The Washington Court of Appeals recently upheld a lower court's decision denying Calvin Evans, Jr.'s motion to vacate two judgments stemming from his 2011 divorce from Debbie L. Evans, now known as Debbie Bunney. The court ruled that Evans' arguments regarding the judgments were untimely and that he failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to warrant relief. This ruling affects Evans, Bunney, and their family, as it maintains the financial obligations stemming from their divorce settlement.

The case, officially titled In the Matter of the Marriage of Debbie L. Evans (nka Bunney) v. Calvin H. Evans, Jr., was filed under docket number 88562-6-I. The court's decision was issued on November 2, 2026, and it focused on the legal principles surrounding the motion to vacate judgments, specifically under the Washington Civil Rule 60(b).

Background

Debbie L. Evans and Calvin H. Evans, Jr. were married and lived on a ranch owned by Calvin's father. During their marriage, they invested a significant amount of money into improvements on the property. However, their marriage ended in divorce, and the dissolution court awarded Debbie the community's investment in the ranch, along with monetary judgments against Calvin totaling approximately $166,699.

Calvin's father passed away during the divorce proceedings, and a legal dispute arose regarding the inheritance of the ranch. Calvin's siblings contested the will, claiming their father lacked the capacity to make it and that Calvin had financially abused him. As a result, Calvin did not inherit the ranch, which ultimately passed to his children. This situation complicated the financial arrangements between Calvin and Debbie, as the dissolution court had based its judgments on the expectation that Calvin would inherit the ranch.

In 2017, Calvin attempted to vacate the judgments against him, but the court denied his motion without prejudice, stating it needed more information regarding Debbie's separate unjust enrichment lawsuit against the estate of Calvin's father. Over the years, various legal actions unfolded, including a partition action initiated by Calvin's children to sell the ranch, which further complicated the financial landscape for both parties.

The Ruling

In its recent ruling, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's denial of Calvin's motion to vacate the judgments. The court concluded that Calvin's request was untimely, as he had not acted within a reasonable time frame. The court noted, "The mere passage of time between the entry of the judgment and the motion to set it aside is not controlling. Rather, a triggering event for the motion may arise well after entry of the judgment that the moving party seeks to vacate."

Additionally, the court found that Calvin's claim of not receiving an expected inheritance did not constitute extraordinary circumstances under CR 60(b)(11). The court stated, "The occurrence of a risk the decree expressly anticipated does not become extraordinary merely because the risk eventually materialized." This ruling emphasized that Calvin had ample opportunity to seek relief but failed to do so in a timely manner.

Impact

The court's decision has significant implications for both Calvin and Debbie, as it upholds the financial obligations established in their divorce settlement. By affirming the lower court's ruling, the court reinforces the importance of timely action in legal matters and the necessity for parties to adhere to established deadlines when seeking to vacate judgments. This ruling also clarifies the standards for what constitutes extraordinary circumstances in similar cases.

Moving forward, this case may serve as a precedent for future disputes involving divorce judgments and the challenges of inheritance and financial obligations. It highlights the complexities that can arise in divorce cases, especially when external factors, such as inheritance disputes, come into play.

What's Next

Calvin Evans has the option to appeal the court's decision, but it remains to be seen whether he will pursue that route. There are no known related cases pending at this time. The court's ruling effectively closes the door on Calvin's attempts to vacate the judgments, solidifying Debbie's financial position resulting from their divorce.