Ames v. Ames, 340 P.3d 232

Background

In 1997 Roy and Rubye Ames orally agreed to transfer their Stevens County farm (title later placed in sons Stanley and Wesley) while reserving a life estate allowing the parents possession, management, and control; no written agreement was executed. Wesley and Stanley paid over time under the agreement.
Family tensions later arose after their son Randy moved onto the property; disputes concerned control, leases, and timber management.
Roy and Rubye sued asking (1) that title be returned to them (equitable relief) or (2) recognition of their life estate with full control. The trial court imposed a constructive trust vesting legal title in Stanley and Wesley while granting Roy and Rubye an express life estate.
The court limited annual timber harvesting to 19 mbf plus WAC-defined salvage and authorized additional thinning (initially substantial, possibly ~400 mbf over two years) to address diseased lodgepole pine/grand fir; proceeds above 19 mbf were apportioned between life tenants and remaindermen (initially 70/30, later 60/40, then 60/40/adjusted).
Stanley and Wesley appealed, challenging (a) admission and reliance on the Broden forester report, (b) the timber award as waste and an abuse of equitable discretion, and (c) partial forfeiture of a $10,000 bond posted when the court stayed logging. The appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Roy/Rubye)	Defendant's Argument (Stanley/Wesley)	Held
Admissibility and use of Broden post-trial report	Broden report validly used posttrial by declarations to set timber management	Report was inadmissible hearsay and trial court improperly relied on it	Court estopped sons from objecting to posttrial declaration procedure they agreed to; relied on submitted forester declarations and affirmed timber plan
Timber rights / whether harvesting constitutes waste	Life tenants should be allowed to harvest timber for income and to manage/thin to prevent waste; life estate should permit reasonable logging	Court’s award permits excessive/unlimited commercial logging and risks wasting the remainder estate	Court found harvesting (19 mbf + WAC salvage + necessary thinning) did not constitute waste; equitable discretion to allow thinning/salvage to preserve stand and provide parents income affirmed
Consideration of parents’ financial need in fashioning remedy	Parents’ financial security and original intent (purchase to provide for retirement) justify remedy and timber rights	Considering need led to excessive logging rights; improper factor	Court may consider parties’ original intent and equitable circumstances; consideration of need was proper and supported by clear evidence
Forfeiture of $10,000 bond after stay	Bond forfeiture justified to compensate parents for damages caused by defendants’ motion-induced delay that led to cancelled log sale/contractor losses	Forfeiture improper or excessive; defendants not shown liable for interference	Court authorized partial forfeiture ($8,230) based on findings that defendants’ actions precipitated contract cancellation and plaintiffs suffered damages; appellate court affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Ashmore v. Estate of Duff, 165 Wn.2d 948 (Wash. 2009) (invited error / estoppel when party proposes procedure then objects on appeal)
In re Dependency of K.R., 128 Wn.2d 129 (Wash. 1995) (party invited error doctrine described)
Baker v. Leonard, 120 Wn.2d 538 (Wash. 1993) (constructive trust may be imposed to effect parties’ intent in equity)
Kruger v. Horton, 106 Wn.2d 738 (Wash. 1986) (removal of timber is waste only if it decreases land value)
Norco Constr., Inc. v. King County, 106 Wn.2d 290 (Wash. 1986) (party superseding enforcement may be liable for damages from delay)
Pedro v. January, 261 Or. 582 (Or. 1972) (life tenant may thin trees to promote growth under certain circumstances)
Wigal v. Hensley, 214 Ark. 409 (Ark. 1949) (court may order sale of standing timber to prevent waste and protect life tenant and remaindermen)