288 lines
14 KiB
JSON
288 lines
14 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"Littlefield": [],
|
|
"Kovacs": [],
|
|
"Chumbley": [
|
|
{
|
|
"q": "separate funds community funds acquisition",
|
|
"case": "In re the Marriage of Chumbley",
|
|
"date": "2003-08-14",
|
|
"cit": [
|
|
"150 Wash. 2d 1"
|
|
],
|
|
"snip": "\nMadsen, J.\nDuring her marriage to Gerald Chumbley, Mary Patricia Beckmann acquired stock options through her employment. Beckmann exercised the options on three occasions, once by using a loan from her employer, once by using money from her separate account, and once by selling a portion of the purchased stock in order to pay for the remaining stocks. The dispute here involves the characterization of the stocks resulting from the "
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"Short": [
|
|
{
|
|
"q": "transmutation separate property",
|
|
"case": "Covell v. City of Seattle",
|
|
"date": "1995-11-02",
|
|
"cit": [
|
|
"905 P.2d 324",
|
|
"127 Wash. 2d 874"
|
|
],
|
|
"snip": "\nMadsen, J.\nLibby Coveil and John Backus, individually and as representatives of the class of persons similarly situated, appeal from a judgment upholding the City of Seattle\u2019s residential street utility charge. The principal issue is whether this charge is an unconstitutionally imposed property tax.\nThe statutory authority for the residential street utility charge is RCW 82.80.040. This statute authorizes ever"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"q": "presumption community gift",
|
|
"case": "In Re the Marriage of Short",
|
|
"date": "1995-05-10",
|
|
"cit": [
|
|
"890 P.2d 12",
|
|
"125 Wash. 2d 865"
|
|
],
|
|
"snip": "\n125 Wn.2d 865 (1995)\n890 P.2d 12\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of ROBERT T. SHORT, Petitioner, and PATRICIA A. SHORT, Respondent.\nNo. 61176-9.\nThe Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.\nFebruary 23, 1995.\nAs amended by order May 10, 1995.\nMaltman, Reed, North, Ahrens & Malnati, P.S., by Douglass A. North; Hollis Holman</"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"Borghi": [
|
|
{
|
|
"q": "commingling separate funds",
|
|
"case": "In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Hicks",
|
|
"date": "2009-08-27",
|
|
"cit": [
|
|
"166 Wash. 2d 774"
|
|
],
|
|
"snip": "\nAlexander, C.J.\n\u00b61 \u2014Attorney S. Richard Hicks appeals the recommendation of the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) Disciplinary Board (Board) that he be suspended from the practice of law for a period of 24 months. The WSBA asks us to reject the Board\u2019s recommended sanction and disbar Hicks. We adopt the Board\u2019s recommendation and order Hicks suspended for 24 months.\nI\n\u00b62 Hicks was admit"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"q": "presumption community property title",
|
|
"case": "Borghi v. Gilroy",
|
|
"date": "2009-11-05",
|
|
"cit": [
|
|
"167 Wash. 2d 480"
|
|
],
|
|
"snip": "\nMadsen, J.\n\u00b619 (concurring) \u2014 The character of property as separate or community is established at acquisition, not at the time of payment, delivery, or conveyance. In re Marriage of Skarbek, 100 Wn. App. 444, 447, 997 P.2d 447 (2000). Property acquired before marriage is presump*492tively separate property. Id. Once established, separate property reta"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"Elam": [
|
|
{
|
|
"q": "gift presumption community property",
|
|
"case": "Estate of Madsen v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue",
|
|
"date": "1982-08-26",
|
|
"cit": [
|
|
"650 P.2d 196",
|
|
"97 Wash. 2d 792"
|
|
],
|
|
"snip": "\nWilliams, J.\nThis is a federal estate tax case wherein appellee, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, sought to recover $24,412.84 in estate taxes from appellant, Estate of Mattias Arnold Madsen. A deficiency was noted for failure to include one-half of the proceeds of a $200,000 life insurance policy in the gross estate of Mr. Madsen. The United States Tax Court ruled that one-half of the insurance proceeds were includable in the"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"q": "clear and convincing separate property",
|
|
"case": "Matter of Marriage of Brown",
|
|
"date": "1982-11-10",
|
|
"cit": [
|
|
"653 P.2d 602",
|
|
"98 Wash. 2d 46"
|
|
],
|
|
"snip": "\n98 Wn.2d 46 (1982)\n653 P.2d 602\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of ARCHIE LEE BROWN, Appellant, and CHARLOTTE BROWN, Respondent. In the Matter of the Marriage of RONALD WAYNE WONDERS, Appellant, and ELENORE GERTRUD WONDERS, Respondent.\nNos. 48204-7, 48245-4.\nThe Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.\nNovember 10, 1982.\nTalbot, Orlandini & Waldron"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"q": "characterization acquisition",
|
|
"case": "In Re the Marriage of Dessauer",
|
|
"date": "1982-09-09",
|
|
"cit": [
|
|
"650 P.2d 1099",
|
|
"97 Wash. 2d 831"
|
|
],
|
|
"snip": "\n97 Wn.2d 831 (1982)\n650 P.2d 1099\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of KURT DESSAUER, Appellant, and HEDWIG DESSAUER, Respondent.\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of SUSAN L. SALERNO, Respondent, and SALVATORE SALERNO, Appellant.\nNos. 46832-0, 47973-9.\nThe Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.\nSeptember 9, 1982.\nSimonarson, Visser, Zender, Brandt, Th"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"Konzen": [
|
|
{
|
|
"q": "characterization date of acquisition",
|
|
"case": "State v. O'NEILL",
|
|
"date": "1985-05-30",
|
|
"cit": [
|
|
"700 P.2d 711",
|
|
"103 Wash. 2d 853"
|
|
],
|
|
"snip": "\n103 Wn.2d 853 (1985)\n700 P.2d 711\nTHE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,\nv.\nCHONG SIM O'NEILL, ET AL, Petitioners.\nNo. 50372-9.\nThe Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.\nMay 30, 1985.\nHerrmann & Levenson, by Ellsworth I. Connelly and Jeffrey D. Gross, for petitioners O'Neill and Fowler.\nNeil J. Hoff, for p"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"q": "separate property commingling",
|
|
"case": "In Re the Marriage of Landry",
|
|
"date": "1985-05-09",
|
|
"cit": [
|
|
"699 P.2d 214",
|
|
"103 Wash. 2d 807"
|
|
],
|
|
"snip": "\n103 Wn.2d 807 (1985)\n699 P.2d 214\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of NANCY M. LANDRY, Appellant, and WILLIAM F. LANDRY, Respondent.\nNo. 51141-1.\nThe Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.\nMay 9, 1985.\n*808 Marcia A. Mellinger, for appellant.\nHennings, Maltman, Weber & Reed, by Douglass A. "
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"Mueller": [],
|
|
"Glorfield": [
|
|
{
|
|
"q": "gift community presumption",
|
|
"case": "Peters v. Skalman",
|
|
"date": "1980-09-12",
|
|
"cit": [
|
|
"617 P.2d 448",
|
|
"27 Wash. App. 247"
|
|
],
|
|
"snip": "\n27 Wn. App. 247 (1980)\n617 P.2d 448\nJOHN PETERS, ET AL, Respondents,\nv.\nJEANNINE SKALMAN, ET AL, Appellants. GWENDOLYN McFARLANE, ET AL, Appellants,\nv.\nJOHN PETERS, ET AL, Respondents. ESTATE OF WILLIAM C. PETERS, Plaintiff,\nv.\nJOHN PETERS, ET AL, Respondents.\nNo. 3613-II.\nThe Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two.\nSeptember 12, 19"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"PearsonMaines": [
|
|
{
|
|
"q": "commingling characterization",
|
|
"case": "Matter of Marriage of Pearson-Maines",
|
|
"date": "1993-08-09",
|
|
"cit": [
|
|
"855 P.2d 1210",
|
|
"70 Wash. App. 860"
|
|
],
|
|
"snip": "\n70 Wn. App. 860 (1993)\n855 P.2d 1210\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of CHERYL L. PEARSON-MAINES, Respondent, and CHESTER E. MAINES, Appellant.\nNo. 29873-9-I.\nThe Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.\nAugust 9, 1993.\nRichard W. Swanson and Millikan & Swanson, for appellant.\nGail B. Nunn and Arnett-Kremiaan &am;"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"Olivares": [
|
|
{
|
|
"q": "transmutation separate property",
|
|
"case": "Hill v. J.C. Penney, Inc.",
|
|
"date": "1993-06-07",
|
|
"cit": [
|
|
"852 P.2d 1111",
|
|
"70 Wash. App. 225"
|
|
],
|
|
"snip": "\n70 Wn. App. 225 (1993)\n852 P.2d 1111\nROBIN BARTLEY HILL, Respondent,\nv.\nJ.C. PENNEY, INC., Appellant.\nNo. 14764-5-II.\nThe Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two.\nJune 7, 1993.\n*227 Thomas A. Lemly and Davis Wright Tremaine, for appellant.\nRichard D. Smith and Smith &"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"q": "intent transmutation evidence",
|
|
"case": "Paiya v. Durham Construction Co.",
|
|
"date": "1993-04-26",
|
|
"cit": [
|
|
"69 Wash. App. 578",
|
|
"849 P.2d 660"
|
|
],
|
|
"snip": "\nWebster, C.J.\nDr. John P. Lorge III, a chiropractor, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for a protective *579order requiring counsel for Durham Construction Company (Durham) to pay expert witness fees for his deposition. Lorge claims the trial court erred in classifying him as an occurrence witness rather than an expert witness.\nFacts\n"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"Sedlock": [
|
|
{
|
|
"q": "transmutation agreement separate community",
|
|
"case": "Hill v. J.C. Penney, Inc.",
|
|
"date": "1993-06-07",
|
|
"cit": [
|
|
"852 P.2d 1111",
|
|
"70 Wash. App. 225"
|
|
],
|
|
"snip": "\n70 Wn. App. 225 (1993)\n852 P.2d 1111\nROBIN BARTLEY HILL, Respondent,\nv.\nJ.C. PENNEY, INC., Appellant.\nNo. 14764-5-II.\nThe Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two.\nJune 7, 1993.\n*227 Thomas A. Lemly and Davis Wright Tremaine, for appellant.\nRichard D. Smith and Smith &"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"q": "characterization intent",
|
|
"case": "State v. McClam",
|
|
"date": "1993-05-17",
|
|
"cit": [
|
|
"850 P.2d 1377",
|
|
"69 Wash. App. 885"
|
|
],
|
|
"snip": "\n69 Wn. App. 885 (1993)\n850 P.2d 1377\nTHE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,\nv.\nSTEVEN McCLAM, Appellant.\nNo. 29434-2-I.\nThe Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.\nMay 17, 1993.\n*886 Lisa Dworkin of Washington Appellate Defender Association, for appellant.\nNorm Maleng, Prosecuti"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"Hadley": [
|
|
{
|
|
"q": "separate property division award",
|
|
"case": "In Re the Marriage of Hadley",
|
|
"date": "1977-06-09",
|
|
"cit": [
|
|
"565 P.2d 790",
|
|
"88 Wash. 2d 649"
|
|
],
|
|
"snip": "\nDolliver, J.\nThis is an appeal of the property division and maintenance award in a decree of dissolution. Appeal to this court was allowed pursuant to ROA I-14(e) (now RAP 4.2(a)(4)), due to \"fundamental and urgent issues of broad public import requiring prompt and ultimate determination\" presented by this case. Mr. Hadley, the respondent, has cross-appealed the award of attorney's fees to the wife.\nRichard and"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"q": "court may not award separate property",
|
|
"case": "Strenge v. Clarke",
|
|
"date": "1977-09-08",
|
|
"cit": [
|
|
"569 P.2d 60",
|
|
"89 Wash. 2d 23"
|
|
],
|
|
"snip": "\n*31Wright, C.J.\n(dissenting)\u2014I dissent. The majority has ignored many fundamental principles of law to reach their result.\nPetitioner sought to recover treble damages for abusive collection practices, as provided by RCW 19.16.440, which designates the practices enumerated in RCW 19.16.250 as being per se violations of the Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86. "
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"q": "just and equitable division",
|
|
"case": "In Re the Marriage of Hadley",
|
|
"date": "1977-06-09",
|
|
"cit": [
|
|
"565 P.2d 790",
|
|
"88 Wash. 2d 649"
|
|
],
|
|
"snip": "\nDolliver, J.\nThis is an appeal of the property division and maintenance award in a decree of dissolution. Appeal to this court was allowed pursuant to ROA I-14(e) (now RAP 4.2(a)(4)), due to \"fundamental and urgent issues of broad public import requiring prompt and ultimate determination\" presented by this case. Mr. Hadley, the respondent, has cross-appealed the award of attorney's fees to the wife.\nRichard and"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"Schwarz": [
|
|
{
|
|
"q": "equitable lien community funds separate property",
|
|
"case": "Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Valerie J. Slotke",
|
|
"date": "2016-01-11",
|
|
"cit": [
|
|
"192 Wash. App. 166",
|
|
"367 P.3d 600"
|
|
],
|
|
"snip": "\n\n\n Verellen, A.C.J.\n \n\n \u00b61 The holder of a promissory note secured by a deed of trust has authority to elect to commence a judicial foreclosure of that deed of trust. After Valerie Slotke defaulted on her promissory note, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company elected to commence an action to judicially foreclose the deed of trust securing her delinquent note. Slotke appeals the order granti"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"q": "commingling tracing accounts",
|
|
"case": "Damian Schwarz v. Susan M. Schwarz",
|
|
"date": "2016-01-12",
|
|
"cit": [
|
|
"192 Wash. App. 180",
|
|
"368 P.3d 173"
|
|
],
|
|
"snip": "\n\n\n \n *184\n \n Siddoway, C.J.\n \n\n \u00b61 Susan Champagne appeals the property distribution ordered upon the dissolution of her marriage to Damian Schwarz. She challenges the trial court\u2019s characterization and distribution of several of her and Mr. Schwarz\u2019s retirement and other investment accounts. The character of the accou"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"Kraft": [
|
|
{
|
|
"q": "separate property division dissolution",
|
|
"case": "In Re the Marriage of Kraft",
|
|
"date": "1992-07-23",
|
|
"cit": [
|
|
"832 P.2d 871",
|
|
"119 Wash. 2d 438"
|
|
],
|
|
"snip": "\n119 Wn.2d 438 (1992)\n832 P.2d 871\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of DONNA L. KRAFT, Petitioner, and BRYCE A. KRAFT, Respondent.\nNo. 58247-5.\nThe Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.\nJuly 23, 1992.\n*440 Chris A. Montgomery, for petitioner.\nSalina, Sanger & Gauper, by Allen M. Gauper,"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"q": "exceptional circumstances separate property",
|
|
"case": "Tellevik v. Real Property Known as 31641",
|
|
"date": "1992-10-15",
|
|
"cit": [
|
|
"120 Wash. 2d 68",
|
|
"838 P.2d 111"
|
|
],
|
|
"snip": "\nDolliver, J.\nPlaintiffs in both these consolidated cases appeal from trial court decisions which held RCW 69.50-.505(b), authorizing the seizure of real property subject to forfeiture, is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to seizure of a private residence and residential rental property. The trial courts reached these conclusions by ruling the statute fails to provide minimal due process safeguards under the United Stat"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"q": "property characterization acquisition",
|
|
"case": "In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Hart",
|
|
"date": "1992-01-16",
|
|
"cit": [
|
|
"118 Wash. 2d 280",
|
|
"822 P.2d 264"
|
|
],
|
|
"snip": "\nGuy, J.\nRichard W. Hart was disbarred by this court in 1977 following his conviction for misuse of estate assets that came into his charge as trustee. He petitions for reinstatement. We deny the petition.\nBackground\nRichard W. Hart is 62 years old. Upon graduation from high school, Mr. Hart entered the United States Air Force and received a bad conduct discharge. In 1949, he was convicted o"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"Berol": [
|
|
{
|
|
"q": "deed presumption community property",
|
|
"case": "Burch v. Rice",
|
|
"date": "1950-10-05",
|
|
"cit": [
|
|
"222 P.2d 847",
|
|
"37 Wash. 2d 185"
|
|
],
|
|
"snip": "\n37 Wn.2d 185 (1950)\n222 P.2d 847\nVIRGIL A. BURCH, Appellant,\nv.\nZADA BURCH RICE et al., Respondents.[1]\nNo. 31265.\nThe Supreme Court of Washington, Department Two.\nOctober 5, 1950.\nHarold M. Gleeson, for appellant.\nKeith, Winston, MacGillivray & Repsold, for respondents.\nSIMPSON, C.J.\nPlaintif"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"q": "gift deed community",
|
|
"case": "Wheeler v. Wheeler",
|
|
"date": "1950-09-22",
|
|
"cit": [
|
|
"222 P.2d 400",
|
|
"37 Wash. 2d 159"
|
|
],
|
|
"snip": "\nBeals, J.\nThe plaintiff, Margaret E. Wheeler, and the defendant, Thurlow W. Wheeler, Jr., intermarried in February, 1936. Their first child, Thomas, was born in 1937, and a second son, Robert, was born in 1940. February 15, 1944, plaintiff filed in the office of the clerk of the superior court for King county a complaint, asking for a divorce from defendant and praying that the custody of the minor children be awarded to her, an"
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
} |