Today's arguments - January 11, 2011

Posted on January 11, 2011 by Jonathan Bechtle

On its first day back from the holiday break the Court will hear only three arguments, two in the morning and one in the afternoon. (Docket, briefs for first two cases, briefs for third case)

Morning session: (starting at 9:00 a.m.)

In re the Marriage of Daniel & Teresa Farmer, No. 83960-3. How to determine damages for wrongful sale of stock options by one spouse during a divorce.

Teresa and Daniel Farmer dissolved their marriage. Daniel had received some stock options through work, and half of these options were awarded to Teresa. However, Daniel exercised all of the options, both his and Teresa's.

Teresa was awarded damages based on expert testimony about the probable future value of the stock options. Daniel argues that the damages should be based on the value of the options at the time he exercised them, or within a reasonable time thereafter. Daniel lost at Division One Court of Appeals.

 Bank of America v. Owens, No. 84044-0. Whether a supplemental decree giving one spouse partial title to real estate in a divorce decree gives that spouse's claim priority over a bank lien.

J'Amy Owens and Kenneth Treiger purchased a piece of property while married, which later became Owens' separate property. Owens used the property as collateral for a loan from Bank of America.

Owens and Treiger divorced. The court issued a supplemental decree dividing the parties’ assets, ordering that the property be sold and half of the money given to Treiger. The court issued several other decrees awarding money to Treiger.

Then the bank attached the property because Owens had defaulted on the loan. Later, the bank filed a declaratory judgment action to determine who had first claim to the property. The bank argued the supplemental decree was not a final judgment, and so did not give Treiger a judgment lien, thus giving the bank's lien first priority. The Division One Court of Appeals disagreed, but did hold that two other orders were not judgments (and thus did not have priority).

Afternoon session: (starting at 1:30 p.m.)

In re the Dependency of Jenkins, No. 83516-1. Whether a defect in a dependency order can be cured at subsequent hearings.

K.N.J., a minor child, was taken to an Oregon hospital after relatives discovered that she had been severely abused by her parents. A dependency petition was filed by the state and ordered by a judge pro tempore. Normally both parties have to consent to the appointment of a judge pro tempore, but Michael Jenkins, the father of K.N.J., was not present at the hearing and his consent was entered by default. 

Later the state filed for termination of Michael's parental rights, and he moved to vacate the original dependency order due to lack of his consent. The state argued that one parent's consent was sufficient, and that the several subsequent dependency review hearings cured any jurisdictional defect in the first hearing. Division One Court of Appeals found that the original hearing was invalid, but that the subsequent hearings cured the defect.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

New cases accepted for review

Posted on June 8, 2010 by Michael Reitz

The Supreme Court accepted petitions for review in several cases during its conference last week.

  • Bank of America v. Owens, No. 84044-0
  • State v. Gresham, No. 84148-9
  • State v. Scherner, No. 84150-1
  • In re Det. of Danforth, No. 84152-7
  • Neighborhood Alliance of Spokane County v. County of Spokane, No. 84108-0
  • Kaltreider v. Lake Chelan Cmty. Hosp., No. 84144-6
  • Federal Way Sch. Dist. No. 210 v. Vinson, No. 84243-4
  • State v. Grogan, No. 82609-9

Bank of America v. Owens, No. 84044-0. The payee of a promissory note brings a declaratory action against the maker and her ex-husband to determine priority of parties' claims to funds from sale of real property.

State v. Gresham, No. 84148-9 and State v. Scherner, No. 84150-1 are consolidated to address whether RCW 10.58.090. Generally speaking, the state’s rules of evidence prohibit the use of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts as proof of a defendant’s propensity to commit similar actions. Nevertheless, RCW 10.58.090 permits the admission of evidence of a defendant’s past sex offenses in a criminal sex offense action. Two criminal defendants have challenged the law as unconstitutional.

In re Det. of Danforth, No. 84152-7. The state filed petition seeking to civilly commit sex offender as a sexually violent predator. The offender argued his plea to law enforcement officials seeking help from reoffending did not constitute a recent overt act warranting commitment. The superior court denied the offender’s motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed the civil commitment.

Neighborhood Alliance of Spokane County v. County of Spokane, No. 84108-0. A nonprofit group request public records from Spokane County. The trial judge denied the group’s request for discovery and granted summary judgment to the county. On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled that the county had violated the Public Records Act by failing to conduct a reasonably adequate search for responsive records, but that the organization’s request for discovery went far beyond the issue of whether a reasonably adequate search for documents had taken place.

Kaltreider v. Lake Chelan Cmty. Hosp., No. 84144-6. Elizabeth Kaltreider was a voluntary resident at Lake Chelan Community Hospital for inpatient treatment of alcohol dependency. During her stay she engaged in sexual acts with a nurse. Kaltreider sued the hospital and the nurse, claiming in part that the hospital breached its duty to protect her from sexual misconduct. The trial court ruled against her. The Court of Appeals held that Kaltreider was not a vulnerable adult and thus the hospital did not have a duty to protect her against the actions of a third party, and that the nurse’s actions with the patient were not foreseeable, and thus the hospital did not have a duty to protect the patient against actions of a third party.

Federal Way Sch. Dist. No. 210 v. Vinson, No. 84243-4. David Vinson, a teacher at Federal Way High School, was accused of verbally harassing a student. Vinson later admitted lying during the human resources investigation. The school district terminated Vinson, citing his behavior and the dishonesty during the course of the investigation. A hearing officer ruled in Vinson’s favor, and a superior court affirmed the decision, ordering the district to pay Vinson’s attorneys fees. The Court of Appeals held the teacher's conduct in lying during an official school district investigation of professional misconduct was sufficient cause for termination.

State v. Grogan, No. 82609-9. Review granted and remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of State v. Dow, No. 81243-8.
 
Tags: , , , , , , ,