Andrew Lee Benjamin v. Dalynne Singleton

:`> i',¢.i ' ‘~ ~'~' =-i:».i;,iii;ii' ZHI9JA?1’ 28 AH 10= 67 iN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF VVASH|NGTON ANDREVV LEE BENJAN||N, as Successor Aciministrator of the Estate of Lue Aiice Green, Appel|ant, v. DALYNNE SENGLETON and JOHN DOE SINGE_ETON, her husband, and the marital Community composed thereof, AND LAV\/ OFF|CE OF B. CRA|G COURLEY, PLLC, a V\lashington Professional i_imited liability Company, d/b/a GOURLEY LAVV GROUP, Responcfent. NO. 77684-3-| DEV|SlON ONE UNPUBLZS|'EED OP|NEON FILED: danuary 28, 2019 ANoRUs, J. _ Successor administrator Andrevv Benjamin appeals the dismissal of his legal malpractice claim against Datynne Sing|eton, the attorney for predecessor administrator i_eonardo Mor'ik. Because “neither an estate beneficiary nor a successor personai representative has privity of contract to bring a malpractice cause of action” against the attorney for a predecessor personai representative Trask v. But|er, 123 VVri.Zd 835, 847, 872 P.2d 1080 (1994), we affirm NO. 77684-3-{/2 E.M Lue Alice Green died intestate on Apri| 20, 2005. Green had eight children and three grandchildren entitled to inherit from her estate. The soie estate asset was a home iocated at 1425 East Union Street, in the Capito| Hili neighborhood of Seattle (the East Uriion Propeity). At the time of Green's death and antii the probate was filed, some of Green’s children iived in the East Union Property. Beniarnin contends that the shared living situation ended when one of Green’s sonsl i\/lonk, moved into the East Union Pi'operty with his girlfriend and his girifriend’s child, over the objection of other family members i\/lonk fiied a probate action in King County Supei'ior Court on June 16, 2016. Attorney Juiie Christenson originally appeared on behalf of iVlonk. VVith the apparent consent of the beneficiaries, the court appointed i\/lonk administrator1 of Green’s estate Without bond and granted ietters of administration On August 2, 2016, Daiynne Sing|etori appeared on behalf of |Vioni<. Sing|eton sought and obtained an order authorizing and approving the sale ot the East Unton Property. ln mid~i\lovember 2016, i\/ionk soid the East Union Property With net proceeds of $501 ,651.99, which he placed into an unb|oci<ed VVells Fargo bank account lVionk then spent over $110,000 of the proceeds for his personal usel violating a court order to disperse the proceeds to Green’s beneficiaries Benjamin alleged that on December 16, 20i6, the court removed both i\/ionk and Sing|eton.2 The court appointed Benjamin as successor administrator on 1 the terms "administrator,” "personai representative,” and "successor administrator" may be used interchangeablyl RCW “i t.02.005(11). 2 Singleton disputes this characterization of the December 16, 2016 order, contending that she voluntarily withdrew The December 16, 2016 order is not a part ot the record on appeal _2- |\io. 77684-3-|/3 December 19, 2016. On February 1, 2017, the trial court found that |Vionk had iliegaily converted $'i60,245.57 of estate assets and ordered him to repay this sum to the estate The court aiso directed Benjamiri to report the conversion of funds to the King County i"-’rosecutor for the imposition of criminai charges Furthermore1 the court suspended payment of attorney fees to Singleton and to John Woodbery, the attorney hired by two of Green’s beneficiaries Edward and Freddie i_ee Green. Finaily, the court ordered Benjamin to “investigate, retain counsel regarding, and give notice of a potential professional liability claim on behalf of the Estate and its beneficiaries against lVis Singleton for failing to make banking arrangements that would protect the estate and its beneficiaries from improper withdrawais.” Beniamin fiied this action against Singieton and the iaw firm for which she Worked, aiieging iegai malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty.'~" Sirigieton moved to dismiss Benjamin’s complaint under Civil Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that Benjamin lacked standing under Trasl< v. But|er. The trial court granted Singleton’s motion to dismiss Benjamin appeals .A..MS_§ We review a dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo. Tenore v. AT&T Wireless Servs, 136 Wn.2d 322, 329-30 , 962 P.2d 104 (1998). Dismissal is appropriate only if it appears beyond doubt the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts that woqu justify recovery. ga ln reviewing the record, we assume the plaintiff’s aliegations are true. _l__cL at 330. 3 Singleton was employed as an independent contractor by the law firm of Respondent Law Office of B. Craig G~ourleyl Pt,LC. We refer to the Respondents coliectiveiy as “Singieton.” _3_ NO. 77684-3-§/4 Benjamin alleged Singleton breached the standard of care of a reasonable probate attorney by faiiing (1) to inform the probate court of the discord between Nlonk and the other heirs (2)to require Monk to post a bond, (3) to seek the appointment of a guardian ad iitem tor a developmentally disabled heir, (4) to ensure the proceeds frorn the house saie were placed into a blocked or interestbearing trust account, and (5) to disclose i\/ionk’s theft of proceeds to the court Benjamin aiso aileged that Singieton owed a fiduciary duty to Benjamin and to the estate beneficiaries which she breached through her acts of maipractice. The facts of this case are anaiogous to those in _`L'_ra_sk. ln that case, Laurel S|aninka, the personal representative for the estates of her parents Johanna and George Trask, breached her fiduciary duty in the management of the estate’s reai property, and the court removed her as personal representative of both estates E_s_k_, 123 VVn.2d at 838-39. Laurei's brother, l:tussell1 was appointed as successor personal representative ld_. at 837, 839. Laurei and Russell signed a settiement agreement whereby Laure| gave Russei| her share of the estate in exchange for a release of liability _i_cL at 639. Russeli then filed a malpractice suit against Laure|’s attorney, Richard But|er, who had represented her in a quiet titie action and the sale of the estate’s real property, alieging Butier had negiigent|y advised Laurel, resulting in a ioss of $90,000 from the estate _i_d_*. The Court recognized that traditionaily, the oniy person who can sue an attorney for malpractice is the ciient. g at 640. After applying a six-factor baiancing test, it held that an attorney representing a personai representative owes no duty of care to either the estate or estate beneficiaries because they are incidentai, rather than intended, beneficiaries of the attorney-client relationship g -4_ No. 77684-3~1/5 at 845. The Court cleariy held that a successor personal representative on behalf of an estate, lacks the requisite privity of contract to bring a malpractice action against the predecessor personai representatives attorney § at 847. Like i_aure|, i\/lonk hired an attorney to assist him in probating his mother’s estate and the attorney assisted him in obtaining an order authorizing and approving the sate of Green's home Like Laurel, thonk misused estate assets and was removed as administrator. Beniamin, like Russeli, was appointed to succeed l\/ionk as administrator. Benjamin has not demonstrated why he would be deemed an intended beneficiary of Singieton’s iegal services When the Suprerne Court held that Russeli was not. Benjamin argues he stands in a different position than Russell did in Trasi< v. Butier because he is not a beneficiary of the estate But Benjamin brings this iawsuit in his representative capacity for the estate His complaint seeks damages “caused to [the] Piaintitf Estate." lt, thus makes no difference whether Benjamin is a beneficiary of the estate The Suprerne Court’s holding in M is clear: Singleton did not owe a duty of care to the estate Benjamin asserts standing under in re Guardianship of i(aran1 110 Wn. Appi 76, 38 P.3d 396 (2002) and Estate of Treadweli v. Wriqhtl 1‘i5 Wn. App. 236, 61 P.3d 1214 (2003).4 Those cases howeverl are distinguishable because both invoived attorneys hired to estabiish guardianships where as both courts explicitly said, the ward was the oniy intended beneficiary of the legal services the attorneys provided § Karan, 110 Wn. App. at 78-79, 85-86 (attorney's faiiure to comply 4 Beniamin also relies on in re the Estate of Wiiiiams, 153 Wn. App. t047, 2009 WL 5092865 (Div. 1, 2009). Because it was decided prior to 2013l it does not meet the requirements of Geriera| Ru|e 14.1, and we will not consider its applicability to this appeal. _5_ No. 77684-3~|/6 With statutory requirements resuited in guardian mismanaging the ward’s funds giving successor guardian standing to sue attorney on behalf of ward because services were not performed for the benefit of anyone other than the ward); Treadwell, 115 Wn. App. at 241 (successor guardian had standing to sue on behalf of ward after attorney’s omission of bond requirement in signed guardianship order resulted in issuance of letters of guardianship without restrictions resuiting in the guardian depleting the Ward's assets). Both EQM and Treadweli are factually distinguishable because Singieton‘s legal services did not involve the creation of a guardianship Her iegal services were performed for the benefit other ciient, i\/lonk, and as in T£s_k_, the estate and Green’s heirs Were incidental, not actual, beneficiaries of her services The facts of l'_[as_i< are more directiy analogous Benjamin also argues that denying him standing insuiates negligent attorneys from iiabiiity. The Supreme Court rejected this poiicy argument in Msk_. The estate and its beneficiaries have a legat remedy “[T]he personal representative owes the beneficiaries of an estate a fiduciary duty to act in the estates best interest |f the personal representatives conduct fails below this standard, the estate beneficiaries may bring a cause of action against the personal representative for breach of fiduciary duty.” `_l'_r_as_k, 123 Wn.2d at 843 . Those harmed by a personal representatives mismanagement of an estate do not lack iegal redress The _T_Lsi< court also recognized that, under Washington probate laws estate beneficiaries have the ability to take a proactive role in the management of the estate and to seek court orders directing a personal representatives actions No. 77684-3-i/7 § at 844. The estate beneficiaries had the ability to take measures to protect their interests against possible malfeasance by iVlonk. Finaliy, the Supreme Court determined that the “unresolvabie confiict of interest that an estate attorney encounters in deciding whether to represent the personai representative the estate, or the estate heirs unduiy burdens the legal profession." lg_. at 845. it decided this poiicy concern trumped the possibility that estate beneficiaries would be unabie to recoup money wrongfu|iy converted by a predecessor personal representative See also Parks v. Fink. 173 Wn. App. 366, 388-69 , 293 P.3d 1275 (2013) (beneficiary of will tacked standing to sue decedent’s attorney for negligent preparation of wiil; imposing duty of care diminished attorney's duty of undivided ioyalty to ciient). The same poiicy considerations exist here Singieton owed an undivided duty of loyalty to |Vlonk. Requiring Sing|eton to act in the best interest of the estate or all its heirs would create the risk of interfering with her duty of undivided ioyalty to him. The risk of such interference outweighs the risk of harm to the other beneficiaries Affirrned. /-atw_, %L. WE CONCUR: