Skip to main content
Jeffrey Paul Helsdon

Jeffrey Helsdon’s Legal Cases

11 total


  • Tri-State Development, Ltd. v. Johnston, 160 F.3d 528 (9th Cir. 1998)

    Practice Area:
    Real Estate
    Outcome:
    Judgment for defendant.
    Description:
    Mr. Helsdon argued Tri-State Development v. Johnson before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States, in which the 9th Circuit Court held that the Washington pre-judgment attachment statute, allowing attachment of real property without prior notice to the owner, was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
  • Mehlenbacher v. DeMont

    Practice Area:
    Real Estate
    Outcome:
    Judgment for Defendants
    Description:
    The DeMonts purchased unimproved property from the Mehlenbachers. The Mehlenbachers financed part of the purchase price with a promissory note secured by a deed of trust. When a neighbor sued the DeMonts for landslide damage, the DeMonts joined the Mehlenbachers, alleging that they had misrepresented the property's stability. The Mehlenbachers counterclaimed to foreclose the deed of trust and then moved successfully for summary judgment on the misrepresentation claim. Several months later, the trial court severed the Mehlenbachers' foreclosure claim from the other litigation. The Mehlenbachers started a separate action to foreclose, which resulted in a decree of foreclosure and judgment in favor of the Mehlenbachers for the balance due, $18,715 in interest and $20,000 in attorney fees, which included some of the work done defending the misrepresentation claim. On appeal, the DeMonts argue that the Mehlenbachers waived any claim for attorney fees in the misrepresentation claim by not asserting it in that action. The DeMonts also argue that the award of fees and costs was excessive and that under the terms of the contracts, the Mehlenbachers were not entitled to interest. The Mehlenbachers cross appealed, arguing that the trial court reduced their requested fee without using the lodestar method. The Court of Appeals held that the Mehlenbachers were entitled to fees and costs for defending the misrepresentation work but only to the extent necessary to obtain the foreclosure judgment. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court to make such determination. Further, the trial court was required to reconsider its award of attorney fees based on the lodestar method.
  • In re Estate of Bachmeier

    Practice Area:
    Probate
    Outcome:
    Supreme Court reversal of Court of Appeals decisio
    Description:
    Personal representative for decedent's estate petitioned for declaration that decedent and her husband had revoked community-property agreement or that agreement terminated when marriage became defunct. The Superior Court, Pierce County, Bruce Cohoe, J., dismissed petition. Personal representative appealed. On transfer from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, Houghton, J., 106 Wash.App. 862, 25 P.3d 498, reversed and remanded. On review, the Supreme Court, Johnson, J., held that community property agreement does not impliedly terminate by operation of law when the marriage underlying it becomes defunct.
  • The Estate of Liquidation Outlet, Inc.

    Practice Area:
    Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
    Date:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Outcome:
    Pending plan confirmation
    Description:
    Special Counsel to Chapter 11 bankruptcy Debtor corporation that owned 35 Dollar Store retail outlets in Washington and Oregon. Obtained DIP financing. Obtained court approval for the stalking horse auction of Debtor's assets. Confirmation of plan approval pending.
  • The Recall of Dale Washam, Pierce County Assessor-Treasurer

    Practice Area:
    Government
    Outcome:
    Successful Supreme Court appeal
    Description:
    Counsel for Robin Farris, petitioner in the effort to recall Dale Washam, Pierce County Assessor-Treasurer. Pierce County Superior Court Judge Thomas Felnagle issues an order on December 16, 2010, finding that 5 of the 6 charges were legally and factually sufficient to warrant setting a special recall election of Mr. Washam, and approving a ballot synopsis for the purpose. Mr. Washam has appealed to the Washington Supreme Court. Mr. Helsdon filed the Respondent's Brief in the Supreme Court on January 28, 2011.
  • Slead's Construction, Inc.

    Practice Area:
    Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
    Date:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Outcome:
    Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan confirmed January 13, 2012.012.
    Description:
    Chapter 11 bankruptcy case filed in June, 2011. Debtor is a contractor providing dewatering systems.
  • Farris et al v. Seabrook et al

    Practice Area:
    Constitutional
    Outcome:
    Summary Judgment granted in plaintiff's favor on an "as applied" basis. Appeal made to the 9th Circuit challenging the facial constitutionality of the statute authorizing campaign contribution limitations, not ruled on by the District Court.
    Description:
    Action brought against the Washington Public Disclosure Commission challenging the constitutionality of campaign contribution limitations in recall campaigns under the First Amendment.
  • The Recall of Cy Sun, Mayor of the City of Pacific, Washington

    Practice Area:
    Government
    Outcome:
    Pending appeal to the Washington Supreme Court
    Description:
    Represents the Recall Committee. Successfully obtained order that recall charges were factually and legally sufficient to warrant the recall of the Mayor of Pacific in October, 2012. The Mayor appealed to the Washington Supreme Court. Appeal is pending.
  • First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Reikow

    Practice Area:
    Real Estate
    Date:
    Nov 13, 2013
    Outcome:
    Affirmed on appeal
    Description:
    Jeff was lead counsel in the recent decision by the Court of Appeals for Division II invalidating boilerplate waivers in commercial guarantees in a deficiency action following a non-judicial foreclosure (First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Reikow, 313 P.3d 1208 (Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2013)).
  • Farris v. Seabrook II

    Practice Area:
    Constitutional
    Outcome:
    Affirmed by 9th Circuit Ct. of Appeals
    Description:
    In June, 2011, Oldfield and Helsdon and Ms. Farris filed a complaint in US District Court challenging the constitutionality under the First Amendment of the Washington statute limiting contributions to recall campaigns, and moved for the issuance of a preliminary injunction against the PDC, preventing it from enforcing the $800 per contributor limit in recall campaigns. On July 15, 2011, US District Court Judge Robert Bryan issued a preliminary injunction. The state of Washington appealed Judge Bryan’s injunction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed in a decision published on January 19, 2012, Farris v. Seabrook, 677 F.3d 858 (2012). Oldfield and Helsdon and Ms. Farris filed a motion for summary judgment declaring the $800 per contributor limit facially unconstitutional, and unconstitutional as applied. Judge Bryan granted the motion in part on November 6, 2012, finding the statute to be a violation of the First Amendment, as applied to Oldfield and Helsdon and Ms. Farris in the Recall of Pierce County Assessor/Treasurer Dale Washam, only. Oldfield and Helsdon and Ms. Farris appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, asking the Ninth Circuit to hold that the contribution limit to recall campaigns is facially unconstitutional. Oral argument was held by the Ninth Circuit on February 6, 2014.