WA Legal Roundup
As per usual, I have missed some doozies last week. However, I am back and raring to go with the latest and greatest. Well...the latest at least. Today we have three new opinions out of Div. I and just one out of Div. II.
Those of you who remember your 1L Properly class probably still remember that each cotenant has rights. Unfortunately, the County did little to recognize those rights, sending notice of the tax foreclosure to the cotenants as a group, rather than to each one. This was a no no.
In case you were wondering how this came about, I will couch this in terms we all remember well. A and B are cotenants for lots 1, 2, and 3. A and B convey their interest in all lots to C. Due to a scrivener's error, only lots 1 and 2 are in fact conveyed. C gets no notice of taxes on lot 3, and the county sends notice of delinquent taxes only to A and B as a group.
Because lack of notice is a jurisdictional defect to a foreclosure proceeding, the County lost out.
WB (who doesn't like an abbreviation that reminds them of the station that brought you Gilmore girls) stole a casino ticket and, lo and behold, drugs were found incident to arrest. Though I haven't read the full opinion, I am guessing this doesn't end well for her.
She sought to suppress the ticket itself under the explanation that she found it, thinking that someone left it unattended. Again, not looking good for her.
The ticket was at a machine, someone cut their finger and left to grab a napkin. The ticket was sitting at a machine that had $17.00 on it. When the victim returned to the machine shortly after grabbing the napkin, she found WB cashing out the machine and with the ticket in her pocket. The cashing out during a short absence from the machine did not bode well for WB, who is going the way of Gilmore Girls with an upheld conviction.
If you are convicted of a foreign crime, the State need only prove the disputed elements, not the ones you admitted to.
We . . . explicitly announce that the State may prove factual comparability by producing certified copies of foreign charging documents and evidence that the defendant pleaded guilty if the law of the state wherein the defendant entered the plea, at the time of the plea, provided that such a plea constituted an admission of the facts alleged in the charging documents.
Lenca was denied unemployment benefits by the ALJ. The Commissioner reviewing the ALJ refused to look at other information by Lenca tending to show the file was incomplete. Part of the reason for the lack of information at the ALJ hearing had to do with the fact that Lenca was never informed that, after a determination in his favor, that he would have to reprove his case, that his pay had been decreased substantially (Schwan's, his employer, moved him from 600/wk to 150/wk plus commission). While his employer testified the move to commission was not a step back, the employer brought no evidence to the table showing actual earnings while on the commission. Unfortunately, because Lenca had a job interview, he was unable to stay on the call through the hearing, and had to leave, unable to cross his former employer to this fact.
On appeal to the commissioner, Lenca wished to submit evidence of his actual pay, which the commissioner refused to consider. Because the finding by the ALJ was based only on unsupported testimony, it was an abuse of discretion, and arbitrary and capricious, for the commissioner to disregard the pay stubs submitted by Lenca.