HeadsUp for Washington State: Court Opinions From Monday, February 3, 2014

HeadsUp for Washington State: Court Opinions From Monday, February 3, 2014

Monday, February 3, 2014 

To view the full text of these opinions, please visit: http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.recent or Lexis subscribers may use the links below to access the cases on either lexis.com or Lexis Advance.

Division One of the Court of Appeals filed 3 new published opinions and announced the publication of 1 additional opinion on Monday, February 3, 2014:

1. City of Seattle v. Egan
No. 69129-5
(February 3, 2014)
2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 283 (lexis.com)

2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 283 (Lexis Advance)


Brief: Because the public records requester did not have a constitutional right to the records requested, his request under the Public Records Act did not fall within the ambit of the anti-SLAPP statute as protected public participation or petition activity.

2. State v. Cardenas-Muratalla
No. 68057-9
(February 3, 2014)
2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 281 (lexis.com)

2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 281 (Lexis Advance)


Brief: The Terry stop was not reasonable because neither the informant nor the informant's tip was reliable, and the tip that defendant showed his gun was not the report of any criminal activity.

3. Wash. Fed. Savings & Loan Ass'n v. McNaughton Grp.
No. 68978-9
(February 3, 2014)
2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 282 (lexis.com)

2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 282 (Lexis Advance)


Brief: The developer entered into agreements with  a water and sewer district to construct sewer facilities that it would transfer to the district in exchange for the provision of sewer and water services. The sewer facilities were to serve a residential subdivision being developed by the developer. After the sewer facilities were constructed, the developer conveyed them to the district and received a right to future “latecomers fees” from the district that would reimburse it for the cost of constructing the facilities. Meanwhile, the developer obtained a loan from a bank that was secured by a deed of trust on the property. After the developer defaulted, the bank acquired the property at a foreclosure sale. The sale left a deficiency on the loan. A savings and loan association subsequently acquired the bank's rights related to the property and filed a declaratory relief action against the developer, asserting that it acquired, under the deed of trust, the developer's right to the latecomers fees. The trial court dismissed the action on summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding that the provisions of the deed of trust on which the savings and loan association relies did not grant a security interest in the latecomers fees.

4. In re Marriage of Wright
No. 69133-3
(filed December 16, 2013; ordered published February 3, 2014)
2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2823 (lexis.com)

2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2823 (Lexis Advance)


Brief: The Court of Appeals affirm the trial court's property distribution and provision of maintenance in dissolving the 30-year marriage, holding that (1) the property distribution was within the trial court's discretion; (2) ample evidence supported the trial court's determination of the date the spouses separated; (3) the trial court correctly applied Washington law in valuing the husban'ds surgical practice's goodwill, and soundly exercised its discretion in distributing the spouses' community interest in the practice; (4) the husband waived the issue of whether certain assets were his separate property; and (5) the award of spousal maintenance was an appropriate exercise of the trial court's discretion.

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.