[WSBARP] OT - Vexatious Litigant Replevin Defense

[Mark Anderson]

Thank you, Eric, for all the points you made and the cites you ... cited.  I know I've got a lot of ammo, but I wanted to make sure my shots were on target.
Mark B. Anderson
ANDERSON LAW FIRM PLLC
821 Dock St  Ste 209  PMB 4-12
Tacoma, Washington 98402
+1 253-327-1750
+1 253-327-1751 (fax)
marka at mbaesq.com<mailto:marka at mbaesq.com>
www.mbaesq.com<http://www.mbaesq.com/>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This transmission is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the individual named recipient. It may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other confidentiality protection. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, be advised that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender via e-mail or by telephone at (253) 327-1750 that you have received the message in error, and then delete it. Thank you.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Eric Nelsen
Sent: 09/29/2023 5:09 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] OT - Vexatious Litigant Replevin Defense

Could you say any of the claims are res judicata based on any of the dismissed matters? Collateral estoppel?
Also recall that a rejected creditor claim bars further action unless suit is filed in "the appropriate court" within 30 days. Did she miss that deadline? If so, the claim is actually extinguished, not just barred; see the cases talking about the creditor claim bar being a "nonclaim statute" rather than a statute of limitations. That's as to claims based on pre-death acts anyway.
The personal possessions claim is post-death, but seems like she'd have to sue the sheriff, not the Estate; the Estate did not use self-help so can't be held liable because it didn't do anything about her personal property. I think?
If the Motion for Reconsideration is withdrawn then the original order is final and should be non-appealable, so maybe res judicata or collateral estoppel from there.
See also cases on "priority of action" when multiple courts are simultaneously addressing the same claims. See e.g. Bunch v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 180 Wash.App. 37, 321 P.3d 266 (2014).
On vexatious litigants, see Coyle v. Goins, No. 32418-4-III (August 20, 2015), which I dug up a few months ago while researching CR 11 sanctions.
Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen
Sayre Law Offices, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA 98144-3909
206-625-0092
eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com>

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> On Behalf Of Mark Anderson
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 3:27 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBARP] OT - Vexatious Litigant Replevin Defense

Dear Listmates:
I have got a case involving a Vexatious litigant ("VL") and would like some input.  Here is the scenario:
VL squatted in Elderly Woman's house.  After a Guardian was appointed, VAPA action was initiated but dismissed when Elderly Woman died.  After Elderly Woman died, VL invited several of her squatter friends to move in with her.  Probate was commenced for Elderly Woman's Estate and Client (Elderly Woman's son) was appointed as PR.  VL refused to move out.  PR initiated an Ejectment Action and a writ of restitution was issued.  On April 28, the sheriff physically evicted VL, supervised the departure, and gave VL plenty of opportunity to retrieve all of the items of personal property (I am being polite in that description) that VL had brought into the house.
In the meantime, on April 7, VL recorded a non-consensual lien against the Elderly Woman's house, naming PR as the Grantor.  VL claimed entitlement to compensation for having "helped" Elderly Woman and for taking care of her house, even after Elderly Woman had died.  On July 14, on the motion of the PR, the Court ordered that the lien be canceled and released.
On May 12, VL made several creditor's claims in the Estate, again for compensation for having "helped" Elderly Woman and for taking care of her house, even after Elderly Woman had died.  VL now also claimed damages for personal items that she did not retrieve from the house.  VL's creditor's claims were rejected as untimely.
On July 31, VL filed a Notice of Small Claim in the King County District Court against the PR, seeking "replacement value of items 'stolen' and destroyed by defendant and loss of wages (not included-pain-and-suffering)."  That matter remains outstanding.
On August 3, VL brought a "Motion for Emergency Show Cause Hearing" in the Ejectment Action in which she was seeking a writ of replevin for her personal property.  On August 16, the Court denied that motion.  On August 18, VL filed a Motion for Reconsideration.  On the date that VL's motion was to be heard, VL filed a request to the Court that her motion be withdrawn or at least continued.  Nothing further has been filed in that case.
On September 1, and notwithstanding the fact that VL already had outstanding claims in the Ejectment Action and the Small Claims Action, VL filed a "Complaint for Possession of Personal Property and Damages (RCW 7.64.010)."  Again, VL was making claims based on a return of her personal property.
I am looking to bring a straightforward motion to dismiss based on the fact that VL has brought and continues to bring her same claims in other courts.  I am also looking to have the Court designate VL as a vexatious litigant.
Any thoughts?
Thanks.
Mark B. Anderson
ANDERSON LAW FIRM PLLC
821 Dock St  Ste 209  PMB 4-12
Tacoma, Washington 98402
+1 253-327-1750
+1 253-327-1751 (fax)
marka at mbaesq.com<mailto:marka at mbaesq.com>
www.mbaesq.com<http://www.mbaesq.com/>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This transmission is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the individual named recipient. It may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other confidentiality protection. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, be advised that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender via e-mail or by telephone at (253) 327-1750 that you have received the message in error, and then delete it. Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20231002/f852502b/attachment.html>