debt claim in Washington

2019Thus, where a person uses force to collect a debt with no claim of ownership in the specific property acquired, the requisite intent to steal is present and the defense is unavailable. 14 No. 77562-6-1115 State v. Larsen, 23 Wn.

2014App. 218 , 596 P.2d 1089 (1979) (in case where defendant whose wife had performed sex acts for moneythreatened client with firearm and forced clientto write new check after he stopped payment on original check, trial courtdid not err in instructing jury that a creditor's intent to collecta debt from his debtor by use or threatened use of immediateforce, violenceor fear of injury is not a defense to robbery; good-faith claim of title defense is not allowed where a defendant uses force to collect a debt with no claim of ownership in the specific property acquired). 17 No. 68937-1-1/18 entirely c

2019App. 218 , 596 P.2d 1089 (1979); State v. Brown, supra. State v. Self, 42 Wn.

2010App. 654 , 713 P.2d 142 , review denied, 105 Wn.2d 1017 (1986) (self-help to collect a debt is not a defense to robbery absent a claim of ownership in the specific property acquired).

2024Furthermore, once an equitable lien is created, “‘it is, nevertheless, but a mere floating and ineffective equity until such time as a judgment or decree is rendered actually subjecting the property to the payment of the debt or claim.’” Nelson, 171 Wash. at 61 (quoting Langford v. Fanning, 7 S.W.2d 726 , 728 (Mo. App. 1928)).

2020“On a valid assignment of a judgment the assignee succeeds to all the rights, interest and - 13 - No. 79853-7-I/14 authority of his assignor, including the debt or claim upon which the judgment was based.” Johnson v. Dahlquist, 130 Wash. 29, 30 , 225 P. 817 (1924).

2020“On a valid assignment of a judgment the assignee succeeds to all the rights, interest and - 13 - No. 79853-7-I/14 authority of his assignor, including the debt or claim upon which the judgment was based.” Johnson v. Dahlquist, 130 Wash. 29, 30 , 225 P. 817 (1924).

2013App. 456, 459 , 773 P.2d 890 (1989) (quoting Nat’l Bank of Commerce v. Thomsen, 80 Wn.2d 406, 410 , 495 P.2d 332 (1972)).

2013App. 456, 459 , 773 P.2d 890 (1989) (quoting Nat’l Bank of Commerce v. Thomsen, 80 Wn.2d 406, 410 , 495 P.2d 332 (1972)).

2013App. 410, 415-16 , 824 P.2d 533 (1992). ¶12 Under RCW 9A.82.040, a person is guilty of use of extortionate means to collect extensions of credit if “[a] person who knowingly participates in any way in the use of any extortionate means to collect or attempt to collect any extensions of credit or to punish any person for the nonrepayment thereof.” “ ‘To extend credit’ means to make or renew a loan or to enter into an agreement, tacit or express, whereby the repayment or satisfaction of a debt or claim, whether acknowledged or disputed, valid or invalid, and however arising, may or shall be defer

2013This loan was clearly an extension of credit under unchallenged instruction 19, which provided, “ ‘To extend credit’ means to make or renew a loan or enter into an agreement, tacit or express, whereby the repayment or satisfaction of a debt or claim, whether acknowledged or disputed, valid or invalid, and however arising, may or shall be deferred.” CP at 111. ¶14 As Mr. Quintanilla argues in his brief, a “loan” is defined at common law as “ ‘an advancement of money or other personal property to. a person, under a contract or stipulation, express or implied, whereby the person to whom the advan

2013This loan was clearly an extension of credit under unchallenged instruction 19, which provided, “ ‘To extend credit’ means to make or renew a loan or enter into an agreement, tacit or express, whereby the repayment or satisfaction of a debt or claim, whether acknowledged or disputed, valid or invalid, and however arising, may or shall be deferred.” CP at 111. ¶14 As Mr. Quintanilla argues in his brief, a “loan” is defined at common law as “ ‘an advancement of money or other personal property to. a person, under a contract or stipulation, express or implied, whereby the person to whom the advan

1979State v. Martin, 15 Ore.

1925State Capitol Commission v. Lister, 91 Wash. 9 , 156 Pac. 858 , held that a legislative act of 1915 for the bonding of the capitol building lands, the principal to he paid from the sale of granted lands but the interest to be paid by an annual tax levy, created a debt in violation of the constitution.

1925State Capitol Commission v. Lister, 91 Wash. 9 , 156 Pac. 858 , held that a legislative act of 1915 for the bonding of the capitol building lands, the principal to he paid from the sale of granted lands but the interest to be paid by an annual tax levy, created a debt in violation of the constitution.