Keith Randall Sparkman D/b/a In-Depth Sanitary Service Group and In-Depth Sanitary Service Group, Inc…

Summary

The court held that the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over both the defendants’ appeal and the plaintiffs’ cross-appeal despite inconsistencies in the parties’ designations and the judgment. Because the sole proprietorship and its owner were legally synonymous, the parties’ conduct at trial impliedly consented to amendment of the complaint under CR 15.02, and the notices of appeal provided sufficient notice without prejudice. The court reversed and remanded for consideration of the appeal and cross-appeal on their merits.