Washington Civil Litigation Legal Questions

First take a look at  your contract, as it likely has an arbitration provision and/or a choice of forum provision (i.e. which court you have to sue in).  It may also have a limitation on liability provision (e.g. mover not liable for any damages beyond the amount paid) which may or may not be enforceable depending on the degree of the mover's culpability.  Given that the contract on which you're suing involved performance in both CA and WA, the courts of either state would likely have jurisdiction over a dispute, so if the contract is silent, sue in the jurisdiction most convenient for you.... Read More

File a motion to vacate the default judgment based on lack of service.  If you can convicne the court that you were never served the judgment with be vacated.  However, it is possible that you were validly served without knowing about it - service doesn't necessarily required that the sumons and complaint be handed to you.... Read More

Unless the law in Washington is different from the jurisdictions in which I practice, you can garnish any regular income they receive, e.g. rents.  You can also cause their assets to be sold at auction to pay the judgment.  The procedures for accomplishing these collection methods differ by state, so you may have to do some research, but they are available.... Read More

You must go to court to enforce the court orders.  It would have been better had you sought a court injunction in the first place to prevent prudential from paying out the money, but you may still be able to compel the beneficiary to return the money if you move fast and if, in fact, your husband violated court orders by naming a different beneficiary.... Read More

No.  If he gave you the stuff it is yours; he has no right to revoke the gift.  Even if he gave you the stuff on condition that you would sleep with him, such a contract would be unenforceable as prostitution is illegal in Washington.  Theoretically, if he gave you the stuff on condition that you sleep with him on some trip to somewhere where prostitution is legal, he might have a claim, but I doubt it. Of course, all of this assumes that the facts you've relayed will be believed.  If the guy claims that he loaned you the jewelry, or that you were supposed to pay for it over time and didn't, it is possible that a judge or jury could believe him.... Read More

Yes.  Your friend may be comparatively negligent to some degree, but you are partially responsible as well and liable to that extent.  There are slightly different systems in different states, but it generally works as follows:  If a jury finds that you are 75% responsible and your friend 25% responsible, you would be liable for 75% of the damages.  In some states, if your friend was found more than 50% responsible, he/she couldn't collect anything; in others you would each remain liable pro rata.   FYI, if your friend had had insurance on the car, and if the insurance company had covered the damage (I have my doubts), it would have sued you to recover what it paid out.... Read More

First, revealing the truth is not defamation.  I'm sure you've heard that "truth is an absolute defense."  Apart from defamation, it is possible that you violated some confidentiality statute by releasing this information (I don't know the particulars of Washington law) but not if the information was in the public domain.   Second, even if you had defamed the offender, the damages would be minimal.  Defamation damages are measured by the damage to the defamed person's reputation.  If a person't reputation is already terrible, it is unlikely that a false statement will materially worsen it.  Thus, if you claim that Mr. X murdered 10 people, when really he only murdered 8, it may technically be a tort, but Mr. X is unlikely to be able to recover anything.... Read More

If Washington law is similar to the law in the states in which I practice, it should provide a mechanism for you to get discovery from the judgment debtor about his finances, under penalties of perjury and pain of being held in contempt of court.  In New York I would either serve an information subpoena or a notice of deposition.  Also, I might serve restraining orders on all local banks, looking to locate and freeze the debtor's bank accounts.... Read More

There is often more than one jurisdiction where a case can be brought.  Obviously, you want to sue on your home turf of Washington.  Given that the case arises from a contract which was to have been performed, in part, in Washington, you should be able to do so, absent some limitation in your contract.  If for some reason you wanted to sue in Virginia, you should be able to as well.  Not sure you'd be able to sue in Maryland, as neither of the parties is currently based there. HOWEVER, you should look at your contract.  I think it probably contains a provision requiring you to either sue or arbitrate in Virginia, and such clauses are usually enforced.  It almost certainly also contains a limitation of damages clause limiting the moving company's liability to some nominal amount.  This clause may not be enforceable, particularly if the moving company's fault was greater than simple negligence.... Read More

You said you were "told" that you were at fault.  Who told you?  If that was a court determination, it is binding, but if not, you can still sue and claim that the other party was at least partially at fault.  However, the fact that the other driver was uninsured and unlicensed did not cause the accident.  If you want to prevail, you will have to assert some other basis for why the other driver is completely or partially at fault.... Read More

Sharing the well is not the same as sharing the pump.  If the neighbor wants water, he probably needs to pay.  The wording in the deed may be critical and, obviously, without reviewing the entire deed it is not possible to give a precise answer.  It may be as easy as shutting him off until he pays for electricity and probably something for maintenance of the pump (they don't run forever.)  Good luck, and seek legal advice if you are not sure.... Read More

Before a suspect in police custody (which doesn't necessarily mean under arrest) can be questioned by the police or any government agent, he or she must be given what is known as a "Miranda Warning", i.e. informed of certain rights they have (to counsel, to remain silent, etc.)  If the suspect is questioned without having been "read his rights", any evidence derived from that illegal questioning will not be allowed as evidence against the suspect at his or her trial (with rare exceptions).  This includes evidence which didn't come directly from the questioning, but was "fruit of the poisonous tree", for example if the un-mirandized suspect tells the police where he disposed of the murder weapon, and the police wouldn't have found it except for the illegal questioning, the gun will not be allowed in evidence at that suspect's trial, although it might still be admissible, under certain circumstances, against another person whom the police didn't question illegally, like an accomplice.... Read More