The Sleasmans live in a 1,967 square foot, single family residence on .29 acres in Lacey, Washington. Soon after cutting down eighteen trees on their property, they were notified by the City of Lacey that they violated a Lacey code by removing the trees without a permit. The Sleasmans were assessed a fine of $16,861, the trees’ appraised value.
The code prohibited the removal of … (2 comments)
supreme court rulings: Washington Supreme Court Abandons Doctrine of Completion and Acceptance
- 01/22/07 02:40 AM
In Davis v. Baugh Industrial Contractors, Inc., the Washington State Supreme Court abandoned the doctrine of completion and acceptance, which shields contractors from certain liability for negligent work after that work has been completed and accepted by the property owner.
The case arose when Baugh, through its subcontractor, installed underground piping at a processing facility. The work was accepted by the owner, and approximately three years later, a leak in the piping caused a pond to form. An employee of the owner was killed trying to repair the work, and the employee’s estate filed a negligence action against the contractor. … (2 comments)
supreme court rulings: State Supreme Court Holds That RCW 18.27 Provides Attorney Fees Only In Actions Against Contractor’s Bond, Not Contractor
- 01/15/07 04:57 AM
On December 28, 2006, the Washington State Supreme Court decided in Cosmopolitan Engineering Group, Inc. v. Ondeo Degremont, Inc. that the state’s registration of contractors act, RCW 18.27, provides for attorney fees for the prevailing party in an action against the bond, but not in an action against the contractor. The case arose when Miller Brewing Company hired Ondeo Degremont, Inc., to design an onsite wastewater treatment facility, and other development work, for its brewery in Tumwater, Washington. Ondeo subcontracted with Cosmopolitan Engineering Group, Inc. for engineering services. Cosmopolitan was not paid for all of its services. Cosmopolitan filed a complaint … (0 comments)
supreme court rulings: Supreme Court Rules That Condominium Homeowner’s Association Cannot Sue Developer More Than Two Years After Developer’s Dissolution
- 12/08/06 09:30 AM
The Supreme Court recently ruled in Ballard Square Condominium Owners Association v. Dynasty Construction Company that a 2006 amendment to Washington’s laws regarding lawsuits against dissolved businesses applies retroactively to bar lawsuits initiated prior to the law’s effective date. Ballard Square arose when a condominium homeowner’s association filed suit against the developer alleging water intrusion damage caused by, among other things, defective building siding. The developer corporation had dissolved in October of 1995, shortly after sale of the last Ballard Square unit, but the association did not discover the damage until 1996 and 1997, and did not file suit until October … (3 comments)
On February 8, 2007, the Washington State Supreme Court unanimously held that a Lacey ordinance regulating tree removal on “undeveloped” and “partially developed” property did not apply to homeowners removing trees in their backyard.;)
;)
