Court Filings

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s sentencing of Zachary Boyce. The court held that the 2023 amendment to RCW 9.94A.525, which generally prevents counting most juvenile felony adjudications in an offender score, does not apply retroactively because the legislature did not clearly express that intent. Under Washington law and the savings clause (RCW 10.01.040) and RCW 9.94A.345, defendants must be sentenced according to the law in effect when the offense was committed unless the legislature expressly provides otherwise. Because no clear retroactivity language appeared in the amendment, Boyce’s juvenile adjudications were properly counted.

The Washington Supreme Court decided whether RCW 9.94A.640 permits a person who remains incarcerated on a separate conviction to seek vacation of earlier convictions and whether applicants must present evidence of rehabilitation. The court held that the statute’s time bars require release from complete confinement on all convictions before the statutory crime-free period runs, so a person never released into the community is ineligible. The court also held, following State v. Hawkins, that courts must consider evidence of rehabilitation and that applicants should present such evidence for a court to exercise its discretion. The case is remanded consistent with that ruling.

The Washington Supreme Court answered a certified question from a federal district court about whether RCW 70.170.060(8)(a) — the charity care notice provision — applies to a debt collection agency collecting hospital debt. The court held yes: collection agencies collecting hospital debt must provide notice of charity care under the plain language and policy of the charity care act, and an assignee of hospital debt takes on notice obligations tied to that debt. The court further explained that failure to provide notice can support a non-per-se Consumer Protection Act claim based on violation of the act’s public-policy goals.

The Washington Supreme Court reviewed whether the six-year construction statute of repose (RCW 4.16.300-.310) bars estate claims by the executor of Lee Hetterly, who developed fatal mesothelioma decades after working at ARCO’s Cherry Point refinery. The court held that claims arising from Brand Insulations’ construction work installing asbestos-containing insulation during refinery construction are time-barred by the statute of repose, but claims premised on Brand’s role as a product seller or negligent supplier are not barred. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with that division of claims.

The Washington Supreme Court answered certified questions from a federal case about whether a home equity line of credit (HELOC) is a negotiable instrument and whether an alleged beneficiary can be the “holder” of such a HELOC for purposes of initiating a nonjudicial trustee’s sale under the deed of trust act (DTA). The majority held that HELOCs of this revolving type are nonnegotiable and that the DTA’s requirement that the beneficiary be the “holder” refers to the holder of a negotiable instrument under the Uniform Commercial Code, so RRA could not truthfully declare it was the holder and thus could not proceed nonjudicially. The court noted judicial remedies remain available.

The Washington Supreme Court held that child welfare records in the custody of the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) are generally privileged under RCW 74.04.060(1)(a), but an exception in that statute permits disclosure when the records are needed in a judicial proceeding directly concerned with administration of the foster care program. The court also held RCW 13.50.100 does not bar disclosure because plaintiffs are entitled to records that “pertain” to them. The trial courts’ orders compelling production of redacted records under protective orders were affirmed; fee requests were denied.

The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s dismissal of Tim Eyman’s recall petition against Secretary of State Steve Hobbs. Eyman argued Hobbs failed to transmit a proposed referendum measure as required by statute, amounting to misfeasance and a violation of his oath. The Court held the petition was legally insufficient because the challenged statute was enacted with a valid emergency clause, making the law exempt from referendum and negating any mandatory duty the secretary had to process that referendum. The Court affirmed without reaching factual sufficiency.

The Court of Appeals denied Ernest Dale Benson Jr.'s personal restraint petition challenging the Department of Corrections’ recalculation of his earned release time (ERT). Benson was resentenced in 2024 from life without parole to two concurrent 40-year terms. DOC initially credited him with 33.33% ERT but later concluded aggravated first degree murder qualifies as a serious violent offense, limiting ERT to 15% under RCW 9.94A.729(3)(b). The court held aggravated first degree murder is a type of first degree murder within the statutory scheme, so Benson was eligible only for 15% ERT and failed to show unlawful restraint.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s judgment upholding the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals and the Department of Labor and Industries (DLI). The court held that the one-year limitation in RCW 51.32.240(1)(a) applies to benefits paid to injured workers and does not bar DLI from recouping overpayments made to health service providers like Office Careers. The court also affirmed partial summary judgment for DLI terminating Office Careers’ provider number, finding Office Careers failed to raise a genuine factual dispute and that DLI’s audits and use of available records were lawful.

The Court of Appeals granted the Department of Labor and Industries’ motion for reconsideration, withdrew its prior opinion, and issued a new published opinion. The court held that Cache Valley Electric violated WAC 296-45-255(7) by making expired rubber protective blankets available at a worksite, and therefore reinstated the Department’s citation and penalty for that item. The court also upheld the Board’s serious-violation finding and penalty assessment for an employee operating a chainsaw within the minimum approach distance of an energized line, concluding the Board did not abuse its discretion in weighing the high probability of harm given how close the chainsaw came to the line. The result: the judgment was reversed in part (vacated Board finding on blankets) and affirmed in part (chainsaw violation).

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the King County Assessor in a class action brought by the Washington Hospitality Association (WHA). WHA sought property tax relief under RCW 84.70.010(1), arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic qualified as a “natural disaster” that reduced hotel property values. The court held that “natural disaster” in the statute refers to a physically destructive event originating in the earth, atmosphere, or planet (e.g., flood, earthquake, eruption), and does not encompass a pandemic or disease-related economic losses. Because WHA’s properties suffered no physical damage, relief was unavailable.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Samuel Leon Dugan’s convictions and life-without-parole sentence under Washington’s Persistent Offender Accountability Act (POAA). Dugan had been convicted after a bench trial of first-degree promoting prostitution (with domestic violence findings), unlawful possession of a firearm, third-degree assault, and harassment. The trial court found two prior qualifying convictions and imposed mandatory LWOP. The court rejected Dugan’s challenges that the POAA is cruel or discriminatorily applied, and rejected his Sixth Amendment claim that a jury should have decided the timing of prior convictions, relying on state precedent allowing judicial factfinding of prior convictions.

The Washington Court of Appeals reviewed Harlan Blackburn’s convictions for multiple counts of incest and child rape. The court held that police violated his state constitutional privacy rights by obtaining hotel and purchase data without a warrant, but that the admission of that evidence was harmless. It reversed one conviction (Count 8 for incest in the first degree) for insufficient evidence as to the specific dates charged, affirmed the other convictions, and remanded for resentencing on Counts 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 because the combined confinement and community custody terms exceeded statutory maximums. The court explained which testimony supported each upheld conviction and the basis for the sentencing remand.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and held that Robert Sydow acquired title to a disputed strip of land by adverse possession as a matter of law. Sydow had fenced, used, and maintained the land continuously from 2008 to 2020, and successive purchasers and owners had actual or constructive notice of his possession. The court rejected the defendant Douglass Properties’ defenses based on the common grantor doctrine and equitable estoppel because the deed line was not a visible boundary on the ground and Douglass had actual knowledge of the encroachment. The case is remanded for entry of partial summary judgment for Sydow and determination of attorney fees under RCW 7.28.083.

The Washington Court of Appeals reversed the superior court's dismissal of a putative class complaint by absent class member Destiny Corbin against Life Care Centers. Corbin filed claims for unpaid meal periods five days after a separate, court-approved class settlement (Atkinson) resolved claims about unpaid COVID-19 testing and screening time. The court held that the scope of preclusion depends on the settling parties’ intent; because the Atkinson settlement and its notices released only claims related to COVID-19 testing and screening for absent class members, it did not bar Corbin’s distinct meal-period claims. The case is remanded for further proceedings.

The Court of Appeals reviewed a challenge to the Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) determination of nonsignificance for the Wishbone Timber Sale, a proposed harvest of about 100 acres within a larger sustainable harvest plan. The court held the DNS was not clearly erroneous and struck the lower court’s order requiring a site-specific climate impact assessment. However, it held DNR must perform an alternatives analysis under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(e) because the sale presents an actual choice of uses for the trees at the sale site. The case is partially reversed, partially affirmed, and remanded for that limited compliance.

The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and denied Akeel Bin-Bellah’s collateral attack on his guilty plea. Bin-Bellah had pleaded guilty, as part of a global plea bargain, to one count of second-degree assault and three counts of fourth-degree assault for the December 2017 beating of his mother, and expressly stipulated that the counts reflected separate and distinct acts. Division One vacated the three misdemeanors on double-jeopardy grounds, but the Supreme Court held that a knowing, voluntary plea that includes factual admissions to separate acts forecloses a later double-jeopardy challenge. The court reinstated the three fourth-degree convictions and dismissed the personal restraint petition.

The Washington Supreme Court reviewed a Commission on Judicial Conduct finding that pro tem Judge David Ruzumna used a sitting judge’s signature stamp and the King County District Court seal without permission to create a document presented for a county employee parking discount. The Court held, after de novo review, that Ruzumna violated Judicial Conduct Code rules requiring compliance with law, promoting public confidence, and avoiding abuse of judicial prestige, and that his continued untruthful explanations during proceedings compounded the misconduct. The Court adopted the Commission’s recommendation to censure and remove him from judicial office.

The Washington Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and held that a creditor seeking recognition of a foreign-country money judgment under the state’s Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (ch. 6.40A RCW) must, absent general or specific personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor in Washington, show that the debtor has property in Washington. The case arose after an English court entered judgment for Alterna against SpiceJet and Alterna sought recognition in King County. The Court reasoned recognition is not purely ministerial and that constitutional due process requires a jurisdictional nexus for recognition actions when personal jurisdiction is lacking.

The Court of Appeals held that Washington public policy bars an insured from assigning legal malpractice claims against defense counsel to its liability insurer when a conflict of interest exists between insurer and insured. The dispute arose after Great American (primary insurer) paid a $5 million settlement for its insured C3 and obtained an assignment of C3’s malpractice claims against defense counsel. Because the insurer had defended under a reservation of rights and thus had potential conflict with the insured, the court reversed the superior court’s denial of judgment on the pleadings and ordered dismissal of the assigned claims.

The Washington Supreme Court answered a certified question from the Ninth Circuit about whether a consumer who buys and keeps a product at its advertised price but was induced to buy it by a false representation about the product’s former price has a cognizable injury under the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The Court held that such a buyer does not allege an injury to “business or property” under the CPA when the purchased, fungible product conforms to its advertised qualities and the purchaser paid the advertised price. The Court explained that mere disappointed expectations or being tricked into buying an item that is not objectively less valuable do not establish CPA injury, though other theories (e.g., objectively inferior goods) could.