Jolene Olson
Correct entitlement (corrected math, Exhibit B)
$120,927.43
Actually received (pre-registry + registry + PSE)
$220,359.79
Overpayment above correct entitlement
+$99,432.36
Estimated attorney fees — defending litigation (Rommelmann)
~−$12,000
Exposure to Civil Complaint No. 25-2-01481-37
$2,750,000+ claimed
Exposure to pending appeal
Ongoing
Property at 4761 Corona Court, Bellingham — subject to constructive trust claim
RCW 19.40.051
Loss of FMV premium — FSBO with repairs would have produced larger pool for both parties
~−$70,000 to −$75,000 total
Short-term gain vs. long-term legal exposure
Net: contested
What the FSBO Path Would Have Looked Like
Before the ex parte sale was executed, both parties had agreed in principle to a For-Sale-By-Owner plan. Respondent was the primary borrower and had invested significantly in improvements to the property. The sale was interrupted before those improvements were complete. If the FSBO plan had proceeded with proper notice, a cooperative listing, and the repairs finished:
Estimated sale price (FSBO, completed repairs)
~$795,000–$800,000
Real estate broker commission
$0 (FSBO — no brokerage)
Litigation cost to Respondent
$0
Litigation cost to Petitioner (attorney fees to defend)
$0
Civil complaint exposure
$0
Title cloud on Murray property
None
Murray defendants' exposure
None
Remaining dispute
Distribution per Exhibit A to Decree only
What the improper process converted a simple distribution dispute into
A civil lawsuit, an appeal, and costs to everyone
Source documentation: ALTA Settlement Statement, Whatcom Land Title Company (May 17, 2024, Escrow No. W-206602) · Clerk's Registry and Trust Transaction Detail, Case No. 22-3-00270-37 (printed Nov. 19, 2025) · July 9, 2024 Order Regarding Disbursement of Funds · November 8, 2024 Order on Revision · Motion to Vacate November 8, 2024 Order and for Corrected Distribution (filed Nov. 2025) · Declaration of Costs and Time Expended (filed Nov. 7, 2025) · Exhibit B — Corrected Distribution Spreadsheet · Exhibit H — Interest Computation Worksheet · Final Decree of Dissolution, Exhibit A § B (Aug. 10, 2023). Fair market value figure is the property owner's own estimate and has not been certified by a licensed appraiser.
Disclaimer: This page documents financial observations for public information purposes, based entirely on official court records, escrow documents, and filed court pleadings. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created. Individuals with questions about their own legal matters should consult a licensed Washington State attorney.