Seattle Attorneys Blog

Washington Court Upholds Anti-Harassment Protection Order Against Neighbor Who Directed Employees to Harass

April 28, 2026 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

When does a neighbor dispute cross the line into unlawful harassment—and what can a court do about it? In Perkins v. Jensen, No. 88080-2-I (Wash. Ct. App. April 27, 2026), the Washington Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed an anti-harassment protection order against a construction company co-owner whose employees engaged in a pattern of deliberate harassment against a neighboring homeowner in Snohomish County. The decision addresses several important questions about how anti-harassment protection orders work under Washington’s protection order statute, chapter 7.105 RCW.

If you are dealing with harassment from a neighbor, a business, or any other person, the attorneys at Blair & Kim can help you understand your legal options. Contact us for a confidential case evaluation.

What Happened in Perkins v. Jensen?

Washington Court Reverses Denial of Parenting Plan Modification After Trial Court Miscalculated Parenting Time

April 22, 2026 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

Changing a parenting plan in Washington is never easy. The law deliberately makes modifications difficult to protect children from the instability of constant schedule changes. But when a parent’s work schedule changes and they want a modest adjustment to their residential time, the law also provides a pathway: the minor modification under RCW 26.09.260(5). In In re Marriage of McCormick, No. 41124-9-III (Wash. Ct. App. April 9, 2026), the Washington Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s denial of a father’s petition for a minor modification because the court failed to properly calculate whether the requested change fell within the statute’s 24-day limit. If you are seeking to modify a parenting plan in Washington, this decision illustrates both the process and the pitfalls.

Whether you need to modify an existing parenting plan or respond to a modification petition, the family law team at Blair & Kim can help. Contact us for a confidential case evaluation.

What Is a Minor Modification Under Washington Law?

Washington Supreme Court Makes It Harder to Separate Sex Offense Charges Into Multiple Trials

April 14, 2026 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

When a person faces multiple sex crime charges involving different complainants, one of the most important defense decisions is whether to move for separate trials. In State v. Krause, No. 103835-6 (Wash. Mar. 26, 2026), the Washington Supreme Court issued a 7-2 published decision that significantly raises the bar for defendants seeking to sever multiple rape charges. The ruling reverses a Court of Appeals decision that had granted severance and has immediate implications for how sex offense cases are tried throughout Washington, including in Snohomish County, where this case originated.

If you or someone you know is facing sex crime charges in Washington, the criminal defense team at Blair & Kim can help you understand your rights and build an effective defense strategy. Contact us for a confidential case evaluation.

What Happened in State v. Krause?

Types of Protection Orders in Washington

April 6, 2026 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

Washington law provides several types of civil protection orders designed to protect people from violence, harassment, stalking, and abuse. Since July 1, 2022, all of these orders are governed by a single statute—chapter 7.105 RCW—which consolidated what had previously been scattered across multiple chapters of the Revised Code of Washington. Whether you are considering seeking a protection order or have been served with one, understanding the different types and how they work is an important first step.

The attorneys at Blair & Kim handle protection order cases for both petitioners and respondents throughout King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. Contact us for a confidential case evaluation.

The Six Types of Protection Orders in Washington

Washington Court Reverses DV Conviction After State Fails to Prove Key Element at Trial

March 31, 2026 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

When someone faces domestic violence charges in Washington, every element of every count matters. In State v. Kane, No. 86684-2-I (Wash. Ct. App. March 30, 2026), the Washington Court of Appeals, Division One, reversed a conviction for interfering with domestic violence reporting because the State failed to prove the identity of the person whose 911 call was allegedly prevented. The ruling is a reminder that prosecutors bear the burden of proving every element of a DV-related offense beyond a reasonable doubt—and courts will hold them to it.

If you are facing DV charges in Seattle, Bellevue, or anywhere in the greater Puget Sound area, the attorneys at Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC can help you understand your options and mount an effective defense. Contact us for a confidential case evaluation.

What Happened in State v. Kane?

Washington Supreme Court Upholds Felony Harassment Statute

March 22, 2026 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

When someone is charged with felony harassment in Washington, the prosecution must prove that the accused knowingly made a threat to kill. But what mental state must the State prove regarding whether the defendant understood the threatening nature of those words? In a significant en banc decision filed on March 19, 2026, the Washington Supreme Court addressed this exact question in State v. Calloway, No. 103374-5, and the ruling has direct implications for anyone facing harassment charges in Seattle, Bellevue, and throughout King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties.

If you or someone you know is facing harassment charges in Washington, the attorneys at Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC can help you understand how this new ruling may affect your case. Contact us for a confidential case evaluation.

What Did the Court Decide in State v. Calloway?

Washington Court Affirms Domestic Violence Protection Order: No Intent Requirement, No Detailed Findings Needed

March 19, 2026 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

Domestic violence protection orders can reshape every aspect of a family’s life—restricting contact with a spouse, limiting time with children, and creating a record that follows the respondent for years. In In re Marriage of Sheridan, No. 87948-1-I (Wash. Ct. App. March 16, 2026), the Washington Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed a DVPO and clarified two important points about how these orders work under Washington’s protection order statute, chapter 7.105 RCW. For anyone involved in a civil protection order proceeding in the Seattle area, this decision matters.

Whether you are seeking a protection order or defending against one, the attorneys at Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC can help you navigate the process. Contact us for a confidential case evaluation.

What Happened in Sheridan?

What Happens When You Can’t Prove Your Business Is Worth Less Than Its Accounts Receivable? Lessons From a Washington Divorce

March 12, 2026 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

Dividing a business in a Washington divorce is one of the most contentious issues a couple can face—especially when the business’s primary asset is uncollected accounts receivable. In In re Marriage of Ellison, No. 87236-2-I (Wash. Ct. App. March 9, 2026), the Washington Court of Appeals, Division One, upheld a King County trial court’s decision to value a solo law practice’s accounts receivable at their full gross amount of $472,000 after the business owner failed to provide credible evidence justifying a lower figure. The case offers critical lessons for anyone going through a divorce that involves a business, professional practice, or significant financial accounts.

If you are facing a divorce involving business assets, property division, or complex financial issues, the family law team at Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC can help. Contact us for a confidential case evaluation.

The Dispute: How Much Are Uncollected Fees Really Worth?

Why Informal Side Agreements After a Divorce Can Cost You

February 26, 2026 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

When a divorce is finalized in Washington, the dissolution decree assigns specific debts and obligations to each spouse. But life does not stop at the decree. Cars break down, financial circumstances shift, and ex-spouses sometimes make informal arrangements to address new realities. The problem is that these side agreements can fundamentally change who owes what—and if something unexpected happens, the spouse who relied on an informal deal may end up with nothing to enforce. A recent Washington Court of Appeals decision, In re Marriage of Hoffner, No. 60680-1-II (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2026), illustrates exactly how this plays out. If you are going through a divorce or dealing with enforcement of a decree in the Seattle area, the family law attorneys at Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC can help you protect your rights at every stage.

What Happened in the Hoffner Case?

The Hoffners’ divorce decree, based on a CR 2A agreement, required the husband to pay off a specific bank account debt—an Alaska account with a balance of approximately $57,600—that was connected to the wife’s car. The decree contemplated that proceeds from the sale of the marital home would cover this debt, but the home sold for less than expected, leaving about $27,000 still owed on the account. The husband agreed to pay the remaining balance in installments.

Then the wife’s car developed mechanical problems. The parties made a side agreement: the wife would trade in her car, the husband would cosign on a replacement vehicle, and the husband would make monthly payments on the new car’s loan until he had paid off the approximately $19,000 still owed from the original decree obligation. The husband also paid the insurance on the replacement car.

Police Said You’re “Not Under Arrest”—But Were You Actually in Custody?

February 22, 2026 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

When police tell you that you’re “not under arrest” before questioning you, that statement does not automatically mean you’re free to leave. In State v. Magana-Arevalo, No. 103586-1 (Wash. Jan. 15, 2026), the Washington Supreme Court held that whether a suspect is in custody for Miranda purposes depends on the totality of the circumstances—not on a single officer’s claim that the suspect is free to go. The court also clarified the test for constitutional harmless error and reaffirmed that a suspect’s race and ethnicity are relevant factors in the custody analysis. If you are facing criminal charges in the Seattle area, this decision may affect whether statements you made to police can be used against you.

What Happened in State v. Magana-Arevalo?

On December 1, 2018, at approximately 6:00 a.m., Renton police and a SWAT team arrived at Cristian Magaña Arévalo’s partner’s apartment. Officers used a bullhorn to order everyone out, separated Magaña Arévalo from his partner and young child, zip-tied his wrists behind his back, placed him in a patrol car, and drove him to a staging area in a grocery store parking lot surrounded by law enforcement vehicles and officers.

Once there, a detective removed the zip ties and told Magaña Arévalo he was “not under arrest and was free to leave at any time.” The detective then questioned him in the back of an unmarked work truck while another armed detective sat in the front seat. No Miranda warnings were given. Two days later, on December 3, a detective went to his home for a follow-up interview—again without Miranda warnings. The trial court admitted all of these statements into evidence.