AV Preeminent 2018
Lead Counsel Rated
Justia Badge
AVVO
AVVO Reviews
 AVVO Rating 10

The court in a Washington divorce case must make a just and equitable division of the marital estate, considering certain statutory factors.  Those factors include the nature and extent of community property and separate property, the length of the marriage, and the economic circumstances of each party when the property division becomes effective.  RCW 26.09.080. A former wife recently appealed the property division in her divorce.

According to the appeals court opinion, the parties married in 1978 and separated in 2014.  The wife was a teacher, but became a stay-at-home parent after the parties’ children were born. She returned to work after 10 years.  When the parties separated, she was working full-time as a school counselor, earning about $59,600 per year.  By trial, she had voluntarily gone part-time.

The husband was also a teacher for most of the marriage, but had been a principal for the last four years.  He earned $95,972 per year at the time of trial.  He also earned money fishing in Alaska in the summers, averaging a net profit of $62,372.

Continue reading

A defendant recently challenged his convictions for possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine, use of drug paraphernalia, and unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree (“UPF”).  The convictions arose from a traffic stop, which the defendant argued was pretextual.  He also challenged his UPF conviction on constitutional grounds.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, a police officer on patrol saw a parked vehicle pull out without signaling.  The bumper obscured the front plate and the rear plate light was not working.  He stopped the vehicle and identified the driver as the defendant.

The officer saw drug paraphernalia in an open bag on the seat. The defendant consented to a search of the vehicle, but revoked that consent.  The officer obtained a warrant and seized evidence from the vehicle, including a handgun, controlled substances, and drug paraphernalia.

Continue reading

Title IX accusations can have a detrimental effect on a student’s education, job prospects, and future.  Alleged victims who file suit against their schools for claims related to Title IX often litigate the case under a pseudonym.  Accused students who file suit for claims arising from a Title IX complaint against them also often seek to proceed under a pseudonym. In a recent nonprecedential disposition, the Seventh Circuit has again denied an accused student the use of a pseudonym in litigation.

The plaintiff was a student at an Illinois university when another student, identified by the court as “Jane Roe,” filed a Title IX complaint against him. Following an investigation, the university found the plaintiff culpable and charged him with sexual assault and drug-related offenses.  The plaintiff and Roe had both reportedly ingested “molly” before the incident.  The plaintiff was ultimately dismissed from the university.

He filed suit against various university defendants, seeking a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunctive relief, reinstatement of his status as a full-time student, and reversal of the findings. He alleged the university did not provide him with sufficient due process and had discriminated against him based on race, gender, and disability during the investigation.

Continue reading

Generally, the state can bring multiple charges arising from the same conduct in one proceeding, but double jeopardy protections under both the U.S. and Washington Constitutions protect a Washington criminal defendant from multiple punishments for the same offense. If a defendant is charged under different statutes for the same act, the court must determine if those crimes are the same offense. A Washington defendant recently challenged his robbery and assault convictions, arguing they violated his double jeopardy protections.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the defendant took trading cards and a package of tuna from a Walmart store on Black Friday in 2021. Loss prevention officers (“LPOs”) thought he was behaving suspiciously when they saw him selecting the cards.

Two LPOs followed him while another observed through the surveillance feed.  The LPOs saw him go past the registers without making a purchase.  They stopped him in the vestibule.  The defendant turned over a box of trading cards and the tuna and moved past one of the LPOs.  The two LPOs testified that he had shoved one of them, but the defendant denied it.

Continue reading

Often, after a divorce or break-up, one parent may wish to relocate. Relocation of a child under a Washington custody order is governed by the child relocation act (“CRA”). A parent with shared custody must notify the other parent when they wish to relocate.  If the other parent objects, the court must hold a hearing.  The CRA presumes that relocation will be permitted, but that presumption may be rebutted if the detrimental effect of relocation outweighs its benefit to the child and the relocating parent, based upon statutory factors. Those factors include: the child’s relationships with their parents, siblings, and other significant individuals; prior agreements between the parents; whether there are restrictions on either parent’s residential time; the child’s age, development, and needs and how relocation would affect the child’s development; the resources, quality of life, and opportunities available to the child and parent at both locations; and financial impact. RCW 56.09.520.  The presumption does not apply, however, if the parents share substantially equal residential time with the child. RCW 26.09.525. When the presumption does not apply, the court must determine the child’s best interest by considering the statutory factors set forth in RCW 56.09.520.

In a recent case, a mother appealed a court order denying relocation, arguing the trial court improperly determined each parent’s residential time based on the totality of the parenting plan instead of basing it on the phase of the graduated residential schedule that was in effect at the time she filed her motion.  According to the appeals court, the parties had one child during their marriage and divorced when the child was two.

The permanent parenting plan made the mother the primary residential parent and gave the father a graduated residential schedule. He would have residential time with the child three nights each two weeks, increasing to four after three months, and then increasing to six when the child turned three.  The parents would have equal residential time when the child started kindergarten.

Continue reading

Pursuant to CrR 8.3(a), a Washington trial court may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint upon motion of the prosecutor.  Pursuant to CrR 8.3(b), the court may dismiss a prosecution because of governmental misconduct or arbitrary action if the defendant’s rights have been prejudiced, materially affecting his right to a fair trial.  Pursuant to CrR 8.3(c), the court must dismiss without prejudice if the court grants a defendant’s motion for pretrial dismissal because of insufficient evidence. A Washington appeals court recently considered whether a trial court could dismiss a criminal case with prejudice when the state had moved for dismissal without prejudice pursuant to CrR 8.3(a).

According to the opinion, a juvenile defendant, identified by the appeals court as “WH” was charged with third degree malicious mischief,  first degree animal cruelty, and second degree assault by strangulation, and harassment – threats to kill, arising from an incident involving his girlfriend, identified as “KM.”  He made a preliminary appearance in juvenile court.  The state added charges for attempted second degree murder and, alternatively, second degree attempted felony murder and transferred the case to adult court.

The state subsequently asked to return the case to juvenile court with the attempted murder charges dismissed. The juvenile was arraigned again under the original case number and pleaded not guilty in juvenile court.

Continue reading

On February 4, 2025, the Department of Education issued a “Dear Colleague” letter stating that it will enforce Title IX pursuant to the 2020 Title IX Rule instead of the 2024 Title IX Rule.  “Dear Colleague” letters are used by the Department of Education and other agencies to provide guidance and communicate their interpretation of the law and how they intend to enforce it.  The letter clarifies that the procedural protections and definition of “sexual harassment” in the 2020 Title IX Rule will be enforced.

The letter cites the decision of the Eastern District of Kentucky in Tennessee v. Cardona, which the 2024 Title IX Rule nationwide in its entirety.  The letter also cites Executive Order 14168, which would prohibit the Department of Education from enforcing the gender-identity protections included in the 2024 Title IX Rule. The letter clarifies that, in light of the court’s decision in Cardona and the Executive Order, Title IX will be enforced pursuant to the 2020 Title IX Rule and the pre-existing regulations set forth in 34 C.F.R. 106 et. seq.  The 2024 Title IX Rule will not be enforced.

The letter further advises schools re-evaluate any investigations that were initially opened under the 2024 Title IX Rule to ensure they are consistent with the 2020 Title IX Rule.

Continue reading

The Department of Labor and Industries (“L&I”) administers the Crime Victims Compensation Program. Generally, the court must order restitution in Washington criminal cases where the victim is entitled to benefits pursuant to the crime victims’ compensation act (“CVCA”) as set forth in chapter 7.68 RCW.  If the court has not ordered restitution in a case where a victim is entitled to such benefits, L&I may petition for restitution within a year from judgment being entered.  The court must then hold a restitution hearing and enter a restitution order.  RCW 9.94A.75(7).  In a recent case, the Supreme Court of the State of Washington considered whether the court had discretion to order restitution to L&I in an amount less than the CVCA benefits paid.

According to the opinion, the defendant pleaded guilty to crimes related to a home invasion that resulted in the death of one of the residents of the home.  The state sought $10,480 in restitution to L&I for benefits paid related to the victim’s medical and funeral expenses.

The defendant asked for a reduction in the amount of restitution based on mitigating factors.  The trial court denied his request, believing its discretion was limited, and ordered restitution in the amount sought by the state.  The appeals court affirmed the restitution order.

Continue reading

Washington civil protection order proceedings are sometimes related to family law issues.  In a recent case, a mother appealed a court’s denial of a second protection order after her divorce.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the father had repeatedly assaulted the mother during her pregnancy with their child.  After the birth, he threatened to kill the mother, the child, and himself.  The parties divorced in 2012 and the parenting plan provided that the father’s visitation with the child was to be professionally supervised. The father wanted additional visitation with the child in 2015.  According to the opinion, he went into the mother’s home and demanded visitation and refused to leave.  The mother then obtained a restraining order for five years against the father.  The child started seeing a therapist.

In 2018, the child and the father started court-ordered reunification counseling.

Continue reading

Sentences for certain Washington criminal offenses may include community custody.  The specific conditions of a defendant’s community custody depend on the offense for which the defendant was convicted.  In some circumstances, certain community custody conditions are mandatory, some may be waived by the court, and others are discretionary.  In a recent case, a defendant successfully challenged a community custody condition as unconstitutionally vague.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the facts were undisputed. The defendant was convicted of assault in the third degree with a deadly weapon following an incident in which he attacked someone with a broom.  The defendant was sentenced within the standard range and the court also imposed certain community custody conditions.  One condition required the defendant to stay in the geographic boundaries either identified by the corrections officer in writing or stated in the Stay Out of Drug Area order.

The defendant appealed this condition, arguing it was unconstitutionally vague.

Continue reading

Contact Information