Docket No. 77733-1  Synopsis: Whether the judgment and sentence in this case became final after the decision in Blakely v. Washington, and if so, whether Blakely applies to an exceptional sentence consisting of consecutive standard range terms. Continue reading →

Docket No. 77570-2  Facts:  The law firm Morse & Bratt performed legal work for Neil Rose.  When Morse & Bratt expressed concern to Rose regarding his ability to pay his outstanding legal fees, Rose executed a deed of trust to a property owned by petitioner Valley, L.L.C., of which Rose was a member, as security.  When Rose subsequently defaulted on his legal fees, respondent Randall Stewart, Morse & Bratt’s trustee, initiated foreclosure proceedings.  Valley moved to prevent foreclosure, asserting that Rose lacked authority to pledge Valley’s property as collateral and that the agreement between Rose and Morse & Bratt violated Washington’s Rules of Professional Conduct.  The trial court granted summary judgment for Stewart, ruling that Rose had authority to pledge Valley’s property as collateral and that the agreement is enforceable. Continue reading →

Docket No. 77195-2  Facts:  Petitioner Bernard Shaw petitioned the Superior Court for Franklin County for a declaratory judgment that Ordinance 3231, which was enacted by the respondent city of Pasco and requires landlords to submit a certification every two years that their rental units meet all applicable health, safety, and building code requirements, violates the right against unreasonable searches conferred by the 4^th Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I §7 of the Washington State Constitution.  The superior court granted summary judgment for the city of Pasco, ruling that landlords and the private inspectors that they employ are not state actors and that limited inspections of rental units for purposes of ensuring compliance with health, safety, and building codes are not searches. Continue reading →

Docket No. 77038-7  Facts:  Sakae and Yuko Sugihara received a home loan from Washington Mutual secured with a deed of trust on the property.  The Sugiharas subsequently also took out a business loan with respondent Bank of America that was secured in part with the deed of trust on their home and a home equity loan with petitioner Wells Fargo Bank that paid off the Washington Mutual home loan.  After the Sugiharas defaulted on the Bank of America business loan, Bank of America filed suit against the Sugiharas, seeking foreclosure to remedy the default.  The superior court ruled that, under the doctrine of equitable subrogation, Wells Fargo Bank succeeded to the rights of Washington Mutual and therefore succeeded to its first priority lien. Continue reading →