In re the Estate of Tuott

606 P.2d 706, 25 Wash. App. 259, 1980 Wash. App. LEXIS 1960
CourtCourt of Appeals of Washington
DecidedJanuary 28, 1980
DocketNo. 6982-9-I
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 606 P.2d 706 (In re the Estate of Tuott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re the Estate of Tuott, 606 P.2d 706, 25 Wash. App. 259, 1980 Wash. App. LEXIS 1960 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

Dore, J.

Petitioner sought to recover certain community funds and assets in probate from her daughters. The trial court ruled that such claims were barred by laches.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred when it ruled that the petitioner's claims were barred by laches.

Facts

On June 25, 1974, Jay Tuott died testate. He was survived by his wife Elizabeth, two daughters, and a son. On July 3, 1974, daughter Anne was confirmed as executrix of Tuott's separate estate and his widow Elizabeth was appointed administratrix of his community estate. There was only one probate number assigned to both the separate and community estates.

As administratrix of the community estate, Elizabeth paid numerous community property claims. The community estate is now insolvent and unable to satisfy several remaining claims and community costs of administration.

On September 3, 1974, Elizabeth, as administratrix, employed a "Citation and Order to Show Cause" directed to decedent's daughters to show why they should not be ordered to return various community assets which Elizabeth claimed were fraudulently obtained. These assets included (1) an automobile, (2) monies earned during the 2-week operation of a community-owned store, (3) cash taken from the store account, (4) furniture, and (5) loss of income from a farm.

[261]*261On July 2, 1976, Anne resigned as executrix of the separate estate. Attorney Leo Gese was appointed administrator de honis non, as her replacement. Upon her resignation, Anne furnished no accounting in connéction with her term of administration. There was no judicial determination concerning which assets were separate and which were community, nor which liabilities were separate or community. On December 16, 1977, Gese submitted a final report and petition for distribution. On February 16, 1978, the trial court entered an order approving Gese's report despite the aforementioned deficiencies. On January 12, 1978, Elizabeth submitted her final report and petition for distribution. Included in this account were claims for six community items allegedly illegally taken by decedent's daughters.

On August 3,1978, a trial was held in Snohomish County Superior Court on the administrator's report. The trial court dismissed the claims against the decedent's daughters holding that they were barred by laches. The court stated:

It is the court's opinion that these matters all have to be checked on the basis of laches, that an accounting should have been brought during the lifetime of this estate and that there was a failure to do that. . .

Decision

Laches is the inexcusable delay in asserting a right. Thus, the defense relates to the neglect, for an unreasonable length of time, to do what should have been done. Arnold v. Melani, 75 Wn.2d 143, 437 P.2d 908 (1968). There is no hard and fast rule as to the length of time that will bar a proceeding for an accounting. The determination depends upon the facts of each case and the trial court is vested with large discretion. Northern Pac. Ry. v. Boyd, 177 F. 804 (9th Cir. 1910), aff'g Boyd v. Northern Pac. Ry., 170 F. 779 (E.D. Wash. 1909), aff'd, 228 U.S. 482, 57 L. Ed. 931, 33 S. Ct. 554 (1913).

The trial court based its laches ruling on the basis that administratrix Elizabeth never brought an action for accounting, nor did she bring this action during the lifetime [262]*262of Tuott's separate estate. However, the record indicates that Elizabeth did bring an action for accounting. Elizabeth's finsd report and petition for distribution included numerous claims for community items allegedly taken by the daughters. On August 3,1978, after notice to all parties, a hearing was held in which the court heard extensive evidence on the merits of Elizabeth's claim. Consequently it is clear that an action was brought during the lifetime of the estate.

It is well settled that the resignation of an executor does not take effect until he has made a proper accounting and settlement of the assets in his hands. Magraw v. Donovan, 177 F. Supp. 803 (D. Minn. 1959). The same is true under the probate code of this state.

RCW 11.76.0101 requires a personal representative to make an annual report. In addition, RCW 11.28.2902 requires a retiring personal representative to make a report [263]*263and account for the property in her possession before being released by the probate court.

As executrix of the Tuott separate estate, Anne made no accounting prior to her resignation. Therefore, the court had no jurisdiction to discharge her without requiring a compliance with RCW 11.28.290.

A final report serves a very special function to the probate court. As stated in In re Krueger's Estate, 11 Wn.2d 329, 343, 119 P.2d 312 (1941):

They were designed, first, to inform the court of the financial condition of the estate at a given date as well as the changes occurring over a period of time, and of the progress accomplished toward the final settlement; second, to aid the legal representative in his management.

We conclude that executrix Anne's failure to comply with the procedure set forth in our probate code renders her resignation ineffective. We further hold that administratrix Elizabeth's claims as set forth in her final report were not barred by laches. The trial court's order closing the community estate shall be set aside and this probate is remanded to the trial court, wherein the trial court shall require an accounting from Anne, pursuant to RCW 11.76-.010 and RCW 11.28.290, and take all available legal steps to recover all community assets, if any.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

James, A.C.J., and Andersen, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Meryhew v. Gillingham
893 P.2d 692 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
606 P.2d 706, 25 Wash. App. 259, 1980 Wash. App. LEXIS 1960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-tuott-washctapp-1980.