Guardianship of Paula A. Fowler
32979-8
Wash. Ct. App.Mar 23, 2017Background
- Lin O’Dell was appointed limited guardian for Paula Fowler in 2007; concerns about O’Dell’s performance arose at a 2013 review of her annual report, accounting, and budget.
- The superior court issued an order to show cause listing suspected statutory and fiduciary violations; O’Dell submitted a lengthy written response.
- The court appointed Joseph Valente as investigator and special master to review the file; Valente produced a detailed report critical of portions of O’Dell’s conduct but concluded most violations had no direct impact on Fowler aside from excessive fees.
- A review hearing and later presentment hearing occurred; O’Dell spoke at both hearings and filed written objections but never requested an evidentiary hearing or sought to subpoena witnesses.
- The superior court adopted findings consistent with Valente’s report, ordered O’Dell to pay $3,000 to Valente, disgorge $2,591.50 to the estate, and terminated the Washington limited guardianship.
- O’Dell appealed, arguing the court’s procedure violated due process by resolving disputed facts without an evidentiary hearing or cross-examination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process required an evidentiary hearing before terminating the guardianship and imposing fees | O’Dell: termination and fee imposition required an evidentiary hearing (right to confront/cross-examine) | Court: no statutory requirement; prior notice and opportunities to respond satisfied due process | Court held no due process violation; written notice, investigator report, written responses, hearings and oral argument were sufficient |
| Whether the court improperly relied on unsworn investigator findings without cross-examination | O’Dell: Valente’s report was effectively unsworn testimony and should have been subject to cross-examination | Court: Valente merely reviewed records and O’Dell supplied much of the factual material; Valente was not a witness whose cross-examination would add reliability | Court held consideration of Valente’s report did not violate due process; had O’Dell wanted an evidentiary hearing she should have requested one |
| Whether the superior court abused its discretion in terminating the guardianship and ordering disgorgement | O’Dell: factual disputes required trial-like resolution; thus disposition was improper | Court: statutory authority grants broad power to modify/terminate guardianship; procedures used were within discretion | Court affirmed termination and disgorgement as within court’s authority and not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether appellate attorney fees should be awarded to the investigator | Valente: requests fees under RCW 11.96A.150 as equitable | O’Dell: opposed (implicit) | Court declined to award appellate fees, citing equities and that Valente’s participation on appeal was primarily self-initiated to secure payment |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (due process is flexible; requires notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard)
- In re Guardianship of Cornelius, 181 Wn. App. 513 (2014) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for guardianship court dispositions)
- In re Guardianship of McKean, 136 Wn. App. 906 (2007) (courts have broad authority to administer and settle matters concerning estates of incapacitated persons)
- Morrison v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 168 Wn. App. 269 (2012) (due process requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard)