Boatman v. Boatman (In re Boatman)

• Citation: 488 P.3d 845,17 Wash.App.2d 418
• Decision Date: 10 May 2021
• Docket Number: No. 80933-4-I (consolidated with Nos. 81000- 6-I, 81200-9-I, 81202-5-I), 81201-7-I,80933-4-I (consolidated with Nos. 81000- 6-I
• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Parties: In the MATTER OF the ESTATE OF Bojilina H. BOATMAN. The Estate of Bojilina H. Boatman, Appellant/Cross Respondent, v. Brian Boatman, Individually and as Trustee of the Brian Boatman Revocable Living Trust, Respondent/Cross Appellant, Beverly Young, Appellant.

17 Wash.App.2d 418

488 P.3d 845

In the MATTER OF the ESTATE OF Bojilina H. BOATMAN.The Estate of Bojilina H. Boatman, Appellant/Cross Respondent,

v. Brian Boatman, Individually and as Trustee of the Brian Boatman Revocable Living Trust, Respondent/Cross Appellant,Beverly Young, Appellant.

No. 80933-4-I (consolidated with Nos. 81000- 6-I

81200-9-I

81201-7-I

81202-5-I)

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1.

FILED May 10, 2021

Ordered Published Date June 4, 2021

Miles Aaron Yanick, Brandi Buehn Balanda, Savitt Bruce & Willey LLP, 1425 4th Ave. Ste. 800, Seattle, WA, 98101-2272, James Edward Britain, Britain / Krell PLLC, 805 Dupont St. Ste. 1, Bellingham, WA, 98225-3128, for Appellant/Cross Respondent.

James Edward Britain, Britain / Krell PLLC, 805 Dupont St. Ste. 1, Bellingham, WA, 98225-3128, Douglas Ross Shepherd, Kyle Scott Mitchell, Shepherd and Allen, 2011 Young Street, Suite 202, Bellingham, WA, 98225-4052, for Respondent/Cross-Appellant.

Appelwick, J. ¶1 This consolidated appeal arises from attorney fees and costs awarded in favor of Brian Boatman in a Trust and Estate Dispute Resolution Act¹ (TEDRA) action against the Estate and against Young, its personal representative. Young asserts the trial court erred in awarding costs and attorney fees in favor of Brian Boatman and against Young. She asserts the trial court erred in denying her motion to vacate the order as void. The Estate asserts the trial court erred in the amount of costs and attorney fees awarded in favor of Brian Boatman and argues no award should have been entered against either the Estate or Young. Brian asserts the trial court erred in declining to find the other Boatman siblings were parties and find them jointly and severally liable with the Estate and Young for the awarded costs and attorney fees. Both Brian and Young request attorney fees and costs on appeal. The award against Young was error. The award of costs against the Estate was error in part. The trial court did not err in denying costs and fees in favor of Brian for Phase I, against other siblings in Phase II, or in exercising its discretion in the amount of fees awarded. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

FACTS

¶2 In 2007, Bojilina Boatman began living in her son Brian Boatman's² home full-time. Brian was responsible for her care until her death in 2013. Bojilina's five other children (Boatman siblings) then filed an initial TEDRA petition against Brian seeking recovery for assets transferred from Bojilina to Brian while he was serving as her attorney-in-fact (Phase I). Brian filed a response and counterclaim as an individual and as attorney-in-fact of the estate of Bojilina Boatman (Estate) asking for attorney fees. He moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the Boatman siblings were not parties and had no standing to bring the action.

¶3 In 2014, the trial court dismissed the Phase I petition for lack of standing. The Boatman siblings appealed. Brian moved for an award of attorney fees, on which the court deferred ruling, pending resolution of the appeal.

¶4 In 2016, this court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the Boatman siblings’ claims based on lack of standing.

Young v. Boatman, No. 72643-9-I, slip. op. at 1, 2016 WL 513293 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2016) (unpublished), https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/726439.pdf. We explained that RCW 11.96A.030(5) ’s definition of "party" includes estate beneficiaries, and under RCW 11.96A.080 any party may have a judicial proceeding related to such matters. Id. at 9-10. However, TEDRA expressly states that it doesn't supersede other provisions of Title 11 RCW. Id. at 10. And, under RCW 11.48.010, only the personal representative has the authority to maintain and prosecute actions on behalf of the Estate. Id. at 10-11. Still, we held that Brian had a conflict of interest as personal representative with respect to the Estate's pursuit of claims against him. Id. at 13-14. We ordered the trial court to appoint an interim personal representative on remand "to determine whether to pursue an action on behalf of the Estate against Brian as the attorney-in-fact for Bojilina." Id. at 14.

¶5 Following remand, the court-appointed interim personal representative issued a report concluding that a claim was warranted on behalf of the Estate against Brian as attorney-in-fact. Brian ultimately resigned as personal representative. Beverly Young, one of the Boatman siblings, was appointed by the court as personal representative of the Estate.

¶6 The Estate, with Young acting as personal representative, then filed and served a TEDRA petition against Brian (Phase II). The only parties to the Phase II petition were the Estate as the petitioner and Brian (individually and as trustee for the Brian Boatman Revocable Living Trust) as the respondent. The petition asked for an award of attorney fees and costs pursuant to RCW 11.96A.150. Brian answered and counterclaimed for attorney fees and costs pursuant to RCW 11.96A.150 and RCW 11.94.120.

¶7 On November 6, 2019, following a bench trial, the court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law finding in favor of Brian and denying all of the Estate's claims. It found,

Since Brian Boatman is the prevailing party, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the Personal Representative pay Brian Boatman's attorney's fees and costs, in accordance with RCW 4.84.030. Brian Boatman's attorney shall submit a cost bill for the Court's analysis and the Court will issue an order against the Personal Representative for such fees and costs as it deems reasonable.

The Estate moved for reconsideration, arguing awards under RCW 4.84.030 are limited to allowable costs and could be imposed only against the Estate. The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration but reserved on the issue of attorney fees.

¶8 Brian then moved for entry of judgment on attorney fees and costs incurred in both TEDRA petitions. He requested fees and costs in Phase I. He also requested fees and costs in the Phase II against the Boatman siblings, or in the alternative, against Young in both her individual capacity and in her capacity as personal representative of the Estate.

¶9 On December 20, 2019, the trial court entered an order on entry of judgments for attorney fees and costs. The order concerned an award of attorney fees and costs pursuant to RCW 11.96A.150 and RCW 4.84.030. The court declined to award attorney fees related to the Phase I petition, as that was a matter of first impression. It also declined to find that the Boatman siblings were parties against whom attorney fees and costs could be awarded. However, the trial court awarded $12,835.97 in costs and $111,574.00 in attorney fees to Brian against Young "individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Bojilina Boatman, jointly and severally."

¶10 On January 3, 2020, the Estate filed a notice of appeal on the findings of fact and conclusions of law and order after trial, the order denying the Estate's motion for reconsideration, and the order on entry of judgments for attorney fees and costs.

¶11 On January 6, 2020, The Estate filed a motion to vacate the December 20 order as to Young in her individual capacity. She argued the fee order was void because she was not a party to the Phase II petition and therefore the trial court lacked the authority and jurisdiction to impose fees or costs against her. On January 21, 2020, the court denied her motion. Judge Robert E. Olsen held that as the successor judge he was barred from granting the requested relief because then-Judge Raquel Montoya-Lewis had presided over the trial. That same day, Young filed a notice of appeal on the December 20, 2020 fees order.

¶12 On January 22, 2020, Judge Pro Tem Montoya-Lewis³ entered a "Findings/Conclusions and Order re Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Cost[s]" and a "Judgment on Attorneys’ Fees."⁴ The order reiterated that attorney fees would not be awarded in relation to Phase I nor against the Boatman siblings who were not parties in the case. The court awarded attorney fees and costs in the amount of $111,574.00 under RCW.96A.150 and $13,035.97⁵ in costs under RCW 4.84.010 and .080 against Young in her capacity as personal representative, but not as an individual.

¶13 This court consolidated the appeals, designating Young in her individual capacity as appellant, the Estate as appellant/cross-respondent, and Brian individually and as Trustee of the Brian Boatman Revocable Living Trust as respondent/cross appellant.

DISCUSSION

¶14 The Estate first argues the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees under RCW 11.96A.150 against the Estate and Young. Next, the Estate argues the trial court erred in awarding excessive costs under chapter 4.84 RCW.

¶15 Young also asserts the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees and costs in favor of Brian and against Young as an individual who was not a party to the suit. Therefore, she also asserts the court erred in denying her motion to vacate.

¶16 Brian counters that he is entitled to his reasonable attorney fees and costs. And, he asserts the trial court erred in declining to find that the other Boatman siblings in this matter were parties subject to an order requiring payment of reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in both TEDRA matters.

¶17 The general rule in Washington, commonly referred to as the "American rule," is that each party in a civil action will pay its own attorney fees and costs. Berryman v. Metcalf, 177 Wash. App. 644, 656, 312 P.3d 745 (2013). But, trial courts may award attorney fees when authorized by contract, statute, or a recognized ground in equity. Id.

¶18 Whether a party is entitled to attorney fees is an issue of law that we review de novo. Little v. King, 147 Wash. App. 883, 890, 198 P.3d 525 (2008). Whether the fee award is reasonable is a matter of discretion for the trial court, which we will alter only if we find an abuse of discretion. Bloor v. Fritz, 143 Wash. App. 718, 747, 180 P.3d 805 (2008...