In Re The Estate Of: Denny Douglas Titus, 79760-3

Background

Denny Titus conveyed his Seattle home and signed powers of attorney in favor of Robert Crawford in 2015; Crawford promised payments and reversion of title that never occurred. Allegations of financial exploitation prompted the State to seek guardianship and an AVAA/VAPO; Emily Hansen was appointed guardian ad litem (GAL).
Titus died in 2016; Fred Christianson was appointed personal representative of the estate but failed to post a bond, provide required accountings, or otherwise diligently administer the estate.
Christianson entered a settlement with Crawford/Marathon that released them for estate claims in exchange for $65,000 payable on sale; the estate never received payment and the property later was encumbered and foreclosed.
Hansen obtained approved creditor claims against the estate (totaling approximately $127,000 with interest), but the estate did not pay. She filed a TEDRA petition against Christianson alleging breach of fiduciary duty and sought fees; she also moved for CR 11 sanctions against Christianson’s attorney (Grindell).
The trial court granted Hansen summary judgment holding Christianson personally liable for Hansen’s creditor claims, awarded Hansen attorney fees under RCW 11.96A.150, and imposed CR 11 sanctions jointly and severally against Christianson and Grindell. The appellate court affirmed liability and fees but reversed the sanctions as to Christianson for lack of notice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Christianson breached fiduciary duty and is personally liable for Hansen’s approved creditor claims	Christianson breached duties by entering the release/settlement, failing to secure payment, failing to bond or account, and rescinding the VAPO, which rendered the estate insolvent so Hansen couldn’t collect from the estate	Christianson argued genuine issues of material fact exist and contended estate decisions (e.g., dismissal of AVAA/VAPO) were discretionary and lawful	Court: No genuine issue. Christianson breached his fiduciary duties and is personally liable for Hansen’s creditor claims.
Whether trial court had authority to award Hansen TEDRA/attorney fees and whether amount was reasonable	Hansen sought fees under RCW 11.96A.150 (TEDRA) and RCW 11.40.080; the TEDRA statute authorizes discretionary fee awards against any party and the award was reasonable	Christianson argued some statutory bases did not authorize awarding fees against him and the fees were excessive or duplicative	Court: RCW 11.96A.150 authorizes discretionary fee awards in TEDRA actions; the award was within the court’s discretion and not shown to be manifestly unreasonable. RCW 11.40.080 did not authorize fees against Christianson.
Whether CR 11 sanctions properly imposed on Christianson personally	Hansen’s sanctions motion targeted Grindell and alleged bad-faith filings; court sanctioned both Grindell and Christianson	Christianson argued he lacked adequate notice he would be sanctioned personally and thus was denied due process	Court: Reversed as to Christianson — imposition of personal sanctions violated due process because Hansen’s motion and the hearing did not reasonably notify Christianson of a request to sanction him personally.
Whether Hansen should receive appellate fees	Hansen requested fees under RCW 11.96A.150 as prevailing party on appeal	Christianson argued appeal raised contested issues and fees were unwarranted	Court: Appellate fees may be awarded in discretion under RCW 11.96A.150; Hansen is the substantially prevailing party and entitled to fees subject to RAP 18.1.

Key Cases Cited

Keck v. Collins, 184 Wn.2d 358 (review standard for summary judgment) (explains de novo review and moving party burden)
Hash by Hash v. Children’s Orthopedic Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 110 Wn.2d 912 (distinguishing affidavit-evidence standards on summary judgment)
In re Estate of Larson, 103 Wn.2d 517 (personal representative’s fiduciary duties)
Hesthagen v. Harby, 78 Wn.2d 934 (standard of care for fiduciaries: ordinarily prudent person)
Durland v. San Juan County, 182 Wn.2d 55 (attorney fees: statutory authorization required; question of law reviewed de novo)
In re Guardianship of Lamb, 173 Wn.2d 173 (RCW 11.96A.150 gives trial court broad discretion to award fees in guardianship/TEDRA disputes)
Skagit County Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 304 v. Skagit County Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 177 Wn.2d 718 (standard for abuse of discretion review)
Scott Fetzer Co. v. Weeks, 122 Wn.2d 141 (reversal of fee awards requires showing trial court abused discretion)
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (due process notice requirement for hearings)