Washington Legal Roundup
Yes, I know, I missed about a week. I was debating skipping this one too as I have a summary judgment to work on on one of my cases (opposing). Combine that with the fact that Div. I & III feel the need to send out their opinion notifications at an ungodly hour and you see why I am a little annoyed. However, I have 30 minutes to kill, so I will try to get through the ones that just came out today. I'm afraid you are S.O.L. when it comes to last week's opinions (that does NOT mean statute of limitations).
In shocking news, a notice of intent to sue and request for mediation toll the statute of limitations. Plaintiff had dismissed voluntarily, then sent a 90 day notice and request for mediation 3 days prior to the statute of limitations. In a common sense move, the court held the second notice and request was effective and tolled the statute of limitations.
If your claim falls within an arbitration agreement, you have to arbitrate it, even the statute of limitations issues.
Non dad marries mom, puts that he's the dad on the birth certificate. Denies paternity in a timely manner when dissolution happens, but not in the separate paternity action (in which, lo and behold, is is not the father). Mom claims that, because he did not deny paternity within two years in the paternity action, it doesn't count. The court agrees in the paternity action, and establishes non dad as legal dad. Nevermind the fact that Non-dad wasn't served initially in the parentage action. The question came down to whether the Department had standing to challenge paternity due to the presence of a presumed father. The court held it did.
Admittedly, there's a lot in this case, and I don't have the time to sort it out, so go check it out if you're in family law.
Weird, transferring property to your husband to avoid a judgment against you violates the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. Who knew?
There's a joke somewhere in there about Michael Jackson not knowing very obvious things too, but since I'm pressed for time, I'll just leave you with this:
In a win for Plaintiffs, when Tegman removes joint and several, the defendant is not entitled to an instruction to the effect that it not be held liable for intentional torts of others:
Tegman is about joint and several liability. Here, Metro is the only defendant and negligence is the plaintiffs' only theory. To recover at all, plaintiffs had to prove their injuries were proximately caused by Metro's negligence. There is no issue of joint and several liability in this case.
Because there was no risk that defendant would be held liable for anything but its own negligence, there was no need for an instruction on that matter.
If you're out of custody, there is no set time frame for a speedy trial, and arraignment 30 days after filing of the information does not violate.
Well, at least I got through Div. I.