Estate Of Ralph Bettys, John Bettys, V. Kathi Marie Tjeerdsma
82678-6
| Wash. Ct. App. | Mar 14, 2022Background
- In 1997 Ralph and Sylvia Bettys created the Bettys Revocable Living Trust; Ralph transferred 9334 Padilla Heights Road into the trust.
- In 2015 Ralph, while sole trustee, executed a quitclaim deed purporting to convey the 9334 property to himself individually.
- Ralph died in 2020; Kathi (successor trustee) was appointed personal representative of his probate estate and later sold the 9334 property, depositing $394,762.47 in net proceeds to the estate.
- Kathi questioned the validity of Ralph’s 2015 transfer and petitioned the probate court to resolve, among other issues, whether the deed was invalid and whether sale proceeds belonged to the trust.
- On April 30, 2021 the trial court ordered that Ralph had not revoked the trust, lacked authority to transfer the 9334 property out of the trust, and that the sale proceeds were trust assets (not probate assets).
- John Bettys appealed pro se; the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as premature because the April 30 order was not a final judgment and probate remained open.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bettys) | Defendant's Argument (Tjeerdsma) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability / finality | The April 30 order is ripe and appealable; assets must be distributed | The order is not a final judgment; probate remains open so appeal is premature | Dismissed appeal as premature; order not appealable as of right because probate not closed |
| Trial court abused discretion / contravened decedent’s intent | Trial court misapplied intent of decedent during probate | Court’s process was proper; validity of trustee action was in issue | Appellate court did not reach merits (dismissed for lack of finality) |
| Court ignored title deeds | The deeds in place at decedent’s death showed property was estate asset | The 2015 deed was challenged as an invalid trustee transfer; trust may control | Merits not addressed on appeal; underlying ruling remained subject to ongoing probate |
| Misinterpretation of law | Trial court applied incorrect legal standard to trust/transfer issues | Trial court’s legal conclusions were proper to resolve trust vs. estate claim | Appellate court declined to review legal claims because order was not final |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson & Middleton Lumber Co. v. Quinault Indian Nation, 79 Wn. App. 221, 901 P.2d 1060 (1995) (defines "final judgment" as ending litigation and leaving nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment)
- Seattle-First Nat’l Bank v. Marshall, 16 Wn. App. 503, 557 P.2d 352 (1976) (orders generally are not equivalent to final judgments for purposes of appeal)
- In re Marriage of Olson, 69 Wn. App. 621, 850 P.2d 527 (1993) (pro se litigants must follow same procedural rules as attorneys)
- In re Marriage of Wherley, 34 Wn. App. 344, 661 P.2d 155 (1983) (same principle regarding pro se procedural obligations)