Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Litigation

HeadsUp for Washington State: Court Opinions From Tuesday, August 4, 2015

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

To view the full text of these opinions, please click here. Lexis.com® and Lexis Advance® subscribers may use the links below to access the cases on lexis.com and Lexis Advance.

Division Two of the Court of Appeals filed 2 new published opinions and Division Three filed 1 new published opinion on Tuesday, August 4, 2015:

Division Two:

1. Seven Sales, LLC v. Otterbein
No. 46208-7  
(August 4, 2015)
2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 1780 (lexis.com)

2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 1780 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: COURTS; GOVERNMENT RELATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; PROPERTY AND LAND USE LAW

Brief: The plaintiff appeals the trial court's order quashing its writ of garnishment and discharging Pierce County as garnishee. The plaintiff is the assignee of a judgment against the defendant. The County foreclosed on property that the defendant owned to satisfy a sewer tax lien, which resulted in the County holding surplus funds. The plaintiff argues that, as the defendant's creditor, it should be able to “apply” to the county treasurer for the surplus funds on the defendant's behalf or, in the alternative, the surplus funds are subject to a writ of garnishment. The Court of Appeals holds that under RCW 84.64.080, the statute that governs the sewer tax lien foreclosure process, only the property's record title holder may apply to the County for any surplus funds and the surplus funds after foreclosure are not subject to garnishment.

2. State v. Rhoden
No. 45702-4
(August 4, 2015)
2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 1781 (lexis.com)

2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 1781 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: CRIMINAL LAW

Brief: Defendant's conviction for the unlawful possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine), was improper because the trial court erred by failing to suppress his statements to police and that error was not harmless. The objective evidence of the timing, setting, and completeness of the pre-warning interrogation; the continuity of police personnel; and the overlapping content of the pre and post-warning statements all supported the conclusion that the two-step interrogation procedure used was deliberate. There was not a significant break in time or place between the pre- and post-Miranda interrogation and the deputy did not take any additional measures to insure that defendant understood his Miranda rights, such as advising him that his pre-Miranda statements could not be used against him.
 

Division Three:

In re Custody of J.E. / Culver v. Eaton
No. 32062-6
(August 4, 2015)
2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 1777 (lexis.com)

2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 1777 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: DOMESTIC RELATIONS AND FAMILY LAW

Brief: The trial court erred in granting 50/50 nonparental custody to a child's uncle and aunt; the court erred in applying the actual detriment standard because substantial evidence does not establish specific facts showing that the child had any specific significant special need that could not be met by his parents.
 

About HeadsUp: Tell a friend to register online to subscribe to receive issues of the HeadsUp for Washington. To opt-out, unsubscribe or to stop receiving this communication, use this link. For questions or comments, please write: HeadsUp@lexisnexis.com. HeadsUp for Washington is brought to you by LexisNexis®, publisher of the Washington Official Reports.

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.