Today's arguments, Jan. 28, 2010

Posted on January 28, 2010 by Michael Reitz

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in three cases today (docket, briefs):

In the morning session: 

Broom v. Morgan Stanley, No. 82311-1. Michael, Kevin, and Andrea Broom sued Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. for mismanaging an investment account. Their claims were rejected by an arbitration panel because they were barred by the statute of limitations. The Brooms appealed to King County Superior Court, and the court held that statute of limitations in Washington do not apply to claims in arbitration. The court vacated the arbitration panel’s decision as an error of law. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) affirmed. Morgan Stanley argues both that statutes of limitations do apply to arbitration, and that courts cannot vacate arbitration decisions because of “errors of law.”

State v. Regan, No. 82476-2. Francis Regan was convicted of fourth degree assault. Most of his sentence was suspended and he received 24 months of probation. One of the conditions of probation was that he commit “no criminal violations of the law.” During the probationary period, Regan was accused of another assault. He was brought to court for trial and a probation hearing. A jury acquitted him, but the judge at the probation hearing believed that Regan had committed the assault and revoked Regan’s probation.

Probation violations normally have a lower burden of proof than criminal trials. But Regan argues that the term “no criminal violations of the law” requires criminal conduct, and that criminal conduct must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Since he was not found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he says his probation should not have been revoked. The Grays Harbor Superior Court reversed the probation ruling, but the Court of Appeals (Div. 1) reversed the superior court. Defendant now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Then in the afternoon session: 

McGuire v. Bates, No. 82659-5. Whether a settlement for “all claims” includes attorney fees. Julianne McGuire hired Robert Bates to remodel her kitchen. After it was done, she claimed that he had done the work improperly and sued him. The case went to mandatory arbitration, but before the arbitration the parties settled “all claims” for $2180.

RCW 18.27.040 allows the prevailing party in a suit by a homeowner against a contractor to recover attorney fees. McGuire moved for attorney fees based on this statute. The arbitrator denied the motion because the parties had agreed to settle “all claims.” However, the courts held that attorney fees are a cost, not a claim, and were thus not included in the settlement agreement. Bates appealed, and also argues that McGuire is not a “prevailing party” because the case was settled.

Tags: , , ,

New cases accepted UPDATED

Posted on June 3, 2009 by Michael Reitz

The Washington Supreme Court has agreed to review several new cases.

  • Little Mtn. Estates Tenants Ass’n v. Little Mtn. Estates MHC LLC, No. 82574-2
  • State v. Afana, No. 82600-5
  • State v. Osman, No. 82671-4
  • State v. Hall, No. 82558-1
  • State v. Jones, No. 82613-7
  • State v. Patel, No. 82649-8
  • McGuire v. Bates, No. 82659-5

Case details after the jump:

Little Mtn. Estates Tenants Ass’n v. Little Mtn. Estates MHC LLC, No. 82574-2. Mobile home tenants and association brought an action against the mobile home park, alleging that leases violated the Manufactured/Mobile Home Landlord-Tenant Act (MHLTA) and the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The trial court ruled for the park. The Court of Appeals (Div. I) affirmed the ruling in part, and reversed in part, and remanded the caes for further proceedings.

State v. Afana, No. 82600-5. The question here is whether a police officer unconstitutionally seized a driver and passenger in a legally parked car when the officer approached and requested identification. Here, Deputy Miller approached Joseph Afana's car and asked Mr. Afana and his passenger, Jennifer Bergeron, what they were doing and requested identification. After Mr. Afana began to drive away, Deputy Miller discovered a warrant for Ms. Bergeron and stopped the car. A search incident to Ms. Bergeron's arrest uncovered illegal drugs. The trial court suppressed this evidence, concluding that Ms. Bergeron was unlawfully seized when Deputy Miller asked for identification. The Court of Appeals (Div. 3) disagreed, ruling that the officer’s request for identification did not constitute a seizure. The appeals court reversed the suppression of the drug evidence.

State v. Osman, No. 82671-4. Abdinasir Osman was convicted in a jury trial of driving while under the influence of alcohol. In preparing Osman's appeal, his attorney discovered that a portion of the electronic record from the pretrial hearing was missing. Osman argued he was entitled to a new trial because of the missing portion of the record. The Superior Court ordered a new trial. The State appealed, and the Court of Appeals (Div. I) held the missing portion of the record was not so significant as to warrant a new trial.

State v. Hall, No. 82558-1. Whether convictions for tampering with a witness violate double jeopardy.  Isiah Hall was initially charged with burglary and assault. The prosecution later amended the charging document to add several counts of tampering with a witness, when it was discovered that Hall attempted to convince his girlfriend to either refuse to testify or to testify falsely. Hall was convicted of several crimes including three counts of tampering with a witness. Hall appealed, arguing that multiple counts of tampering with a witness violated the double jeopardy clause. The Court of Appeals (Div. I) affirmed the convictions, holding that the unit of prosecution for tampering with a witness is any one instance of attempting to induce a witness or a person to do any of the actions set forth in RCW 9A.72.120.

State v. Jones, No. 82613-7. Christopher Jones was convicted of the second degree rape of his niece, K.D. The trial court imposed an exceptional minimum term sentence based on a jury finding that Mr. Jones abused a position of trust to commit the offense. The Court of Appeals (Div. III) upheld the conviction, but reversed the exceptional minimum sentence because of errors on the jury instruction form. The court ordered a new sentencing proceeding.

State v. Patel, No. 82649-8. Mitel Patel challenged his conviction for attempted second degree rape of a child. On appeal, Mr. Patel contended that the trial court erred by: (1) denying his motion to suppress transcripts of his instant messaging conversations with an undercover detective posing as a fictitious 13-year-old girl, and (2) denying his motion to dismiss for failure to prove an essential element of the crime. The Court of Appeals (Div. III) affirmed Mr. Patel's conviction.

McGuire v. Bates, No. 82659-5. Whether attorneys fees can be recovered in addition to a settlement amount. In May 2005, Julianne McGuire hired Robert Bates, B & H Construction Services, Inc. to remodel her kitchen. Bates completed the work in September 2005. A few months later, McGuire noticed water stains and other problems resulting from the remodel. McGuire reported the defects to Bates who denied any responsibility after inspecting the property. McGuire hired another contractor who repaired the defects for $2,166.00. After the matter was transferred to mandatory arbitration, Bates offered in writing to settle “all claims” for $2,180.00 pursuant to RCW 4.84.250-.280. McGuire accepted. McGuire then moved for attorney fees, claiming she was entitled to such an award as the prevailing party under RCW 18.27.040. The arbitrator denied the motion, ruling that the parties' agreement to settle “all claims” necessarily included attorney fees. On appeal, the trial court ruled in McGuire’s favor, awarding her attorneys fees, and the Court of Appeals (Div. I) affirmed the ruling.
Tags: , , , , , , ,