Seattle Attorneys Blog

Washington Appeals Court Finds for Plaintiff, Reverses Summary Judgment in Car Accident Case

January 7, 2016 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

In a recently published decision, the Washington Court of Appeals reviewed a case involving a plaintiff’s personal injury claim and the effect of his failure to amend his Chapter 13 bankruptcy schedules to include the claim. In Arp v. Riley (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2015), the superior court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff on the basis of judicial estoppel. On appeal, the Washington court ultimately reversed and remanded that decision, allowing the plaintiff to proceed with his claim.

The Arp plaintiff had filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in 2008. After he paid off his Chapter 13 debt, the bankruptcy court closed his case in 2012. In October 2010, however, the plaintiff sustained serious injuries when an SUV rear-ended his stopped car. He suffered physical injuries as well as mental and emotional problems, including periodic memory loss. The plaintiff filed a personal injury action against the driver and the company for which the driver was working at the time. The defendants subsequently moved for summary judgment, contending that the plaintiff was barred from bringing his claim by judicial estoppel, since he did not report the claim to the bankruptcy trustee, and that he lacked standing. The trial court agreed, finding that the plaintiff’s personal injury claim is considered an asset of the bankruptcy estate, and the plaintiff had a duty to disclose the claim as such in his bankruptcy action.

Alternative Family Structures and Family Law Issues

December 23, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

We spent a lot of time on this blog discussing Washington families dealing with marital dissolutions and life after a divorce, but what about families where the parents were never married and/or never intend to marry each other? How does Washington family law affect these families? This post discusses some of the issues that arise in families where marriage is not intended, desired, or included. Continue reading

Washington Court of Appeals Reviews Conviction of No-Contact Order Violation

December 17, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The Washington Court of Appeals recently reviewed a defendant’s conviction for violating a no-contact order, evaluating whether evidence should have been suppressed. In State v. Burks (Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2015), the police officer conducted a traffic stop of a vehicle for speeding. The police officer obtained the driver’s information and entered it into a search, which indicated that the driver was a protected party in a no-contact order. The police officer noticed that the description of the respondent in the no-contact order matched the defendant, who was riding as a passenger in the driver’s vehicle. The officer requested identification from the defendant, which he did not have on him. The police officer returned to the computer in his vehicle and located a photograph of the respondent in the no-contact order, which matched the defendant. The officer then arrested the defendant for violating the no-contact order.

The defendant was charged with one count of a felony violation of a court order with a special allegation of domestic violence. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the traffic stop, arguing that it was an illegal invasion of privacy pursuant to the Washington Constitution. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the police officer had a reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant was violating the no-contact order, there was an independent reason to request the defendant’s identification, and the traffic stop was lawful. The trial court convicted the defendant as charged, and the defendant appealed on the basis that the trial court erred in allowing the evidence of the traffic stop.

What Should I Wear to Court?

December 10, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Many of our family law clients are dealing with their first court case of their lives. They are nervous and intimidated about what the court process will be like, what they should wear, how they will be expected to act, and what they should say. We hope with this article to avoid one of the common sources of anxiety: what to wear on your day(s) in court. While you should take the advice of your attorney, there are some basic rules of thumb that apply to most court appearances: Continue reading

Washington Court Reviews Expert Testimony of Industry Custom in Premises Liability Case

December 9, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The Washington Court of Appeals recently addressed the issue of whether a trial court properly admitted expert industry custom testimony in a premises liability case. In Ponce v. Mountaineers (Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 2, 2015), the plaintiff’s son died in a sledding accident at the defendant’s recreational facility. The family had parked along the side of a road and was walking from their car up the hill on the access trail, when their son abruptly sat on his sled. The sled traveled down the hill and onto the road, where the son was struck and killed by a passing vehicle. His parents brought a personal injury action, alleging that the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care by not maintaining a barrier at the base of its access path to prevent sledders from entering the roadway.

Both the plaintiff and the defendant presented an expert witness to testify as to the standard of care owed to the victim by the defendant. The plaintiff’s expert testified that the defendant should have installed a barrier between the access path and the road, and stated that by failing to do so, the defendant created a hazardous condition. The defendant’s expert testified that the access path was consistent with industry best practices. Before trial, the plaintiff moved to exclude testimony from the defendant’s winter recreation expert, arguing that he lacked a sufficient foundation. The trial court denied the motion. After the conclusion of the trial, the jury found in favor of the defendant. On appeal, the plaintiff contended that the trial court erred by allowing the expert testimony.

Things to Consider Before Introducing Your Kids to Your New Boyfriend or Girlfriend

December 5, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

When people end their romantic relationship with their children’s other parent, they often feel as though they will never want to have a romantic relationship ever again. The reality is, after the emotional pain and adjustment period is over, most people do decide to date. Some choose to date seriously and look for another committed relationship, while other unmarried parents decide to date casually. No matter what your intentions are in your dating life, it is important that you consider if and when you will introduce your new significant other to your children. Here are some strategies that might help you decide if, when, and how to introduce your kids to a new love interest: Continue reading

Washington Court Considers Admissibility of Prior Acts of Domestic Violence in Criminal Jury Trial

November 24, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The Court of Appeals of Washington recently reviewed a jury verdict that found a defendant guilty of second-degree assault against a member of his household. On appeal in State v. Moreno-Valentin (Wash. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2015), the defendant argued that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his prior acts of domestic violence and permitting the jury to consider that evidence for improper purposes. The appeals court agreed, reversing the conviction and remanding the case for a new trial.

Generally, evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to show that the defendant acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Before admitting such evidence, the trial court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the acts occurred, identify the purpose for which the evidence is sought to be introduced, determine whether the evidence is relevant to prove an element of the crime charged, and weigh the probative value against the prejudicial effect. If a trial court admits the evidence, it must provide a limiting instruction to the jury explaining that the evidence is to be used only for the purpose identified, not to prove that the defendant acted in conformity.

Do You Have to Change Your Name When You Get Divorced?

November 19, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Many things change for a person who gets divorced: marital status, financial situation, and relationships with children to name a few. Another thing that might change is the person’s last name. While in comparison to moving, having less time with kids, and having to divide most of your assets, changing a last name might not seem like a big deal, for many people actually faced with the situation, it is.

There are many reasons why people who are getting divorced decide to keep their married last name. It is important for people to know that whatever the reason you want to change or decide not to change your last name name, it is up to you. It is not mandatory for a person to change their married name upon dissolution of marriage. Here are a few of the reasons people choose not to change their married last names: Continue reading

Divorced for the Holidays: Extended Family

November 12, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Past blog posts have discussed tips for helping children of two-home families deal with the holiday season and spending holidays away from one of their parents. Today’s post discusses another group of people affected by a two-home family: the extended family. Oftentimes, divorced (or otherwise unmarried) parents hope that all their extended family will be able to attend the holiday get together the years they have their children. Unfortunately, when scheduling with the extended family there can be added confusion, hurt feelings, and headache for divorced parents. Fortunately, there are things you can do to help the holidays run more smoothly and help your kids get to see as many members of their extended family as possible. Continue reading

Court Finds Constitutional Violation of Defendant’s Right to Remain Silent in Washington DUI Case

November 11, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A Washington Court of Appeals recently reviewed a DUI felony conviction in the case of State v. Diaz, No. 46016-5-II (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2015), after a jury found the defendant guilty of felony driving under the influence. The defendant’s primary argument on appeal was that his constitutional right to be free from self-incrimination was violated when a police officer testified at trial regarding his post-arrest right to silence. Ultimately, the court agreed that the comments were a constitutional violation but harmless error.

In Diaz, the defendant’s vehicle was found heavily damaged against a telephone pole with the engine still running, late at night. The defendant was observed crawling out of a ditch nearby, missing a shoe, and bearing marks on his body allegedly consistent with injuries caused by a seatbelt and airbag. The shoe was later found on the driver’s side floorboard. When the defendant refused a breath test, the police transported him to a hospital where, pursuant to a search warrant, a blood sample was taken, indicating that the defendant’s blood alcohol level was over the legal limit. The only element in dispute at the trial was whether the defendant was the driver of the vehicle.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person shall “be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” This provision is applied to states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Washington State Constitution also shares an equivalent right. In Washington, a defendant’s constitutional right to silence applies in both pre- and post-arrest situations. In the post-arrest context, it is a violation of due process for the State to comment upon or otherwise exploit a defendant’s exercise of his right to remain silent. In addition, it is constitutional error for a police witness to testify that a defendant refused to speak to him or her, since the State may not use a defendant’s constitutionally permitted silence as substantive evidence of guilt.