Charles Oliver, V. Henry Garrett
86268-5
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- In 1965, Aperlonie Oliver died, leaving her Seattle property to her four children: Geraldine, Isaac, Dorothy, and Charles Oliver.
- After a renovation program, a series of deeds in 1969-1970 resulted in Geraldine alone receiving title to the property from a nonprofit.
- Geraldine lived on the property until 1999, later quitclaiming it to her son, Henry Garrett, in 1992. Henry and his wife Crystal have occupied, paid taxes, and taken out mortgages on the property since then.
- Geraldine died intestate in 2012. Siblings discovered a handwritten note apparently expressing a wish for the house to be sold and proceeds divided among several family members.
- In 2022, siblings sued Henry, Crystal, the estate, and others, seeking to quiet title, partition, and damages, claiming breach of oral contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Garretts, holding the claims barred or failing as a matter of law; the siblings appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of Contract | Geraldine (and later, Henry) held property in trust per oral agreement; siblings retained equitable interest | No valid contract; any claim is time-barred | Time-barred (3-year limit); claim fails |
| Unjust Enrichment | Garretts unjustly benefitted at siblings’ expense | Any benefit came from Geraldine, not siblings; claim time-barred | Time-barred; no enrichment at siblings’ expense |
| Quiet Title / Partition | Siblings have interest in property; action not time-barred | Siblings lack possessory interest; claims time-barred | No standing; time-barred (10-year limit) |
| Fraud / Fiduciary Duty | 1992 deed and later actions constituted fraud/breach of duty | No particularized pleading; no trust duty owed | Insufficient specificity; time-barred or fails as matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Owen v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe R.R. Co., 153 Wn.2d 780 (appellate de novo review of summary judgment)
- 1000 Virginia Ltd. P’ship v. Vertecs Corp., 158 Wn.2d 566 (discovery rule inapplicable to most contract actions)
- Young v. Young, 164 Wn.2d 477 (elements of unjust enrichment explained)
- Seattle Prof. Eng’g Emps. Ass’n v. Boeing Co., 139 Wn.2d 824 (limitation period for unjust enrichment claims)
- Goodman v. Goodman, 128 Wn.2d 366 (limitations on trust-related claims)
- Magart v. Fierce, 35 Wn. App. 264 (requirements for standing in quiet title actions)
- Curtiss v. Crooks, 190 Wash. 43 (remedy for voidable deeds in fraudulent conveyance contexts)