Washington Breach Of Contract Legal Questions

I'm not sure Iunderstand.  Did you buy half the house or did  you loan your son the money to cover half the house?  If you had purchased half the house, why would you hae a promissory note for your son to repay you?  Anyway, if you loaned your son money, you only have the right to recover that money, plus interest (plus attorneys fees and other costs if the l oan agreement so provides).  If you bought half the house, you may have the right to compel the sale of the house and split the proceeds, minus costs of sale.... Read Answer

It's been 4 months since you filed or since you were discharged?  If, as I assume, the former, the lender can't do anything except through the ccourt due to the bankrutpcy automatic stay.  The car will be disposed of as part of the bankruptcy estate.  I expect that matters are delayed due to the corona virus.  Here in NY, courts are closed except for emergencies.... Read Answer

The question is who has jurisdiction over you.  In this case, as you reside in Washington but the claim arose out of activities you undertook in Nevada, I think either state would have jurisdiction. The same statute of limitations, which would probably be Nevada's unless there is a contrary provision in the promissory note, would be applied by either court.  States apply their own procedural law to disputes, but for substantive matters generally (I'm oversimplifying) apply the law of the state or other jurisdiction (could be a foreign country) with the most connection to the controversy.  Thus, it is not at all unusual for a court in New York, for example, to apply California law to a dispute. You should know that many states have rules that limitations periods are tolled if a defendant leaves the jurisdiction for a substantial period of time.... Read Answer

Probably not.  First of all, I would be very surprised if your agreement with the ticket broker (check out the terms and conditions on the website, to which you agreed when you engaged in the transaction) did not limit the broker's liability to a refund of your purchase price, and/or specifically excluded consequential damages.  Consequential damages are damages sustained which are not a direct and necessary result of a breach, but rather are an indirect consequence of it.  For example, when the ticket broker breached by failing to fulfill your order (assuming that it breached; your agreement may explicitly provide that it couldn't guarantee that your order would be fulfilled; again, check the website), losing your purchase price or the value of your ticket was a direct consequence of that breach.  Losing your travel money was an indirect result.  Even absent a limitation of liability provision, consequential damages are not recoverable for breach of contract unless they were in the contemplation of the parties when they contracted.  In other words, if you specifically told the broker, before you reached an agreement, that you would lose your travel money if it did not fulfill your order, those damages could be considered within the contemplation of the parties.  If not, you probably will not be able to recover such consequential damages, regardless of whether there was a limitation of liability provision.  Also, although I understand that you had no reason to go to Arizona unless you were attending the Super  Bowl, technically you could still have gone, and used your reservations.  Some Courts might say that you had not lost any travel money due to the broker's breach.  As for some sort of emotional damages from being deprived of the opportunity to attend the Super Bowl, forget it.  With extremely rare exceptions, damages for breach of contract are limited to lost money.... Read Answer

While I'm not familiar with the procedures in Washington, in all Courts in which I practice there is a procedure to get the Court to allow a different method of service, usually through publication in a newspaper, if the defendant can't be served by the usual methods.  Usually you have to make some attempts to locate the defendant before the  Court will allow you to use another method, but you should check with the clerk of the Court about how to go about this.  However, you may not be able to go to small claims court.  Again, I don't know the procedures in Washington, but in New York small claims courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, without authority to order equitable relief such as the impounding of a car.  Again, check with the clerk of the court.  You may have to proceed in a court of general jurisdiction. ... Read Answer

It's not entirely clear, but your agreement appears to be one which could not have been fully performed within a year, meaning that it falls within the statute of frauds and is required to be in writing to be enforceable.  Assuming that you can get around that, you can sue your ex for breach of contract if you suffer any damages from the breach, for example if you have to pay off the remainder of the loan, or if you have to pay a higher rate of interest on a loan you take out because your ex's breach ruined your credit rating. ... Read Answer

It depends on whether the contractual provision she breached is considered material.  I know the "no tent" rule was material to you, but it may not seem so to an objective Judge or jury (it may, I'm not passing judgment one way or another), particularly if your wedding was on an especially hot day.  As a practical matter, she may not want to sue you for $150, and if she does, you may not want to go to court over that amount, particularly when neither one of you has a "slam dunk."... Read Answer

Most states allow you to serve the defendant by serving someone responsible at his/her/its home or place of business.  For example, you can serve a defendant in N.Y. by serving anyone of suitable age and discretion at the defendant's actual place of residence, and then mailing a copy to the defendant at that address.  However, while I am confident that  Washington has a similar law, I am not 100% sure.  Also, the service rules in small claims court are sometimes different than those for the other courts.  The clerk of the small claims court should be able to help you.... Read Answer

Your question is a very good one, but nobody can answer it for you.  The following are some of the things you should consider. First of all, almost all loan documents provide that the full amount of the debt (minus any amount already paid and any unaccrued interest) becomes due upon default, so that, if you win, you should get a judgment for the full amount.  There may also be a provision that the loser must pay the prevailing party's reasonably attorneys' fees, which could help you recover at least some of your expenses, if you win.  Also, if, as  you say, there is absolutely no merit to any counterclaim, most jurisdictions have mechanisms for recovering attorneys' fees from someone who brings a frivolous claim, whether it be by a claim for malicious prosecution or court sanctions.  I caution you, however, that a frivolous claim does not mean just that you believe that your version of the facts is the true one. All that being said, Courts do not often award attorneys' fees, and even when they do they are likely to award less than the actual amount spent.  Litigation often costs a lot more than $88,000, and is often very time consuming.  Often it is not worth litigating a matter to its conclusion over such a relatively small amount.  You should remember, however, that the other side faces costs and risks as well, and litigation is usually settled before trial.  Any litigation works on several tracks - you have to consider how to win your case if it continues, while also considering how to maximize your leverage to negotiate the most favorable settlement.  Starting a case may give you more negotiating leverage.  Also, your costs for simply starting a case should be low, and you can drop it if you find it is costing too much.  If you really have nothing to fear from a counterclaim, you may have little to lose.  Apart from personal emotional considerations which influence many people (e.g. how bad will you feel if you let this person "get away with it" and don't "stick up for yourself"), you should also consider whether allowing this default to stand unchallenged can affect you moving forward.  Many businesses find it beneficial to assert every claim, even if it's too small to be cost effective, in an attempt to discourage others from trying to take advantage of them in the future. You should also consider if there is a way to reduce your costs.  Given that you feel that your case is very strong, there may be attorneys who are willing to handle it on a contingency basis, thus limiting your out of pocket exposure. Last, but definitely not least, you have to consider whether the debtor will be able to pay you even if you win.  It does no good to spent time and money litigating, only to be awarded a judgment which the debtor is too broke to pay.  Some debtors may even be able to file bankruptcy and have the debt discharged.... Read Answer