George v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 21 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 2:18-cv-01769-BJR |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
| Parties | ANN R. GEORGE, Plaintiff, v. LONNA L. JACKSON Defendants |
1) GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
2) GRANTING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT; AND
3) TO DISBURSE FUNDS FROM THE COURT REGISTRY
This matter involves an action brought by an elderly mother, Plaintiff Ann R. George ("Plaintiff"), against her daughter, Defendant Lonna L Jackson ("Defendant"), for actions performed by her daughter while serving as her mother's attorney-in-fact. Before the Court are two pending motions submitted by Plaintiff (1) a Motion for Entry of Judgment, Dkt. No. 58, and (2) a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 69. Defendant has failed to timely respond to the Motion for Entry of Judgment but has responded, albeit untimely, to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Having reviewed the motions, opposition thereto, the record of the case, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court will grant both of Plaintiff's motions. The reasoning for the Court's decision follows.
Plaintiff is 86 years old and currently resides in California. Dkt. No. 11 at 4, 7; Dkt. No. 69 at 2, 7. Her husband, William George, passed away in 2014. Dkt. No. 11 at 4.1 The couple had two children, Defendant Lonna Jackson and Bruce George. Id. Between 1973 and 2018, Defendant Lonna Jackson was married to George Alvarez and went by the name Lonna Alvarez. Id. Lonna divorced George and married Douglas Jackson in 2018. Id. Bruce married Debra George but passed away in January of 2019. Id. at 4, 6.
After William's passing in 2014, Defendant was appointed Plaintiff's attorney-in-fact. Id. at 4; See also Dkt. No. 69 at 4; Dkt. No. 70-1, Ex. E (General Durable Power of Attorney executed October 5, 2017) ("Power of Attorney"); Dkt. No. 80 at 2. At the time of William's passing, the couple owned three pieces of property: (1) an apartment located in Seal Beach, California, (2) a parcel of land in the Wilderness Village Community in Skagit County, WA; and (3) a home located on Lyman Ferry Road in Sedro Wooley, WA ("Berry Lane Residence"). Dkt. No. 69 at 2. Plaintiff resided at the Berry Lane Residence until 2017. Dkt. No. 11 at 5.
In late 2017, Defendant purchased a home in Anacortes, Washington ("AnacortesResidence"). Id. at 5; Dkt. No. 69 at 4. Defendant then relocated Plaintiff to the Anacortes Residence, where they lived together. Defendant sold the Berry Lane Residence in June 2018 pursuant to Defendant's Power of Attorney. Dkt. No. 11 at 6; Dkt. No. 69 at 6.
While living at the Anacortes Residence in June 2018, Plaintiff suffered a fall. Dkt. No. 11 at 6; Dkt. No. 69 at 6-7. Plaintiff reports she suffered a "large wound" on her head as a result and "lay undiscovered for several hours" until found by Defendant. Dkt. No. 11 at 6. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant "failed to obtain medical treatment" to address Plaintiff's wound. Id. During the Fall of 2018, apparently distressed by Plaintiff's condition, Bruce and Debra relocated Plaintiff to California to live with them. Id. at 7.
The instant case began as an interpleader action in which Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo") sought to determine ownership of funds transferred from a joint account in the names of Plaintiff and Defendant to an account solely in Defendant's name. Dkt. No. 1. According to Wells Fargo, these funds appeared to be the Berry Lane Residence sale proceeds as the funds originated from a check issued by a title company for $304,269.37 and labeled "Closing Proceeds." Id. at ¶¶ 13-15. In addition to the transfer of the sale proceeds, Wells Fargo also noted other large amounts withdrawn from joint accounts held by Plaintiff and Defendant and deposited into accounts held solely by Defendant. See id. at ¶ 16. Based on this activity and a complaint by Plaintiff, Wells Fargo restrained the $262,023.14 in Defendant's solely held account. Id. at ¶ 18. On March 18, 2019, the Court ordered Wells Fargo to deposit the restrained funds (totaling $256,797.74 after deductions for reasonable costs and fees) into the Court Registry and dismissed Wells Fargo fromthe action. Dkt. No. 13.2
Plaintiff answered Wells Fargo complaint on March 13, 2019 and asserted three crossclaims against Defendant. Dkt. No. 11. These crossclaims included (1) statutory claims under the Abuse of Vulnerable Adults Act, RCW § 74.34.005 et seq., ("AVAA"); (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duties; and (3) Negligence. Id. at 7-9. Specifically, Plaintiff based her claims under the AVAA on allegations that Defendant "financially exploit[ed] [Plaintiff] by misappropriating and comingling [Plaintiff]'s financial assets," id. at 7, and neglected to obtain medical care and "provide safe living conditions," id. at 8. As for her Breach of Fiduciary Duties claim, Plaintiff alleged inter alia Defendant "misappropriate[ed] and comingl[ed]" assets; coerced Plaintiff into relocating to the Anacortes Residence; and failed to obtain medical treatment after Plaintiff's fall in the Anacortes Residence. Id. at 8.
Plaintiff's Answer also included a demand for an accounting under RCW § 11.125.140, which provides that an attorney-in-fact must provide "receipts, disbursements, or transactions conducted on behalf of the principal," i.e., an accounting of financial transactions taken on behalf of a principal, within thirty days of being requested by the principal or court order. RCW § 11.125.140(9); Dkt. No. 11 at 9. Plaintiff made a formal Motion for Accounting on April 18, 2019, Dkt. No. 20, and the Court granted the motion on May 6, 2019, Dkt. No. 27.
In its Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Accounting, the Court gave explicit instructions as to the requirements for the accounting, including that it contain "all receipts, disbursements, andtransactions, made with Ann R. George's financial assets, or on Ann R. George's behalf, during the term of Defendant Jackson's authority as attorney-in-fact" and that it identify "the starting balance of any bank, stock, or investment accounts (the 'Accounts') in [Plaintiff] George's name, and identify any deposits and withdrawals therefrom, as well as the beneficiary of those transactions, and the ending balance of the Accounts." Dkt. No. 27 at 2. The Court also ordered that the accounting be prepared and organized according to the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and that it be due no later than June 5, 2019. Id.
No accounting has ever been produced and Defendant remains in noncompliance to this day. Despite granting several extensions, see Dkt. Nos. 32, 38, 45, 47, 49, the Court was forced to impose contempt and sanctions on September 18, 2019, Dkt. No. 56. Pursuant to its Order Granting Motion for Contempt and Sanctions, the Court penalized Defendant $100 per day to be paid to the Court for each day she failed to produce an accounting; granted Plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $5,868.00; and ordered Defendant to deposit $153,540.00, or whatever sum remained, from a personal account at Skagit Bank into the Court Registry as disputed funds. Dkt. No. 56 at 5-7.3 On October 16, 2019, Defendant deposited $20,200.00 in the Court Registry as the funds remaining from the Skagit Bank account. Dkt. Nos. 57, 59.
On October 17, 2019, Plaintiff brought her Motion for Entry of Judgment. Dkt. No. 58. In the motion, she seeks entry of a formal judgment as to the reasonable attorney's fees and costsawarded by the Court as Defendant had not provided the $5,868.00 to date. Defendant has provided no response to the motion. See Dkt. No. 63. On December 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Dkt. No. 69. In it, she seeks summary judgment for her claims for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and violation of the AVAA and an award of damages of $447,785.64.
The Court must grant summary judgment for Plaintiff if she is able to show there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact" and is thus "entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). "Material facts are those that may affect the outcome of the case." Inteum Co., LLC v. Nat'l Univ. of Singapore, 371 F. Supp. 3d 864, 872 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986)). A dispute is "'genuine' only if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact finder to find for the non-moving party." Far Out Prods., Inc. v. Oskar, 247 F.3d 986, 992 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248 ().
The movant, here Plaintiff, bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the movant can meet her initial burden, "the nonmovant must respond showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Landis v. Wash. State Major League Baseball Stadium Pub. Facilities Dist., 403 F. Supp. 3d 907, 914 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250). "If the nonmoving party fails to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, 'the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'" Perfect Co. v. Adaptics Ltd., 374 F. Supp. 3d 1039, 1041 (W.D.Wash. 2019) (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24).
In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court "views the evidence and draws inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Williams v. PRK Funding Servs., Inc., 596 B.R. 375, 379 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255). The nonmoving party, however, "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986), "Uncorroborated allegations and self-serving testimony will not create...
To continue reading
Request your trial