LexisNexis HeadsUp for Washington State - Court Opinions For May 15, 2012

LexisNexis HeadsUp for Washington State - Court Opinions For May 15, 2012

 

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

To view the full text of these opinions, please visit:
http://email.lexisnexismail.com/cgi-bin8/DM/t/hpCT0Ggrcd0FuK0k2Y0ET
or 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 1149

Areas: DOMESTIC RELATIONS AND FAMILY LAW
PROPERTY AND LAND USE LAW


Brief: 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 1145

Areas: BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL LAW
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW


Brief: 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