David H. Armstrong

Peter Littlefair and David Schulze own adjacent lots in a subdivision accessed by a private road within a 40-foot-wide easement shown on the plat map. Littlefair sued to require removal of a fence Schulze built parallel to the road within the easement area, claiming interference with the easement and violation of a county zoning ordinance that prohibits structures in easements. The trial court found the fence did not interfere with the road's historical one-lane use and declined to enforce the zoning ordinance. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the easement's scope is defined by the plat's 40-foot width and that the fence constitutes a nuisance per se because it violates the unambiguous zoning ordinance prohibiting such structures.

property

The case concerned whether Resa Raven, a court-appointed limited guardian for Ida, a vulnerable adult with severe medical and mental health issues, neglected her ward under the Abuse of Vulnerable Adults Act by failing to ensure necessary medical care. DSHS initially found neglect, an ALJ reversed that finding, but the DSHS Board reinstated it; the superior court then reversed the Board and awarded Raven attorney fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Board's finding of neglect, concluding that Raven's duty required making every reasonable effort to meet Ida's medical needs and that she failed to do so, while also holding that the applicable standard of proof was preponderance of the evidence rather than clear and convincing; the court further reversed the fee award because DSHS's action was substantially justified.

family lawhealthcareprocedure

The case involved Columbia Community Bank seeking to enforce a loan agreement against Newman Park LLC after Joseph Sturtevant, who lacked authority, used the LLC's property as collateral and defaulted on the loan. The trial court granted summary judgment denying direct liability on the loan but allowing equitable subrogation for the bank's payments on a prior loan and delinquent taxes to prevent unjust enrichment. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that issues of fact did not preclude summary judgment on authority and that equitable subrogation applied under the Restatement (Third) of Property: Mortgages even though the bank was not a volunteer.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved a debt collection action by Audit & Adjustment Company against Donald Earl to recover unpaid emergency medical bills from Jefferson Healthcare. Earl asserted as an affirmative defense that he qualified for charity care under chapter 70.170 RCW, which would have reduced or eliminated the debt, but the hospital had denied his application after treating net proceeds from a property sale as income that made him ineligible. The district court entered judgment for Audit, finding Earl ineligible for charity care, and the superior court and Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the hospital properly applied the income rules under RCW 70.170.060(5) and WAC 246-453-010(17), that Earl failed to meet his burden of proof with incomplete financial information, and that no reversible procedural errors occurred.

healthcarebusiness & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved Gary Cherry, civilly committed since 1999 as a sexually violent predator under Washington's chapter 71.09 RCW, who sought unconditional release after multiple annual reviews by state evaluators concluded he no longer met the SVP definition due to successful treatment and community management. The parties presented the trial court with a stipulated order dismissing the commitment petition, as the State conceded it could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Cherry continued to qualify as an SVP, but the court refused to enter the order or grant a jury trial. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that CR 41 required the trial court to accept the agreed dismissal because SVP proceedings are civil in nature and the civil rules apply absent inconsistency with the statute. The core reasoning centered on the absence of any statutory conflict with CR 41 and the fact that the State's stipulation itself established grounds for release without further adjudication.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Evans, Jarrett Reedy and JoJo Hamilton Evans Sr. were convicted by a jury of first degree robbery as accomplices after an incident at a motel where undercover officers observed events leading to charges involving an alleged robbery, assault, and drug-related offenses. On appeal, the defendants challenged both the sufficiency of the evidence for the robbery convictions and the prosecutor's statements during closing argument that characterized the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt standard. The court found the evidence sufficient to support the convictions when viewed in the light most favorable to the State. However, it concluded that the prosecutor's improper comments mischaracterized core legal standards in a way that could not be cured by jury instructions, even without a defense objection, requiring reversal. The convictions were reversed and the case remanded for retrial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved off-highway vehicle organizations and users challenging the Washington legislature's 2009 appropriation of excess NOVA account funds—derived from a portion of motor vehicle fuel excise taxes collected for nonhighway uses—to the state parks maintenance fund. The trial court dismissed the complaint on summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the appropriation was constitutional under article II, section 40 of the Washington Constitution, which requires fuel tax revenues to be used for highway purposes but expressly permits refunds for nonhighway fuel uses; the NOVA program distributes such refunds to support recreational trails and facilities benefiting nonhighway users, including both motorized and nonmotorized activities. The court relied on prior precedent upholding similar allocations and rejected claims that the funds were limited to ORV-specific uses or that the transfer improperly diverted highway funds.

taxesenvironment

The case involved Brenda Zillyette's conviction for controlled substance homicide after Austin Burrows died from an overdose of methadone and alprazolam. Zillyette appealed, arguing that the State failed to prove the corpus delicti of the crime because there was insufficient independent evidence that she delivered the drugs and that the charging information was defective for not specifying the controlled substances. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that testimony from witnesses about the pills, phone records, pharmacy records, and other facts provided substantial corroboration for her statements, and that she was not actually prejudiced by the information since she received adequate notice of the charges.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Steven Dillon's appeal of his convictions for second degree child rape and first degree kidnapping with sexual motivation, arising from sexual contact with a 13-year-old boy whom Dillon met through a telephone chat service and transported between Portland and his Vancouver apartment. The court reversed the kidnapping conviction and vacated the related sentencing enhancement because the State presented no evidence that Dillon intended to restrain the victim's liberty or that he actually interfered with it. The court remanded for the trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law on whether police violated the knock and announce rule when executing the arrest warrant, while retaining jurisdiction over the remaining appellate issues such as suppression of the confession, jury instructions, and admissibility of evidence regarding the victim's age representations.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Barker, the defendant was arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by a Department of Corrections officer for violating community supervision conditions; the warrant was not sworn or issued by a neutral magistrate, and a search incident to arrest uncovered methamphetamine. The trial court suppressed the evidence and dismissed the charge, applying Fourth Amendment requirements from United States v. Vargas-Amaya. The appellate court reversed, holding that DOC-issued administrative warrants for community custody violations are not subject to the Fourth Amendment's warrant clause, as confirmed by Sherman v. United States Parole Commission, and that the defendant's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim also failed because post-arrest procedures provided sufficient protections. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In State v. Lundy, John Lundy was convicted by a jury of possession of a stolen vehicle, two counts of unlawfully issuing bank checks, and two counts of bail jumping after writing insufficient-funds checks for a truck and auto parts, failing to make payments, and missing pretrial court dates. On appeal, Lundy raised multiple claims including errors in jury instructions on reasonable doubt and bail jumping elements, improper admission of evidence, insufficient evidence for one bail jumping count, denial of an uncontrollable circumstances defense instruction, ineffective assistance of counsel, and improper calculation of his offender score and exceptional sentence. The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error because any instructional mistakes were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, evidence was sufficient, and other claims lacked merit, but it remanded for reconsideration of the exceptional sentence without proper jury findings on aggravating factors.

criminal lawprocedure

In Cowlitz Bank v. Leonard, the bank sued guarantor Mark Leonard to recover on a $660,000 loan to Tytan International Inc. after the loan matured and went unpaid, with Leonard asserting affirmative defenses and counterclaims based on alleged oral bank promises to extend more credit and refrain from calling the loan. The trial court granted summary judgment to the bank, striking the defenses and counterclaims, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that RCW 19.36.110 requires all credit agreements to be in writing and signed by the creditor, superseding any prior oral agreements, so Leonard could not enforce the claimed representations even under an equitable estoppel theory. The opinion noted that the loan documents included the required statutory notice about unenforceability of oral commitments and awarded the bank attorney fees under the loan terms.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Annechino v. Worthy, the plaintiffs transferred millions to the Bank of Clark County after relying on advice from bank officers about structuring accounts for full FDIC insurance coverage, but after the bank failed, about $500,000 of their deposits was deemed uninsured due to an account setup error. The Annechinos sued the bank's CEO, financial services officer, and supervisor for breach of fiduciary duty, claiming a quasi-fiduciary relationship based on their reliance on the officers' superior knowledge. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against the individual defendants, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court reasoned that the officers were acting on behalf of the bank in an arm's-length business transaction and did not enter into a special fiduciary relationship with the plaintiffs outside the normal scope of banking services.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In Duc Tan v. Le, members of the Committee Against the Viet Cong Flag sent emails and newsletters accusing Duc Tan and the Vietnamese Community of Thurston County (VCTC) of being communists or communist supporters, leading Tan and VCTC to sue the committee members for defamation. A jury found the defendants liable and awarded $310,000 in damages. On appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed the verdict and remanded for dismissal, holding that the statements were non-actionable opinions protected under the First Amendment and that the plaintiffs failed to prove actual malice with clear and convincing evidence for any underlying factual claims. The court reasoned that the accusations arose in an ongoing political debate within the Vietnamese community, where hyperbolic statements about communism were common, and the evidence did not show the defendants subjectively knew their statements were false.

free speechtorts & liability

In this personal restraint petition, Daniel Stockwell sought to withdraw his 1986 guilty plea to first-degree statutory rape, claiming the judgment and sentence was invalid because it incorrectly stated the maximum term as 20 years instead of life imprisonment, and arguing the one-year time bar did not apply due to lack of notice from the Department of Corrections. The court first determined that the DOC failed to make a good-faith effort to notify Stockwell of the time limit before his discharge from supervision, so the petition was not time-barred. On the merits, however, the court held that Stockwell failed to demonstrate actual and substantial prejudice from the misstatement, noting that the State was now bound by the 20-year maximum as the effective term and that Stockwell had already served his sentence without any increase. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

criminal lawprocedure

Thomas and Cassandra Brotherton challenged Jefferson County's denial of a waiver from state and local sewage regulations that prohibited their use of a holding tank for wastewater from a park model RV on their property. The local health officer and county Board of Health denied the waiver request, finding the property could support a compliant on-site sewage system, and the Brothertons sued in superior court arguing the county ordinance was invalid because it conflicted with state law and was unconstitutionally vague. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the County, holding that the Brothertons' complaint was an untimely challenge to a land use decision under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), which requires filing within 21 days of the final decision. The court reasoned that even though the Brothertons framed their suit as attacking the ordinance's validity, their requested relief directly attacked the denial of their waiver, making LUPA the exclusive means of review, and untimely challenges to even illegal land use decisions are unreviewable.

environmentpropertyprocedure

The case concerned a juvenile charged with third-degree assault who sought and received a deferred disposition under RCW 13.40.127, which places the youth under community supervision for up to one year with the possibility of case dismissal if conditions are met. The juvenile court imposed 15 days of detention as part of the supervision order, and the juvenile appealed, arguing the statute does not permit detention in deferred dispositions. Although the appeal was technically moot because the detention had already been served, the court addressed the issue due to its recurring nature and public interest. The court held that the plain language of RCW 13.40.127 and the statutory definition of community supervision in RCW 13.40.020 do not authorize imposition of detention or confinement as a condition of a deferred disposition.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Rich, the defendant appealed after the trial court granted the State's motion to impanel a jury to find aggravating factors supporting an exceptional sentence at his resentencing for first degree murder, following multiple delays from 2004 to 2008 while awaiting legislative changes post-Blakely. The Court of Appeals held that the delays violated Rich's right to speedy sentencing and remanded for a standard range sentence. The court reasoned that the State's continuances were attributable to awaiting favorable legislative amendments (the 2007 Blakely fix), that Rich had repeatedly asserted his speedy sentencing rights, and that the prejudice included loss of the opportunity for a standard range sentence under prior law. It found all four speedy sentencing factors weighed in Rich's favor.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves Daniel Stockwell's personal restraint petition challenging his 2004 convictions for first degree child molestation and attempted first degree child molestation of his step-granddaughters, which led to a life sentence without parole as a persistent offender based on a 1986 first degree statutory rape conviction. Stockwell raised multiple claims, including that his prior conviction was not comparable to current child rape statutes, that sealing jury questionnaires violated his public trial rights under the Bone-Club factors, errors in juror challenges and exhibit handling, and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, holding that Stockwell failed to show constitutional error causing actual prejudice or nonconstitutional error amounting to a miscarriage of justice. On the sealing issue, the court reasoned that because the questionnaire content was addressed in open court with public access, there was no closure requiring further analysis. Other claims were rejected on the merits or as insufficiently supported.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In State v. Swetz, the defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and marijuana after a police officer arrested him based on the smell and visible presence of marijuana and then conducted a warrantless search of his parked vehicle, discovering additional drugs and paraphernalia. The Court of Appeals of Washington reversed the convictions and remanded with instructions to suppress the seized evidence. The court held that the search exceeded the scope of a permissible search incident to arrest under article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution, which provides broader privacy protections than the federal Fourth Amendment, as established in precedents such as State v. Patton and State v. Buelna Valdez. The court found the constitutional error manifest and reviewable for the first time on appeal despite the lack of a suppression motion at trial.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure