Docket No. 77708-0  Synopsis: Under the federal Truth in Lending Act loans for personal, family, and household purposes are subject to disclosure requirements; those primarily for business, commercial, or agricultural purposes are exempt. Continue reading →

Docket No. 77590-7  Facts:  Petitioner property owners Stephen Sleasman and wife sought judicial review of a hearing examiner’s upholding of respondent City of Lacey’s decision to impose a monetary sanction for Sleasman’s removal of several trees from their property without a permit, violating Lacey, Wash., Code §14.32.030. Continue reading →

Docket No. 77548-6  Facts:  Petitioner Kenneth Wimer and respondent Patricia Soltero were engaged in a meretricious relationship, a marital-like relationship where both parties cohabitate with knowledge that a lawful marriage between them does not exist, for nine years.  When Wimer terminated the relationship, Soltero brought a lawsuit seeking a distribution of their assets.  The trial court found that Wimer and Soltero had a meretricious relationship and that Soltero’s provision of domestic services to Wimer during the relationship entitles her to an equitable share of the parties’ earnings during the relationship and therefore ordered Wimer to pay Soltero $135,000.  Wimer appealed the trial court’s decision, asserting that the trial court erred in awarding Soltero $135,000 insofar as the trial court identified no community-like property owned jointly by both parties. Continue reading →

Docket No. 77684-9  Facts:  Tina Alberts filed suit against her oral surgeon, respondent Robert Woo, after Woo inserted imitation boar tusks in Alberts’ mouth and photographed her while she was under anesthesia during a dental procedure.  Although Woo maintained a liability insurance policy with respondent Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company refused to defend Woo on grounds that the conduct that gave rise to Alberts’ lawsuit did not occur in the course of the provision of dental services.  After Woo reached a settlement agreement with Alberts, he filed suit against Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, asserting that it breached its duty to defend him under the policy.  The jury returned a verdict for Woo.  Upon appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company did not have a duty to defend Woo against Alberts’ lawsuit. Continue reading →