In Re Quach Living Trust
86535-8
Wash. Ct. App. UJun 30, 2025Background
- Thi Ut “Betty” Quach, terminally ill, executed multiple deeds and testamentary documents concerning her real property in Des Moines, WA, within the last months of her life, conveying the property to different parties at different times, including her sister Linda Quach, Bryan Perez (Linda's partner), and the Quach Living Trust.
- Mary Pelentay, Betty's longtime friend, assisted Betty in estate planning and was named successor trustee of the Quach Living Trust, ultimately tasked with administering and distributing Betty’s assets as per her last wishes.
- Perez, relying on a July 2021 deed, claimed ownership of the property after Betty’s death, and, together with Linda, moved in and paid off the property's mortgage. Pelentay sought to quiet title and to eject Perez and Linda, arguing the property was owned by the Trust per Betty’s final estate plan.
- The superior court granted partial summary judgment for Pelentay, holding the July 24, 2021 deed was not delivered with the present intent to transfer and thus did not convey title. The court ordered ejection and quieted title in the Trust.
- Perez and Linda appealed, contesting jurisdiction, admissibility of evidence, the grant of summary judgment, denial of motions to amend, and alleging judicial bias and improper attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Superior court subject matter jurisdiction | Proper under TEDRA for trust matters & asset recovery | Issue was validity of deed, not a probate/trust matter | Superior court had subject matter jurisdiction |
| Effect of July 2021 deed (summary judgment) | No valid delivery: Betty did not intend to transfer | Deed is facially valid, unambiguous; extrinsic evidence barred | No delivery; extrinsic evidence admissible; deed invalid |
| Denial of motions to amend | Motions defective, did not comply with CR 15(a) | Should be granted; technical grounds improper | Proper denial; procedural rules not followed |
| Alleged judicial bias | No bias; judge addressed both parties equally | Judge favored opposing party and was biased against pro se litigants | No evidence of bias found; judge acted impartially |
| Attorney fees at trial and on appeal | Prevailing party under RCW 11.96A.150 | Defendant should prevail; fees to Pelentay unconscionable | Award to Pelentay was proper; her request on appeal granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. Clark, 149 Wn.2d 130 (Wash. 2003) (jurisdictional standards for Washington courts)
- Emrich v. Connell, 105 Wn.2d 551 (Wash. 1986) (application of the parol evidence rule in determining party intent and contract finality)
- Raborn v. Hayton, 34 Wn.2d 105 (Wash. 1949) (deed delivery and requisite present intent to transfer)
- Puckett v. Puckett, 29 Wn.2d 15 (Wash. 1947) (requirements for delivery and intent concerning a deed’s effectiveness)