Tuesday, May 15, 2012
To view the full text of these opinions, please visit:http://email.lexisnexismail.com/cgi-bin8/DM/t/hpCT0Ggrcd0FuK0k2Y0ETor Lexis subscribers may use the links below to access the cases on Lexis.com
Division Two of the Court of Appeals filed 2 new published opinions and DivisionThree filed no new opinions on Tuesday, May 15, 2012:1. Casterline v. Roberts No. 41392-2 (May 15, 2012)2012 Wash. App. LEXIS 1149Areas: DOMESTIC RELATIONS AND FAMILY LAWPROPERTY AND LAND USE LAWBrief: The defendant used money from her mother’s trust to purchase property and build a home in Kelso for herself and her husband. When the court appointed a guardian to investigate her mother’s assets, the defendant transferred her interest in the property to her husband without consideration and also transferred property in California to her brother-in-law without consideration. The guardian sued to set aside the Kelso property transfer and to impose an equitable lien on the property for the money that the defendant took from that trust. The Court of Appeals affirms the trial court’s decision in the guardian’s favor, rejecting the defendant’s arguments that (1) the trial court erred by imposing an equitable lien on the Kelso property because the defendant had discretion to use trust funds for her mother’s care, maintenance, and support; (2) the trial court erred in finding that the defendant’s property transfer to be fraudulent; and (3) the homestead exemption protects the defendant’s interest in the property.2. Dodge City Saloon, Inc. v. Wash. State Liquor Control Bd. No. 41454-6(May 15, 2012)2012 Wash. App. LEXIS 1145Areas: BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL LAWGOVERNMENT RELATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAWBrief: The Court of Appeals affirms the Washington State Liquor Control Board’s final order finding that the saloon allowed an underage person into an area off limits to persons under the age of 21, holding that (1) because the board’s compliance check was not a search, the saloon cannot challenge it under either the federal or state constitution, (2) the saloon may not assert an entrapment or outrageous conduct defense in a civil administrative proceeding, and (3) the administrative law judge did not err when it denied the saloon’s motion for a continuance.
Tell a Friend About Washington Heads Up -Pass along this HeadsUp Alert to your colleagues. They can register online to receive the next headsup directly from LexisNexis.
To stop receiving this communication, use this link.
For questions or comments, please write: HeadsUp@lexisnexis.com HeadsUp is brought to you by LexisNexis®
Privacy Copyright © 2006 LexisNexis®, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.LexisNexis, 9443 Springboro Pike, Miamisburg, Ohio 45342