Seattle Attorneys Blog

Washington Appeals Court Concludes Defendant Knew of No-Contact Orders He Did Not Sign

February 20, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

During the COVID-19 pandemic, courts adopted a number of policies and procedures to prevent infection. A defendant recently appealed his convictions for violation of a no contact order, challenging whether the state proved he had knowledge of the order when he had not signed it during COVID-19 protocols.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, a 2020 domestic violence no-contact order prohibited the defendant from contacting the ex-girlfriend until 2025. In October 2021, the two got into an argument. The ex-girlfriend called 911 and reported that the defendant had strangled her.

The responding officer observed that the ex-girlfriend was “very nervous” and appeared fearful and like she had been crying. He testified she told him the defendant strangled her. He did not see any injuries.

Washington Appeals Court Affirms Finding of Committed Intimate Relationship

February 12, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Washington family law recognizes Committed Intimate Relationships (“CIRs”), which are stable relationships, similar to a marriage, in which the parties live together knowing that they are not lawfully married. CIRs have also been referred to as “meretricious relationships.” Washington courts consider five factors to determine if a CIR exists: whether the parties have continuously cohabitated, the length of the relation, the relationship’s purpose, whether the parties pooled their resources and services, and the parties’ intent. If the court determines there is a CIR, it then must determine the parties’ interest in the property acquired during the CIR and distribute the property in a just and equitable manner. Connell v. Francisco.

A man recently challenged a court’s finding of a CIR and division of property. The parties were in a romantic relationship from 2008 to September 2020, according to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion. They purchased a home and lived together from December 2012 until they broke up. The female partner made the down payment on the home, but they otherwise paid bills equally. They had two children.

The female partner alleged the male partner committed domestic violence. She petitioned for division of the property of a CIR. She separately petitioned to establish parentage of the children and sought a parenting plan and dissolution of the CIR.

Court Denies Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order for Title IX Suspension

January 30, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A student pursuing a claim against their school based on disciplinary action arising from a Title IX complaint may also seek a temporary restraining order or injunction to stop a suspension or expulsion while their case is pending. A student recently sought to enjoin a suspension.

The medical student filed suit against his private New York medical school after he was suspended for 20 months following a finding he was responsible for sexual misconduct. He alleged that the school’s adjudication of the complaint violated Title IX and New York City Human Rights laws. He also made a breach of contract claim. He moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to enjoin the suspension and reinstate him.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff and the complainant, identified by the court as Jane Roe, were both students at the school. After the graduation formal, several people went to the plaintiff’s apartment on campus. Jane Roe asked to spend the night because she was intoxicated. The plaintiff gave her a blanket and pillow and offered her the couch.

Washington Appeals Court Affirms Equalizing Judgment in Divorce Case

January 30, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A trial court in a Washington divorce has broad discretion to make a just and equitable property division. RCW 26.09.080 sets forth certain factors that the court must consider in making a just and equitable property distribution, but those factors are not exclusive. The trial court must consider the nature and extent of both the community property and any separate property, the length of the marriage, and each spouse’s economic circumstances when the division takes effect. The court must fairly consider the circumstances and future needs of both parties. An appeals court generally affirms a property distribution unless there was a manifest abuse of discretion. A manifest abuse of discretion occurs if there is a patent disparity in the economic circumstances of the parties as a result of the decree. A former husband recently challenged a property division in which his former wife was awarded a $12,000 judgment.

The parties got married in April 2018 and separated in October 2020. According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, they did not have many assets or debts. They bought a home during the marriage. The wife transferred her interest in the home to the husband in 2019 via a quitclaim deed, though her reasons for doing so were in dispute.

The husband asked that the court award each party the bank and retirement accounts in their own name and the vehicle and any personal property in their possession. He asked the court to award him the home. He agreed to assume the community debt if he did not have to pay spousal maintenance.

Washington Appeals Court Affirms DVPO Based on Coercive Control

January 28, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

“Coercive control” was added to Washington’s definition of “domestic violence” in 2022. Although the statute provides a number of examples of coercive control, there have been few appellate cases interpreting it. In an unpublished opinion, a Washington appeals court recently reviewed a domestic violence protection order, granted partly upon a finding that the husband had engaged in acts of coercive control.

In her petition for a domestic violence protection order, the wife indicated the husband had or owned firearms and that his use of firearms or other dangerous weapons “would be a serious and immediate threat. . .” The petition also stated he “threatened to ‘kill himself’ while holding a gun.” She also stated he would say he was a burden and should end his life about once a month. The petition stated the husband had “23 failed suicide attempts from his childhood.” The wife alleged he had more than 15 firearms in the house, with at least three in the bedroom and that ammunition was nearby. She stated she wanted a divorce but did not feel it would be safe to tell the husband while he had guns.

The husband denied the allegations. He averred he had never threatened the wife. He also averred he had never attempted to kill himself, pointed a firearm at his head and threatened to kill himself, or said he “should end [his] life.”

Corpus Delicti Rule Not Violated when Washington Defendant’s Testimony Corroborated Out-of-Court Statements

January 13, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Generally, Washington’s “corpus delicti” rule requires the state to prove that the crime occurred, independent of the defendant’s own statements. The state must provide sufficient evidence in its case-in-chief. However, if the defendant presents evidence during their case-in-chief, they waive the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence as of that point and an appeals court may consider all of the evidence to determine if there was sufficient evidence to support an inference that the crime happened.

A defendant recently challenged his conviction for felony violation of a protection order, arguing the state had presented insufficient evidence of the knowledge element of the corpus delicti because it relied on statements he had made to the responding officer.

The defendant’s grandaunt obtained a temporary protection order prohibiting the defendant from coming within 1,000 feet of her home on January 18, 2022. According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the next day she heard someone try to unlock her door and saw the defendant through the peephole. She told him he was not supposed to be there and he had to leave. He first sat down and smoked a cigarette before leaving.

School’s Title IX Liability for Failure to Discipline Students’ Harassment through Social Media

December 31, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The Sixth Circuit recently determined a school can be liable in a Title IX case for not responding to social media activity by students. A Nashville, Tennessee, high school student filed suit against the public school system, alleging it was deliberately indifferent to harassment related to her sexual assault and participation in the subsequent investigation. She alleged the school system was deliberately indifferent before the assault and after the assault, and also alleged equal protection claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

According to the Sixth Circuit’s opinion, a video was recorded of the plaintiff during a non-consensual sexual encounter and posted on social media and third party websites. Other students harassed – the plaintiff.

The school’s Executive Principal learned about the video on the evening the incident occurred and the school set up a meeting with the plaintiff’s mother the next day. The plaintiff and her family received harassment and threats from other students on social media. The mother made a list of students who made the threats.

Washington Mother Held in Contempt for Withholding Child During Father’s Time on the Sabbath

December 28, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Trial courts have broad discretion to create a parenting plan, and abuse that discretion only if they make a decision that is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds or reasons. In re Marriage of Littlefield. A mother recently appealed a parenting plan allowing the father parenting time on the Sabbath both parents claimed to observe according to the Seventh-day Adventist faith.

The final parenting plan identified the mother as the primary parent and the parties entered an order by agreement for the father’s visitation.

The father objected when the mother moved for relocation. A temporary order allowed the move and gave the father one weekend a month for eight hours each on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.

Most Legal Financial Obligations Eliminated for Washington Juveniles

December 21, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Fines, fees, and penalties can add up and result in a significant financial impact on criminal defendants and their families. These legal financial obligations can be particularly burdensome when imposed on juvenile offenders, who in some cases may be too young to work and who often come from low-income families. If they cannot pay, the outstanding debt may affect the juvenile’s ability to obtain credit, housing, or even a job.

Effective July 1, 2023, the legislature amended the penalty assessment statute, RCW 7.68.035, to remove penalty assessments for juveniles and prohibit penalty assessments under that statute for adult defendants found to be indigent. The legislature also enacted a new statute, RCW 13.40.058, which provides that a court cannot impose or collect any fine, administrative fee, cost, or surcharge from a juvenile or their parent or guardian in connection with a Washington juvenile offender proceeding. This prohibition specifically includes, but is not limited to DNA collection fees, diversion fees, and victims’ penalty assessments. The result of these two laws is that a court can no longer impose any legal financial obligations on a juvenile, except restitution.

Prior to the amendment, RCW 7.68.035 required the court to impose a $100 penalty assessment for each case or cause of action for a “most serious offense” or a sex offense under RCW chapter 9A.44 for which a juvenile was adjudicated. “Most serous offenses” include class A felonies, second degree assault, first and second degree manslaughter, a felony with a deadly weapon verdict, and other specified offenses. The amendment also removed the requirement for the court to order up to seven hours of community restitution when a juvenile was adjudicated of an offense with a victim that did not constitute a most serious offense or sex offense, unless the court found the order would not be practicable for the juvenile.

Washington Appeals Court Reversed Vague Community Custody Condition

December 13, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A court sentencing a Washington criminal defendant to community custody generally has broad discretion in imposing conditions. Appeal courts only overturn a community custody condition if it is “manifestly unreasonable.” An unconstitutional condition is manifestly unreasonable. A community custody condition must be sufficiently specific to give the defendant “fair warning” of the conduct that is prohibited in order to satisfy due process requirements. A condition must identify the conduct that is prohibited in a way an ordinary person could understand and set clear standards so enforcement is not arbitrary. See State v. Irwin.

A defendant recently appealed a community custody condition that prohibited “hostile contact” with law enforcement and first responders. According to the published opinion of the appeals court, the defendant went to a hotel for a party and got into an altercation. When a security guard attempted to intervene, the defendant lunged at him with a knife. The guard was able to successfully disarm the defendant and confiscate his knife.

The responding officer arrived to the defendant sitting in the hotel lobby, appearing angry and intoxicated. Although the officer and security guard intended to let him go, the defendant moved toward the security guard aggressively. He tried to elbow a couple of the officers. One of the officers finally subdued him by using his taser.