Knight v. Knight
178 Wash. App. 929
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Dagmar Knight (83) lived on a family estate; her son Tor (schizophrenia, criminal history) lived nearby and allegedly spent large sums of Dagmar’s money and isolated/intimidated family members.
- Eric Knight, as attorney-in-fact under a power of attorney, petitioned for a vulnerable adult protection order (and guardianship) alleging undue influence, financial exploitation, and threats by Tor; submitted medical report and multiple declarations and financial records.
- Dagmar and Tor opposed the protection order; Dagmar revoked Eric’s power of attorney and asserted she did not want the order. Adult Protective Services had an unsubstantiated finding.
- A commissioner issued a temporary protection order excluding Tor from the property and prohibiting contact; later the superior court (on revision) entered a permanent vulnerable adult protection order with exclusion, 1,000-foot no-contact zones, and supervised-visit provisions.
- On appeal Dagmar and Tor argued the petitioner must prove the need for the order by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and that the court was required to impose the least restrictive conditions; the appellate court addressed the standard of proof as a published issue and other matters in the unpublished portion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Eric) | Defendant's Argument (Dagmar/Tor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of proof for contested vulnerable adult protection order | Implicitly argued lower standard or not addressed; urged court to uphold order | Contested orders implicate liberty/autonomy; petitioner must prove need by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence | Where the alleged vulnerable adult opposes the petition, the petitioner must prove vulnerability and need for protection by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence; case remanded to determine if Eric met that burden |
| Whether petitioner (Eric) qualified as an interested person under RCW 74.34.020(10) | Eric asserted he was interested person authorized to petition (attorney-in-fact, concerned for welfare) | Dagmar/Tor argued Eric failed to prove interested-person status | Court held superior court properly exercised discretion in finding Eric an interested person |
| Requirement that court impose least restrictive conditions (RCW 74.34.005(6) analog) | Eric supported the court’s chosen restrictions to protect Dagmar | Dagmar/Tor argued court must impose the least restrictive conditions possible | Court held superior court is not required to impose least restrictive conditions under RCW 74.34.005(6); conditions affirmed (but court may modify on remand) |
| Evidentiary hearing necessity when vulnerable adult objects | Eric did not request additional evidentiary hearing; argued court had discretion | Dagmar/Tor argued the court should have held an evidentiary hearing | Court noted the superior court may order additional evidentiary hearings; on remand the court is free to hold hearings as appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ramer, 151 Wn.2d 106 (review of superior court revision of commissioner decision) (standard: review superior court decision)
- Hecker v. Cortinas, 110 Wn. App. 865 (bench review standard for protection orders)
- State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12 (principles governing appellate review of discretionary rulings)
- Scott v. Trans-Sys., Inc., 148 Wn.2d 701 (substantial-evidence review of findings)
- Morse v. Antonellis, 149 Wn.2d 572 (deference to trier of fact on credibility)
- Burnside v. Simpson Paper Co., 123 Wn.2d 93 (deference on persuasiveness and credibility)
- Sunnyside Valley Irrig. Dist. v. Dickie, 149 Wn.2d 873 (questions of law reviewed de novo)
- Calhoun v. State, 146 Wn. App. 877 (context of Abuse of Vulnerable Adults Act protecting elders from family members)
- Endicott v. Saul, 142 Wn. App. 899 (filing protective order together with guardianship petitions)