Estate of Lester J. Kile
33613-1
Wash. Ct. App.Mar 7, 2017Background
- Lester Kile's will created a farm trust granting income to his daughter Jeannie (trustee) but providing that if grandson Cody Kendall "operates" the farm he receives two-thirds of income and Jeannie one-third; trust pays farm expenses.
- Cody actually farmed in 2012; Jeannie, appointed personal representative and trustee, refused to pay Cody his share, removed him from the farm, and leased the property to third parties while estate administration was pending.
- Cody filed a TEDRA action; the trial court found the term "operates" ambiguous, admitted extrinsic evidence (including Lester's deposition), applied judicial estoppel against Jeannie for inconsistent prior statements, and concluded Lester intended Cody to receive 2/3 if he farmed the land.
- The court removed Jeannie as personal representative and trustee for breach of fiduciary duties/mismanagement, substituted Cody, ordered a forensic accounting, and entered judgment for $340,928 against Jeannie; it also awarded attorney fees against her personally.
- On appeal Jeannie challenged (1) use of extrinsic evidence (Lester's deposition) and will construction, (2) judicial estoppel, (3) removal and fee awards against her personally, and (4) damages calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kile) | Defendant's Argument (Kendall) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Construction of "operates" and use of extrinsic evidence | "Operates" means "manages"; court should not rely on non‑testamentary deposition to construe will | "Operates" means physically farming; deposition is highly probative of testator intent | Term is ambiguous; court properly considered extrinsic evidence including Lester's deposition and gave effect to testator intent favoring Cody as operator |
| Judicial estoppel for inconsistent prior statements | Jeannie consistently meant "operates" = "manages"; reversal in dissolution case undercuts estoppel | Jeannie previously told dissolution court Cody was operating per Lester's intent; she cannot assert a different factual position here | Judicial estoppel applied: Jeannie's prior sworn statements were inconsistent and could have misled courts; estoppel was not an abuse of discretion |
| Removal as personal representative and trustee; fees against Jeannie personally | Removal and personal fee assessment were improper; fees should come from estate/trust | Jeannie's refusal to pay Cody, mismanagement (poor accounting, multiple accounts), and conflict justified removal and personal fee liability | Removal was supported by substantial evidence and valid legal grounds; fees properly assessed against Jeannie personally for breach of fiduciary duty |
| Damages and expert accounting | Damages not supported by evidence; alternate expert valuations were correct | One expert (Grandinetti) properly followed trust terms (trust bears pre‑split expenses); trial court adjusted and adopted that accounting | Trial court's damages analysis was detailed and reasonable; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Bergau v. Bergau, 103 Wn.2d 431 (extrinsic evidence admissible to resolve ambiguity in will)
- Arkison v. Ethan Allen, Inc., 160 Wn.2d 535 (purpose of judicial estoppel and preserving respect for judicial proceedings)
- Miller v. Campbell, 164 Wn.2d 529 (factors for applying judicial estoppel)
- In re Estate of Jones, 152 Wn.2d 1 (removal of personal representative for conflict of interest/waste of estate)
- In re Estate of Ehlers, 80 Wn. App. 751 (standard for removing trustee)
- Estate of Jordan v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 120 Wn.2d 490 (trustee's fiduciary duties)
- In re Guardianship of Lamb, 173 Wn.2d 173 (TEDRA: appellate discretion to award fees)