Today's arguments - January 11, 2011
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.
