Judge, Court of Appeals of Washington
State v. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Court of Appeals of Washington · 2012-05-03 · cited 14×
The case concerned whether a real estate developer could rely on a Shoreline Management Act exemption to build docks for speculative waterfront homes without first obtaining a substantial development permit from the City of Spokane Valley. The Washington Court of Appeals held that the developer was not entitled to the exemption and reversed the superior court's denial of the Department of Ecology's land-use petition. The court reasoned that the statutory exemption in RCW 90.58.030(3)(e)(vii) applies only when an existing owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a residence seeks to construct a dock for their own private, noncommercial use, not when a developer builds docks for later sale to unidentified buyers. Because this threshold issue was dispositive, the court did not reach arguments about potential cumulative environmental impacts from multiple docks.
environmentpropertybusiness & regulatory
COBALLES v. Spokane County
Court of Appeals of Washington · 2012-04-26 · cited 9×
CherryAnn Coballes appealed a superior court ruling that upheld Spokane County’s declaration of her dog Gunnar as dangerous after the dog bit a three-year-old child who entered a bedroom where the dog was confined. The Court of Appeals addressed whether Coballes was entitled to a second appeal as of right from the superior court’s decision reviewing the county board’s determination. The court held that no such appeal of right exists and instead granted Coballes leave to file a motion for discretionary review under RAP 2.3(d). It reasoned that the dangerous-dog proceeding had already received one level of review in superior court under RCW 36.32.330, and allowing an automatic further appeal would exceed the appellate process available in comparable civil and criminal cases, making discretionary review the proper avenue.
procedure
Kofmehl v. Baseline Lake, LLC
Court of Appeals of Washington · 2012-04-12 · cited 7×
The case involved a dispute over a real estate purchase and sale agreement for approximately 30 acres in Quincy, Washington, between buyer Patrick Kofmehl and seller Baseline Lake, LLC. After the parties could not agree on the property boundaries or complete the transaction, Kofmehl invoked the statute of frauds to void the contract due to an inadequate legal description and sued for rescission and restitution of his earnest money and costs. The trial court granted summary judgment to Kofmehl, ordering restitution and attorney fees. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a buyer who avoids a contract under the statute of frauds is not entitled to restitution if the seller was ready, willing, and able to perform, and that the buyer bears the burden of proving the seller was not ready, willing, and able. Because the trial court had improperly placed that burden on Baseline, the appellate court remanded for further proceedings.
propertyprocedure
Cantu v. Department of Labor & Industries
Court of Appeals of Washington · 2012-03-27 · cited 49×
Jorge Cantu filed a workers' compensation claim after injuring his knee at a WestFarm Foods cheese plant in 2004; the claim closed in 2005 with a permanent partial disability award, but he later sought to reopen it, alleging that his ongoing knee problems caused new back pain and major depressive disorder. The Department of Labor and Industries denied reopening, and the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals affirmed that denial after finding no causal link or objective worsening. On Cantu's de novo appeal, the superior court reversed the board, treated certain unchallenged board findings as verities, and ordered the claim reopened based on medical testimony establishing causation and aggravation. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that any error in treating the board findings as binding was harmless because substantial evidence supported the superior court's independent determinations on credibility, causation, and the need for further treatment.
labor & employmentprocedure
State v. Winborne
Court of Appeals of Washington · 2012-03-20 · cited 20×
In State v. Winborne, the defendant pleaded guilty to three felony counts of violating a domestic violence no-contact order and received a standard-range sentence of 60 months of confinement per count—the statutory maximum—plus a required 12-month term of community custody, for a combined total exceeding the maximum. The trial court followed the prior practice, upheld in In re Brooks, of adding a notation in the judgment directing the Department of Corrections to ensure the combined terms did not exceed 60 months. The Court of Appeals held that 2009 amendments to the Sentencing Reform Act eliminated the variable community-custody provisions that had made the Brooks notation workable, so sentencing courts must now reduce the community-custody term at the outset under RCW 9.94A.701(9) to avoid an excessive sentence. Because the imposed sentence exceeded the statutory maximum without that adjustment, the court remanded for resentencing.
criminal lawprocedure
Melter v. Melter
Court of Appeals of Washington · 2012-03-20 · cited 35×
In Melter v. Melter, William Melter challenged the fourth will and related lifetime asset transfers of his mother, Mary Virginia Melter, arguing that his brother John had exerted undue influence to disinherit him and receive nearly all of the estate. The trial court set aside the will and transfers after finding undue influence, but the Washington Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the evidence failed to meet the required clear, cogent, and convincing standard. The court noted sustainable findings that Virginia had testamentary capacity when executing the will, had legitimate reasons for favoring John, and had explained her wishes to an attorney acting in her interest, even while acknowledging John's failure to fully account for some asset transfers and the brothers' mutual withholding of information. The opinion emphasized that a will is presumed valid absent such strong proof of undue influence and remanded for entry of judgment upholding the documents in favor of John and Sandra Melter.
family lawproperty