Steven Heeb v. Kambra Mellergaard

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STEVEN HEEB,
Appellant,
v.
KAMBRA MELLERGAARD,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 40771-3-III
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
STAAB, J. — Steven Heeb appeals two orders: the trial court’s order dismissing his
complaint against Kambra Mellergaard, and the order declaring him a vexatious litigant.
However, in his briefing, Heeb does not raise challenges to either order, or assign error to
any of the court’s findings or conclusions. Instead, he raises and argues issues arising in
a different case against a different defendant.
We affirm and award Mellergaard attorney fees for defending a frivolous appeal.
Heeb has not provided any assignment of error, citation to the record, argument,
authority, or basis for the court to discern the relevant issues or to conduct a review of the
merits. In addition, we deny numerous motions filed by Heeb during this appeal.
FILED
APRIL 9, 2026
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

No. 40771-3-III
Heeb v. Mellergaard
2
BACKGROUND
Steven Heeb and Kay Sikes were in a long-term committed relationship until June
2018. In 2019, Heeb filed a complaint requesting an equitable distribution of the
couple’s assets and debts. Heeb was represented by an attorney at that time, and Sikes
was represented throughout the litigation by attorney Kambra Mellergaard.
The court held a settlement conference to finalize a binding CR 2A property
distribution agreement. The court referenced the applicable property matrix and read
additional terms of the agreement. Mellergaard confirmed the agreement reflected the
settlement reached by the parties, as did Heeb’s attorney. Nevertheless, contentious
litigation continued.
After his motion for reconsideration was denied, Heeb appealed. See Heeb v.
Sikes, No. 39491-3-III, slip op. at 5 n.1 (Wash. Ct. App. July 2, 2024) (unpublished),
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/394913_unp.pdf at 5. He argued that he was
prejudiced by nepotism between judicial officers, his attorney violated the rules of
professional conduct, his right to a fair and impartial trial was violated, and the CR 2A
settlement agreement was not valid. Id. at 1. This court disagreed with Heeb’s assertions
and affirmed. Id. at 9.
In October 2022, Heeb filed a lawsuit against Mellergaard alleging “Obstructing
the Law and Fraudulent Statements.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 68. Heeb believed that the
court imposed sanctions against him because of Mellergaard’s “defamation and slander,

No. 40771-3-III
Heeb v. Mellergaard
3
claiming that she made false statements about him deserving restraining orders and
sanctions.” Appellant’s Br. at 16-17. However, the complaint focused on Heeb’s
dissatisfaction with his own attorney’s representation, not his allegations against
Mellergaard. The court granted Mellergaard’s motion to dismiss the action pursuant to
CR 12(b)(6) with prejudice. Heeb did not appeal the dismissal.
In August 2024, Heeb filed a second lawsuit against Mellergaard alleging
“Enforcing Non Court Filed Documents for Illegal Proceedings [and] Intentional
Slander.” CP at 4. He then filed a motion asking the court to award him “20 million
dollars” for Mellergaard’s alleged offenses. CP at 153. Mellergaard moved to dismiss
the action pursuant to CR 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted. She argued that the cause of action and subject matter were identical to the first
lawsuit Heeb filed against her; thus, the doctrine of res judicata barred his claim.
Mellergaard further moved the court for an order declaring Heeb a vexatious
litigant. She argued that previous sanctions had not deterred the filing of this second
frivolous lawsuit, and Heeb was threatening to file another tort claim seeking “600
million dollars.” CP at 91.
The court granted Mellergaard’s motions, dismissing Heeb’s complaint and
declaring him a vexatious litigant. The court also ordered Heeb to pay Mellergaard
$3,000 in attorney fees and costs as sanctions.
Heeb once again appealed.

No. 40771-3-III
Heeb v. Mellergaard
4
Since this appeal was filed, Heeb has filed 10 motions. Some have been addressed
or answered. Of the remaining motions, at least 1 motion requested accelerated review,
several were titled “Motion For RAP 1.2(a) Mandate For Justice To Bring Forth My RAP
18.2 Filed Materials RAP 12.1 As Per Brief And Response Brief As Well Addresses
Judicial Misconduct Of Trial And Appellant Court” (mandate for justice motions); and
others were designated “Motion For RAP 12.9 Recall Mandate Under 18.12 Accelerated
Review” (recall mandate motion).
In these motions, Heeb points to the original case with Sikes and his
dissatisfaction with his attorney at that time as the source of his grievances. He further
reiterates the contentions he previously raised in his earlier appeal. The motions are
accompanied by numerous exhibits and appendices. Each appended document can be
described as either pertaining to the litigation with Sikes, or a printed response to a legal
inquiry that was entered into Google’s artificial intelligence tool.
ANALYSIS
1. ISSUES ON APPEAL
Heeb makes numerous assertions regarding errors and alleged injustices that
occurred in his previous litigation against Sikes. Mellergaard argues that Heeb has not
provided any assignment of error, citation to the record, argument, authority, or basis for
this court to address on appeal.

No. 40771-3-III
Heeb v. Mellergaard
5
Generally, we do not address issues that were not raised in the trial court. RAP
2.5(a). Nor do we consider issues that are inadequately briefed. State v. Dennison, 115
Wn.2d 609, 629, 801 P.2d 193 (1990). Although Heeb is representing himself, pro se
appellants are held to the same standard as attorneys and must comply with all the
procedural rules on appeal. In re Marriage of Olson, 69 Wn. App. 621, 626, 850 P.2d
527 (1993).
An appellant’s brief must conform with RAP 10.3, which provides two
requirements pertinent here. First, the brief must contain “[a] separate concise statement
of each error a party contends was made by the trial court, together with the issues
pertaining to the assignments of error.” RAP 10.3(a)(4). Second, the appellant must
provide “argument in support of the issues presented for review, together with citations to
legal authority and references to relevant parts of the record.” RAP 10.3(a)(6).
Here, Heeb does not assign error to the dismissal of his complaint or the order
declaring him a vexatious litigant. He does not allege the court erred by entering either
order. Nor does he challenge any of the court’s findings of facts or conclusions of law.
Heeb also does not provide argument or authority to suggest this second lawsuit against
Mellergaard is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Instead, Heeb attempts to re-
argue the issues appealed from his case against Sikes. As such, none of Heeb’s
arguments are properly before this court.

No. 40771-3-III
Heeb v. Mellergaard
6
Heeb advances two additional issues: first, he argues a writ of execution on
personal property to enforce judgment against him was improper because his vehicles
were exempt under farm property rules; and second, he contends Sikes violated the
court’s instructions to retrieve certain possessions within thirty days. However, similar to
Heeb’s other assertions, these allegations arise from a different case and are not within
the scope of our present review.
In sum, Heeb does not present an error or issue that provides a basis for this court
to review the order dismissing the complaint against Mellergaard and declaring Heeb a
vexatious litigant. We decline to review the issues raised in Heeb’s brief.
2. POST-APPEAL MOTIONS
For similar reasons, we deny Heeb’s various outstanding motions.
First, like his briefs, Heeb focuses his motion practice on his grievances arising
from previous litigation with Sikes and his discontent with his attorney at that time. And
although he points to multiple rules of appellate procedure as the bases for his motions,
he fails to discuss the rules or apply them to the facts of this case. Nevertheless, we
briefly address each of the rules Heeb cites.
Heeb cites RAP 1.2(a), RAP 18.2, and RAP 12.1 as the bases for his mandate for
justice motions. RAP 1.2(a) provides that the rules of appellate procedure should be
liberally interpreted to facilitate the decision of cases on the merits. We are unable to do
that here because Heeb fails to argue the merits of the trial court’s dismissal of Heeb v.

No. 40771-3-III
Heeb v. Mellergaard
7
Mellergaard, the case on appeal, in either his briefs or motion practice. RAP 18.2
governs voluntary withdrawal of appellate review. However, other than merely citing the
rule, it does not appear Heeb wishes to withdraw his appeal. Lastly, RAP 12.1(a) states
“the appellate court will [generally] decide a case only on the basis of issues [briefed] by
the parties.” Here, Heeb fails to set forth any issues in his brief that are properly before
this court; the case must be decided accordingly.
Finally, Heeb notes RAP 12.9 and RAP 18.12 as the bases for his recall mandate
motion. RAP 12.9 governs the recall of a mandate or certificate of finality. However,
neither the mandate nor the certificate of finality has been issued in this case. RAP 18.12
allows this court to set any review proceeding for accelerated disposition. Here,
assuming Heeb is requesting accelerated review, such request is moot because the matter
was set on the next available docket.
3. ATTORNEY FEES
Mellergaard requests attorney fees under RAP 18.9(a) for defending against a
frivolous appeal. She argues this appeal is frivolous because it is an attempt to relitigate
claims made in previous actions upon which this court has already ruled. We agree.
An appellate court may award attorney fees as sanctions when the opposing party
files a frivolous appeal. RAP 18.9(a); Advocs. for Responsible Dev. v. W. Wash. Growth
Mgmt. Hr’gs Bd., 170 Wn.2d 577, 580, 245 P.3d 764 (2010). An appeal is frivolous if it
“presents no debatable issues upon which reasonable minds might differ” and “is so

No. 40771-3-III
Heeb v. Mellergaard
8
devoid of merit that there is no possibility of reversal.” Advocs. for Responsible Dev., 170
Wn.2d at 580. Close calls as to whether the appeal is frivolous are resolved in favor of the
appellant. Id. If an appellant raises at least one debatable issue, the appeal is not
frivolous, and attorney fees should not be awarded as sanctions. Id. at 580-81.
Here, the appeal is frivolous because Heeb fails to raise at least one debatable
issue pertaining to the orders he appeals; nor does he challenge the court’s ability to
review or revisit these issues as a point of debate upon which reasonable minds could
differ. And, because Heeb does not appear to oppose the court’s order dismissing his
complaint against Mellergaard and declaring him a vexatious litigant, there is no
possibility of reversal. As such, we award Mellergaard her attorney fees against Heeb.
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
_________________________________
Staab, C.J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________________
Murphy, J.
_________________________________
Cooney, J.