In Re The Detention Of Phillip Goodwin, 81728-1

The State filed an SVP petition against Phillip Goodwin in 2011; proceedings were delayed due to Goodwin’s severe health issues.
In October 2018 Goodwin and the State entered a written stipulation agreeing Goodwin met SVP criteria and moved for civil commitment under RCW 71.09.
Paragraph 12 of the stipulation described consideration: the State promised certain conditional-forbearance (including a commitment not to oppose conditional release after 12 months if specific conditions were met) and, implicit in the parties’ agreement, both waived the right to demand a jury trial.
The trial court accepted the stipulation and committed Goodwin; a later annual review recommended continued commitment.
Goodwin moved under CR 60(b)(11) to withdraw the stipulation, arguing it lacked consideration, was involuntary, and that counsel was ineffective for not advising him; the trial court denied the motion.
Goodwin appealed, arguing primarily that the stipulation was void for lack of consideration and that counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of that defect.

Issue	Goodwin's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the stipulation was supported by consideration	Stipulation lacked consideration (additional State promises were illusory), so agreement is void	Parties’ mutual forbearance of the right to demand a jury trial is legally sufficient consideration	Court: Forbearance to assert a legal right (waiver of jury demand) is sufficient consideration; stipulation valid
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to advise about lack of consideration	Counsel failed to inform Goodwin the stipulation lacked consideration, so representation was ineffective	Because stipulation had sufficient consideration, there was no deficient performance or prejudice	Court: IAC claim fails; no abuse of discretion in denying CR 60(b) motion

Haley v. Highland, 142 Wn.2d 135 (Wash. 2000) (standard of review for CR 60(b) denial)
In re Det. of Reyes, 184 Wn.2d 340 (Wash. 2015) (SVP proceedings are civil)
Allstot v. Edwards, 114 Wn. App. 625 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002) (stipulation is a contract)
King v. Riveland, 125 Wn.2d 500 (Wash. 1994) (contracts require consideration)
Labriola v. Pollard Grp., Inc., 152 Wn.2d 828 (Wash. 2004) (consideration defined as bargained-for exchange; legal sufficiency test)
Howell v. Benton, 40 Wn.2d 871 (Wash. 1952) (forbearance to assert a legal right is legally sufficient consideration)