In The Matter Of The Estate Of Joseph P. Burroughs
83774-5
| Wash. Ct. App. | Aug 28, 2023Background
- Joseph Burroughs executed a 2011 will leaving the residue to his then-wife Cynthia and naming Cynthia’s sister Jennifer Gordon as alternate personal representative; Joseph and Cynthia divorced in 2015.
- In May–June 2018 Joseph instructed an attorney to prepare a new will leaving everything to his son Samuel, approved the draft, but died before signing; Samuel located a signed draft and other beneficiary designations after Joseph’s death.
- Attorney Ivarinen petitioned for intestacy on grounds the 2011 will had been revoked; Gordon filed to probate the 2011 will. This court previously affirmed summary judgment that the 2011 will was revoked and that Samuel was sole heir.
- After mandate, extensive litigation focused on attorney fees: Gordon’s counsel Britain sought nearly $90k as an administrative expense; Gordon and Britain pursued TEDRA claims against the successor personal representative; Burroughs sought prevailing-party fees and attempted to compel disgorgement of fees paid to Britain.
- Superior court (multiple orders) denied Britain’s administrative expense claim, denied Burroughs’ disgorgement and certain fee requests, awarded prevailing-party fees to Gordon and Britain on specific motions, and dismissed procedural TEDRA filings; the parties appealed multiple orders.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed all superior court rulings, denied all requests for appellate fees, struck the trial court’s reservation of fee claims, and remanded with instructions to close the probate.
Issues
| Issue | Burroughs' Argument | Gordon/Britain's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Britain could be paid his claimed outstanding legal charges as an administrative expense from the estate | Britain argued his fees were reasonable administrative expenses incurred defending estate matters and should be paid (~$89,770) | The fees were incurred defending a will that benefited Gordon and her family; equity and precedent bar treating those charges as estate administrative expenses | Denied — court exercised discretion under equitable principles (following Thompson); fees disallowed as inequitable |
| Whether Burroughs was entitled to prevailing-party attorney fees against Gordon for invalidating the 2011 will | Burroughs sought fees under RCW 11.96A.150 after prevailing on revocation | Gordon argued fees were discretionary and litigation history and delay counsel against awarding fees | Denied — fee awards under RCW 11.96A.150 are discretionary; delay, procedural posture, and prior appellate refusal to award fees supported denial |
| Whether Burroughs could require Britain to disgorge fees already paid by the estate | Burroughs sought disgorgement as an heir asserting the estate’s claim to refunds | Britain argued Burroughs lacked standing; only a personal representative may maintain estate causes of action | Denied — Burroughs lacked standing; only personal representative may pursue estate claims (Boatman) |
| Whether Burroughs’ TEDRA petition alleging Gordon breached fiduciary duties was procedurally proper | Burroughs argued he timely sought relief under TEDRA/RCW 11.68.070 and 11.96A RCW | Gordon argued the TEDRA petition must be commenced as a new action and Burroughs failed to comply | Denied — petition was not filed as a new action as required by TEDRA; superior court properly declined to adjudicate fiduciary breach |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Thompson’s Estate, 156 Wash. 486 (Wash. 1930) (expenses incurred by a personal representative primarily protecting her own testamentary interests may be disallowed)
- In re Klein’s Estate, 28 Wn.2d 456 (Wash. 1947) (executor acting in good faith to defend a will may be allowed reasonable costs and attorney fees)
- Estate of Boatman v. Boatman, 17 Wn. App. 2d 418 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021) (only a personal representative may maintain and prosecute actions on behalf of an estate)
- In re Estate of Becker, 177 Wn.2d 242 (Wash. 2013) (standing is a threshold issue reviewed de novo in estate litigation)
- In re Estate of Jones, 152 Wn.2d 1 (Wash. 2004) (unchallenged findings of fact are accepted as true on appeal)
- In re Estate of Mower, 193 Wn. App. 706 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (abuse-of-discretion standard for TEDRA attorney-fee awards)
- In re Estate of Evans, 181 Wn. App. 436 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014) (trial court abuses discretion if fee rulings rest on unreasonable or untenable grounds)
- Corinthian Corp. v. White & Bollard, Inc., 74 Wn.2d 50 (Wash. 1968) (appellate court may determine trial-level attorney fee allowances consistent with appellate disposition)