Endicott v. Saul

Decision Date04 February 2008
Docket NumberNo. 58435-9-I.,No. 58531-2-I.,58435-9-I.,58531-2-I.
Citation142 Wn. App. 899,176 P.3d 560
CourtWashington Court of Appeals
PartiesRonald ENDICOTT and Donald Endicott, Respondents, v. Robert and Samantha SAUL, husband and wife, and Linda and Vernon Gabelein, husband and wife, Appellants. and Emma Endicott, Appellant, v. Ronald Endicott and Donald Endicott, Respondents.

John W. Demco, L'Nayim Shuman-Austin, Demco Law Firm PS, Matthew F. Davis, Attorney at Law, Seattle; WA, H. Clarke Harvey, Attorney at Law, Clinton, WA, for Appellants.

Carolyn Cliff, Attorney at Law, Langley, WA, for Respondents.

Michael Mert Waller, Zylstra Beeksma & Waller PLLC, Oak. Harbor, WA, for Guardian. Ad Litem.

H. Clarke Harvey, Attorney at Law, Clinton, WA, for Other Parties.

SCHINDLER, A.C.J.

¶ 1 Emma Endicott (Emma), Samantha and Robert Saul (the Sauls), and Linda and Vernon Gabelein (the Gabeleins) challenge the trial court's decision to establish a limited guardianship for Emma under the Guardianship Act, chapter 11.88 RCW, and to issue a protective order under the Abuse of Vulnerable. Adults Act (AVA), chapter 74.34 RCW. After a ten-day bench trial that took place over the course of three months, the trial court concluded clear, cogent, and convincing evidence established that Emma was at significant risk of personal and financial harm and that the Sauls and the Gabeleins unduly influenced and exploited Emma. Because substantial evidence supports the trial court's determination that Emma is incapacitated as to her person and as to her estate, that Emma is a vulnerable adult under the AVA, and that the Sauls and the Gabeleins exploited and unduly influenced Emma to sell her Whidbey Island view property to them for significantly below fair market value, we affirm.

FACTS

¶ 2 Emma Endicott is an 80-year-old woman who has lived almost her entire life on Whidbey Island and was married to Orvel "Shorty" Endicott for 43 years. Emma has two sons from an earlier marriage, John Earl (Earl) Fisher and Robert (Bob) Fisher. Shorty and Emma had twin sons, Ronald (Ron) Endicott and Donald (Don) Endicott. Ron and Don lived with Emma and Shorty for most of their lives. Emma's son Earl lives with his family in Seattle. Bob and his spouse Sandy live nearby in the house built by Emma's father.

¶ 3 Emma and Shorty lived in a small neighborhood on Whidbey Island that has scenic views of Mutiny In 1947, Shorty inherited 24 acres of view property overlooking Mutiny Bay. In 1976, Emma inherited five acres and a one-third interest in her parents' house that is.located in the same general area.

¶ 4 During their 43-year marriage, Shorty managed and controlled all the finances and Emma and Shorty lived an extremely frugal life. Emma has never had a checking account or a credit card. Emma also never obtained a driver's license and, until shortly before the trial in this case, did not have a telephone.

¶ 5 Shorty died in 1998, leaving Emma the family home, the 24 acres of view and waterfront property, $114,000 in savings, and $556 per month from his pension benefits. Emma took over managing the finances and the property. After Shorty died, friends described Emma as devastated, lonely, and lost.

¶ 6 Initially, Emma relied on Ron and Don. But increasingly, Emma came to rely on Linda Gabelein and Samantha Saul. Linda is married to Vernon Gabelein. Emma's brother is married to Vernon Gabelein's sister. Linda has two daughters from a previous marriage, Samantha Saul and Dina Thompson. Samantha is married to Robert Saul, who grew up on Whidbey Island with Ron and Don. Linda Gabelein and Samantha Saul own homes in the same neighborhood as Emma and are both real estate agents with Windermere Real Estate (Windermere). Emma testified that Linda is like a daughter to her and that she worships Linda. Emma was also very close to Samantha. in June 2003, Emma executed a durable power of attorney, giving Samantha the authority to make all decisions on her behalf.

¶ 7 It is undisputed that Emma wants to live on her own in her house on Whidbey Island for the rest of her life. When Shorty died, Emma's childhood friend, Frank Robinson, offered to purchase a 445-foot beachfront portion of her property for $660,000. A long-time neighbor, Ray Lotto, later offered to buy most of Emma's property for $1.5 million and give Emma a life estate in her residence. Instead, in three separate real estate transactions, Emma sold the majority of her property to Dina Thompson and her spouse, to the Sauls, and to the Gabeleins. After the three real estate transactions with the Gabelein family members, Emma was left with 13.77 acres, but over a third of it was swamp and marshland.

¶ 8 In September 2001, Emma decided to sell the five acres she inherited from her parents after Earl and Bob Fisher were unable to agree on how to pay expenses for the prokrty.1 After unsuccessfully attempting to sell the property by putting up a for sale sign, Emma asked Samantha, who had recently acquired her real estate license, to list the property for sale.

¶ 9 The assessed value for the five-acre parcel, was $82,326. Samantha originally listed the property for sale at $69,500. After two months, Samantha lowered the price to $64,500. When Dina Thompson and her spouse offered to buy the property for $52,000, Samantha acted as a dual agent for her sister and her brother-in-law and Emma. Emma relied on Samantha's advice and accepted the offer of $52,000. The court rejected Samantha's testimony that she did not suggest a price to her sister as not credible. Emma received $45,000 from the sale. Bob and Sandy Fisher were extremely upset that Emma sold the five acres and as a result were estranged from Emma for a number of years.

¶ 10 In February 2002, Emma sold another five acres of waterfront view property to Samantha and Robert Saul for $80,000. The 2001 assessed value of the property was $195,524. Samantha initially denied that she suggested the sales price of $80,000. But at trial Samantha admitted that she did. After purchasing the five acres, the Sauls invested $40,000 to $100,000 in improvements. When the Sauls applied for a home construction loan in July 2004, according to a bank appraisal, the five acre view property was valued at $400,000.

¶ 11 After the Sauls bought the property from Emma, Roy Lotto told Samantha he was willing to pay $1.5 million for the rest of Emma's property and would give Emma a life estate in her residence. Lotto said Samantha told him that she would be able to get the property for him. But in June 2004, Emma signed a purchase and sale agreement with Linda and Vernon Gabelein to sell five acres of prime view property next to the five acres Emma sold to the Sauls for $150,000. There is no dispute that the property was worth $324,000. The "Vacant Land Purchase and Sales Agreement" states that a five-acre parcel will "be created by Buyer paid short plat" with "all other expenses paid by Buyer" and a net purchase price of $150,000. The Addendum states that the "Seller may be selling the property substantially below market value as the property has not been exposed on the open market." The Addendum also states that because the buyer is a Windermere real estate agent, the agreement was "conditioned on review and approval by Sellers [sic] attorney." Because Emma's attorney was representing the Gabeleins in another real estate matter, Linda Gabelein arranged for Emma to meet with another attorney about the agreement. Emma's meeting with the attorney lasted approximately 20 to 30 minutes.

¶ 12 In September 2004, Emma and the Gabeleins signed another addendum to the Purchase and Sale Agreement that allowed the Gabeleins to assign their interest in the property to the Sauls and obtain a boundary line adjustment. It is undisputed that the purpose of the boundary line adjustment was to avoid the public notice requirement for a short plat and prevent Ron and Don from learning about the sale before it closed. According to an unchallenged finding, the Sauls and the Gabeleins acted with "deliberate secrecy" throughout this real estate transaction. Before signing the Addendum, Emma met with the same attorney again for about 20 to 30 minutes. Following the boundary line adjustment, Emma was left with a parcel of approximately nine acres, more than half of which is swamp and marshland. The sale closed on May 16, 2005. There is no dispute that, at closing, the property was worth $427,000.

¶ 13 During the evening of June 14, 2005, Emma fell down. Ron drove to Bob Fisher's house to call 911. When the paramedics arrived, Emma refused to go to the hospital. On the morning of June 16, Don found Emma on the floor and halfway under her bed. Ron and Don drove Emma to the hospital. Don said his mother's eyes were glazed, she was confused, and she did not know where she was. When they arrived at the hospital, the hospital personnel determined Emma was not competent to refuse hospitalization. The court concluded it was not likely that Ron and Don would have called 911 if Emma had not fallen, as they claimed. The trial court also concluded that Emma's memory was suspect and "she is suggestible to the memories of others, especially as to what happened the night before she went in to the hospital in June 2005."

¶ 14 At some point, Samantha notified the hospital that she had the power of attorney for Emma. Samantha also told the hospital social worker that Emma said Ron and Don hit her and that was why she was in the hospital. Samantha was present when the social worker interviewed Emma. Emma told the social worker that she did not remember why she was in the hospital, but that Ron and Don yelled at her a lot, that they were controlling, and they would not let her watch television. That same day, Emma filed a petition for a domestic violence protection order against Ron and Don. The court entered a temporary restraining order requiring Ron and Don to move out of the house.2 When Emma was released from the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
58 cases
  • 224 Westlake, LLC v. Engstrom Props., LLC
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • 30 Julio 2012
    ...findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and whether those findings support the conclusions of law. Endicott v. Saul, 142 Wash.App. 899, 909, 176 P.3d 560 (2008). Evidence may be substantial even if there are other reasonable interpretations of the evidence. Sherrell v. Selfor......
  • Proctor v. Huntington
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • 23 Septiembre 2008
    ...and convincing" standard of persuasion, which is met if the evidence makes the fact in issue "`highly probable.'" Endicott v. Saul, 142 Wash. App. 899, 910, 176 P.3d 560 (2008) (quoting Colonial Imps., Inc. v. Carlton Nw., Inc., 121 Wash.2d 726, 735, 853 P.2d 913 (1993)). This determination......
  • In the Matter of The EState Bussler
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • 8 Marzo 2011
    ...burden of persuasion is met if the trier of fact is convinced that the fact in issue is “ ‘highly probable.’ ” Endicott v. Saul, 142 Wash.App. 899, 909–10, 176 P.3d 560 (2008) (quoting Colonial Imps., 121 Wash.2d at 735, 853 P.2d 913). In determining whether the evidence meets the clear, co......
  • In re Estate of Palermini
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • 2 Agosto 2021
    ... ... fact [ 15 ] and whether those findings support the ... conclusions of law. Endicott v. Saul , 142 Wn.App ... 899, 909, 176 P.3d 560 (2008). In evaluating the sufficiency ... of the evidence, we view all reasonable ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Chapter C. Undue Influence
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Law of Wills and Intestate Succession (WSBA) Chapter 3
    • Invalid date
    ...644 (1986). Of course, a confidential relationship is more easily found when the subject is a "vulnerable adult." See Endicott v. Saul, 142 Wn.App. 899, 176 P.3d 560 (2008). 249 In re Smith's Estate, 68 Wn.2d 145, 411 P.2d 879 (1966), corrected, 416 P.2d 124 (1966) (attorney/beneficiary als......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Law of Wills and Intestate Succession (WSBA) Table Of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...210, 217, 223, 229 Emberson v. Hartley, 52 Wn. App. 597, 762 P.2d 364 (1988), review denied, 112 Wn.2d 1007 (1989): 24 Endicott v. Saul, 142 Wn. App. 899, 176 P.3d 560 (2008): 97 Erickson v. Bank of Cal., 97 Wn.2d 246, 643 P.2d 670 (1982): 264, 265, 266 Erickson v. Reinbold, 6 Wn. App. 407,......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT