The Estate Of: William Taylor: Patricia Caiarelli v. Reuben Taylor, Jr

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the Matter of the Estate of ) No. 76444-6-1
WILLIAM ROSS TAYLOR, ) (Consolidated with No. 76840-9-1)
)
Deceased. ) DIVISION ONE
)
PATRICIA CAIARELLI, )
)
Appellant, )
)
V. )
)
REUBEN TAYLOR, JR., EMILY ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
TAYLOR, and the marital community )
thereof,
Respondents,
CHARLES E. TAYLOR 11 and
ELIZABETH TAYLOR,
Defendants. FILED: May 20, 2019
SCHINDLER, J. — This is the third appeal in this case. The legal guardian of
A.C.T., Patricia Caiarelli, filed a Trust and Estate Dispute Resolution Act(TEDRA),
chapter 11.96A RCW,action against Charles E. Taylor II, individually and as the
personal representative of the estate of William Ross Taylor, and Reuben and Emily
Taylor to impose a constructive trust on nonprobate assets. Caiarelli alleged the will
established William's intent to have his brother Charles and his father Reuben hold the
No. 76444-6-1 (Consol. with No. 76840-9-1)/2
nonprobate assets as trustees for A.C.T.1 Caiarelli also alleged the family exerted
undue influence on William. In the first appeal, we reversed the decision on summary
judgment to award three AIG life insurance policies and a Fidelity individual retirement
account to Charles as the beneficiary and five Northwestern Mutual life insurance
policies to William's father Reuben. On remand, the trial court dismissed the undue
influence claims against Reuben and Emily. A jury found William designated Charles to
hold the nonprobate assets in trust for A.C.T. and in the alternative, Charles unduly
influenced William to designate him as the beneficiary. The trial court entered a
judgment on the jury verdict against Charles for $1,422,077.54 and awarded Caiarelli
attorney fees and costs. We affirmed the jury verdict but reversed the decision to
dismiss the undue influence claim against Reuben and Emily. On remand, a jury found
Reuben and Emily exerted undue influence over William to designate Reuben as the
owner of the insurance policies. The court entered judgment on the jury verdict in the
amount of $451,491.33. Caiarelli requested $1,085,325.29 for attorney fees and costs,
including $195,791.78 for attorney fees incurred in the first trial. The court awarded
Caiarelli $623,806.70 in attorney fees and costs against Reuben and Emily. Caiarelli
appeals the award of attorney fees, arguing the court abused its discretion by deducting
attorney fees for delay of the trial and declining to award any attorney fees incurred to
preserve the undue influence claim against Reuben and Emily. We affirm in part,
reverse in part, and remand.
For purposes of clarity, we refer to the Taylor family members by their first names.
2
No. 76444-6-1 (Consol. with No. 76840-9-1)/3
TEDRA Action
The facts are set forth in In re Estate of Taylor, 159 Wash. App. 1003, 2010 WL
5464751, and In re Estate of Taylor, No. 68222-9-1 (consolidated with No. 68224-5-1)
(Wash. Ct. App. May 19, 2014)(unpublished), http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/
682229.pdf, and will be repeated only as necessary.
William Ross Taylor and Patricia Caiarelli were married in November 2001.
A.C.T. was born in May 2002.
In 2003, William lost his job and Caiarelli filed for dissolution of the marriage.
William prepared a will directing that in the event of his death, all of his assets were to
be held in trust for his son A.C.T., including the "Charles Schwab accounts(Schwab
IRA's,[2] Schwab One, etc.), my Fidelity accounts (401K, ESPP,[3] etc.), and all other
checking and savings accounts under my name." William named his brother Charles E.
Taylor II as the trustee, his father Reuben Taylor Jr. as the alternative trustee, and his
mother Emily Taylor as the second alternative.
The court entered the final decree in the dissolution of the marriage in February
2005.
In July 2005, William started working at a new company. William transferred his
Fidelity IRA and named his brother Charles as the primary beneficiary and his father
Reuben as contingent beneficiary. William purchased three AIG life insurance policies
and designated Charles as primary beneficiary and Reuben as contingent beneficiary.
That same month, William also signed a change of owner designation, transferring his
ownership of five Northwestern Mutual life insurance policies to his father Reuben.
2 Individual retirement accounts.
3 Employee stock purchase plan.
3
No. 76444-6-1 (Consol. with No. 76840-9-1)/4
In September 2005, William died in a boating accident. The will was admitted to
probate and Charles was appointed as the personal representative of the estate.
William's last will and testament made two bequests and left the remainder of his estate
to A.C.T. Charles identified the Charles Schwab accounts, Fidelity IRA, and AIG life
insurance policies as nonprobate assets. Charles obtained the proceeds of the AIG
policies and Fidelity IRA. Reuben obtained the proceeds for the five Northwestern
Mutual policies.
In 2006, Caiarelli as the legal guardian of A.C.T. filed a Trust and Estate Dispute
Resolution Act(TEDRA), chapter 11.96A RCW, action against Charles individually and
as the personal representative of the estate, seeking an order that A.C.T. was entitled to
the proceeds of all probate and nonprobate assets identified in the will and owned by
William at the time of his death. In November 2008, the court ruled as a matter of law
that the Charles Schwab IRA should be distributed to Charles as trustee for A.C.T. In
2009, the court consolidated the probate and TEDRA actions.
On March 9, the court found "extensive mishandling of the Estate."4 The court
removed Charles as the personal representative of the estate and denied the
appointment of all Taylor family members to serve as alternate representatives. The
court appointed Michael Longyear as the administrator of the estate.
The court ruled on summary judgment that Charles was entitled to the proceeds
of the three AIG policies and the Fidelity IRA and Reuben was entitled to the proceeds
of the five Northwestern Mutual life insurance policies.
4 Taylor, 2010 WL 5464751, at *2.
4
No. 76444-6-1 (Consol. with No. 76840-9-1)/5
First Appeal
In the first appeal, we reversed the summary judgment decision to award the
Charles Schwab IRA to Charles as the trustee for A.C.T. We remanded for entry of an
order awarding the Charles Schwab IRA to Charles in his personal capacity. We
reversed the summary judgment decision that Charles was the owner of the Fidelity IRA
and the three AIG polices and that Reuben was the owner of the five Northwestern
Mutual insurance policies. We concluded there were material issues of fact whether
"William intended to leave these assets to his son by entrusting them to his father and
brother in a representative capacity."5
On remand, Caiarelli amended the TEDRA petition to also name William's
parents Reuben and Emily Taylor and his sister Elizabeth Taylor. Caiarelli alleged the
will established William's intent that all his assets be held in a trust for the benefit of
A.C.T. and Charles, Reuben, Emily, and Elizabeth unduly influenced William to transfer
assets to Charles and Reuben.
Judge James Rogers presided over the November 2011 trial. The court
dismissed the claims against Emily and Elizabeth early in the trial. The court dismissed
the claims against Reuben at the end of the plaintiff's case. The jury returned a verdict
against Charles. The jury found William intended to designate Charles as the trustee
for A.C.T. for the Fidelity IRA and the AIG policies and alternatively, that Charles unduly
influenced William to designate him as beneficiary. The court entered judgment on the
jury verdict against Charles for $1,422,077.54.
5 Taylor, 2010 WL 5464751, at *5-*6.
5
No. 76444-6-1 (Consol. with No. 76840-9-1)/6
Caiarelli filed a motion for an award of $983,972.46 in attorney fees and costs
under TEDRA, RCW 11.96A.150. The court awarded "discretionary" attorney fees and
costs against Charles for the petitioner Caiarelli in the amount of $525,344.46 and
against the estate for the special personal representative in the amount of $400,963.13.
The court entered extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law on the award
of attorney fees under TEDRA. The court used a "percentage reduction" in reducing the
amount of fees awarded.
24. Caiarelli counsel acknowledge that some of the fees claimed for the
claims against Emily. . . during the time period December 2004 -
August 2005 should be deducted but unfortunately, the general entries
in counsel time records allow only some of that time to be specifically
accounted for by time entries, because some of the work for trial was
done for various parties at once.
25. Caiarelli counsel acknowledge that some of the fees claimed for the
claims against Reuben W. Taylor, Jr. should be deducted, but
unfortunately, the general entries in counsel time records allows only
some of that time to be specifically accounted for by time entries,
because some of the work for trial was done for various parties at
once.
26. There was some commonality of fact on the monetary claims against
Charles E. Taylor, Hand Reuben W. Taylor, Jr.
The court concluded, "[R]easonable billing judgment was not always exercised" and
reduced the fees by 10 percent. The court further "offset[]the remaining TEDRA"
attorney fees by 30 percent to take into account "the claims lost at trial" and time spent
on unsuccessful or unnecessary work, including "some reduction in fees for time on
claims against Emily and Elizabeth Taylor."
Charles appealed the order denying the motion for judgment notwithstanding the
verdict, and Caiarelli cross-appealed the decision to dismiss Reuben and Emily.
6
No. 76444-6-1 (Consol. with No. 76840-9-1)/7
Second Appeal
In the second appeal, we affirmed the judgment on the verdict and the award of
attorney fees against Charles but reversed dismissal of the claim of undue influence
against Reuben and Emily. We concluded the trial court erred by excluding evidence of
undue influence that was discovered during trial and should have been admitted. The
court remanded for trial on whether Reuben and Emily exerted undue influence over
William. We awarded attorney fees and costs on appeal against Charles, Reuben, and
Emily under TEDRA.
On remand, the case was reassigned to another judge. After a five-day trial in
2016, the jury found Reuben and Emily exerted undue influence over William to "gift the
five (5) Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance policies" to Reuben. The court entered
judgment on the jury verdict for the principal amount of $193,184.77 and prejudgment
interest in the amount of $258,306.56. The court imposed a constructive trust in favor
of A.C.T. in the amount of $451,491.33, plus post interest in the amount of 12 percent
per annum."6
Caiarelli filed a motion for an award of $1,085,325.29 in attorney fees and costs
under TEDRA, RCW 11.96A.150. Caiarelli argued the court should award "all attorney
fees requested by" Caiarelli's counsel for work performed related to the 2016 trial and
the $195,791.78 Judge Rogers deducted for the claims against Reuben and Emily.
Caiarelli asserted the 2012 order states the "fees requested" by Caiarelli's counsel
"were reasonable," "the claims against Reuben and Emily which were lost have now
been won," and the court should award prejudgment interest on the $195,791.78."
6 Reuben and Emily paid the judgment.
7
No. 76444-6-1 (Consol. with No. 76840-9-1)/8
In opposition, Reuben and Emily argued the court should reduce the amount of
fees awarded to Caiarelli, taking into account the amount in controversy, late disclosure
of an expert witness resulting in "double trial preparation," and duplicative billing.
On March 20, 2017, the court entered an order awarding Caiarelli attorney fees
of $605,842.00 and costs of $17,964.48. The court concluded Caiarelli "should in equity
be awarded attorney fees and costs for the work her attorneys performed." The court
found the hourly rates of the attorneys for work performed during the 2016 trial were
reasonable. The court deducted attorney fees for three different categories: (1)"[W]ork
on motions that were either unsuccessful or which were never presented to the Court,"
(2)"work performed between June 24, 2016 and October 10, 2016 (a delay caused by
an untimely disclosure of Dr. Duthie as an expert witness)," and (3) work during and
after trial that "the Court deemed to be duplicative of work performed by other
attorneys."
The order states the court "declines to award any of the legal fees incurred by
Ms. Caiarelli in conjunction with the November 2011 trial." The court rejected the
argument that Caiarelli was entitled to an award of $195,791.78. The court states there
is "no finding by Judge Rogers that these fees were reasonable," the evidence
presented in the 2016 trial "was significantly different," and additional "extensive legal
research was performed before to the second trial, indicating that what had been done
previously was of little use in the second trial."
Third Appeal
Caiarelli appeals the 2017 "Order on Petitioner's Motion for Attorney Fees [and]
Costs." Caiarelli contends the court abused its discretion by reducing the award of fees
8
No. 76444-6-1 (Consol. with No. 76840-9-1)/9
for the work performed between June 24, 2016 and October 10, 2016 and declining to
award attorney fees of $195,791.78 for work performed in the first trial related to the
undue influence claim against Reuben and Emily.
RCW 11.96A.150 gives the trial court the discretion to award attorney fees.7
RCW 11.96A.150(1) states:
Either the superior court or any court on an appeal may, in its discretion,
order costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, to be awarded to any
party: (a) From any party to the proceedings;(b)from the assets of the
estate or trust involved in the proceedings; or (c)from any nonprobate
asset that is the subject of the proceedings. The court may order the
costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, to be paid in such amount and
in such manner as the court determines to be equitable. In exercising its
discretion under this section, the court may consider any and all factors
that it deems to be relevant and appropriate, which factors may but need
not include whether the litigation benefits the estate or trust involved.
"In exercising its discretion under this section, the court may consider any and all
factors that it deems to be relevant and appropriate, which factors may but need not
include whether the litigation benefits the estate or trust involved." RCW 11.96A.150(1).
We review a trial court's decision to award attorney fees under TEDRA for an abuse of
discretion. In re Estate of Black, 153 Wash. 2d 152, 173, 102 P.3d 796 (2004).
We will uphold an attorney fee award unless the trial court manifestly abused its
discretion. Berryman v. Metcalf, 177 Wash. App. 644, 656-57, 312 P.3d 745 (2013). A
court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on
untenable grounds or reasons. Chuonq Van Pham v. Seattle City Light, 159 Wash. 2d
527, 538, 151 P.3d 976 (2007).
7 Because the unambiguous language of RCW 11.96A.150 gives the court the discretion to award
attorney fees, we reject Caiarelli's argument that review is de novo.
9
No. 76444-6-1 (Consol. with No. 76840-9-1)/10
We review findings of fact to determine whether the findings are supported by
substantial evidence and support the trial court's conclusions of law. In re Estate of
Haves, 185 Wash. App. 567, 609, 342 P.3d 1161 (2015); 224 Westlake, LLC v. Engstrom
Props., LLC, 169 Wash. App. 700, 720, 281 P.3d 693(2012).
Reduction of Fee Award for Trial Delay
Caiarelli contends the court erred by reducing the award of fees for work
performed during a three and a half-month trial delay between June 24 and October 10,
2016.
"A determination of reasonable attorney fees begins with a calculation of the
'lodestar'"—the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a
reasonable hourly rate. 224 Westlake, 169 Wash. App. at 734. The court should discount
hours "spent on unsuccessful claims, duplicated effort, or otherwise unproductive time."
Bowers v. Transamerica Title Ins. Co., 100 Wash. 2d 581, 597,675 P.2d 193 (1983). The
trial judge "'who has watched the case unfold . . . is in the best position to determine
which hours should be included'"and excluded from an award of reasonable attorney
fees. 224 Westlake, 169 Wash. App. at 7358 (quoting Chuang Van Pham, 159 Wash. 2d at
540).
Caiarelli contends the disclosure of expert witness Dr. Bruce Duthie was not
untimely and the billing records do not support the amount of the deduction. The record
does not support her argument.
8 Alteration in original.
10
No. 76444-6-1 (Consol. with No. 76840-9-1)/11
On remand, the parties agreed to a trial date of May 11, 2015. After granting
Caiarelli's motion to conduct additional discovery, the court continued the trial to
September 28, 2015. The new case schedule states, "Both parties have filed
disclosures" for primary witnesses. The court set July 6, 2015 as the deadline for
disclosure of possible additional witnesses.
On July 6, Caiarelli filed the "Disclosure of Possible Primary and Additional
Witnesses." Caiarelli identified Dr. James K. Boehnlein as a possible expert witness:
Dr[.] Boehnlein is an expert in human psychiatry. He has testified in both
federal and state courts. His expertise is the result of knowledge gained
from his education, training, and teaching and practice in medical specialty
of psychiatry. . . .
Qualifications: Medical doctor teaching and practicing psychiatry.
Caiarelli described the anticipated testimony of Dr. Boehnlein as follows:
Based upon his education, training and experience as medical
psychiatrist, Dr. Boehnlein may provide an expert opinion based on
reasonable medical probability/ more likely than not, that William R
Taylor's [sic] was suffering from anxiety/depression and likely more easily
influenced by his Taylor family members than he likely would have been
but for the anxiety/depression and significant stresses he was
experiencing.
Reuben, Emily, and personal representative Longyear entered into settlement
discussions in July. The court ordered Caiarelli to participate "in any mediation" and
instructed "all parties and counsel" to "negotiate in good faith." Reuben, Emily, and
Longyear entered into a CR 2A agreement and filed a motion to approve the settlement.
The court struck the September 2015 trial date pending a decision on whether
the personal representative has authority "to settle TEDRA claims against" Reuben and
Emily "without the agreement of" Caiarelli. The court ruled Caiarelli was a necessary
11
No. 76444-6-1 (Consol. with No. 76840-9-1)/12
party and denied the motion to approve the CR 2A agreement. The court rescheduled
the trial date for June 27, 2016.
Approximately eight months later on May 20, 2016, Caiarelli filed a Disclosure of
Possible Primary and Additional Witnesses. For the first time, Caiarelli identified Dr.
Duthie as a possible expert witness:
Dr. Duthie is an expert clinical psychologist and forensic psychologist. He
has testified in both federal and state courts. His expertise is the result of
knowledge gained from his education, training, teaching and practice. In
addition to his private practice, Dr. Duthie taught Forensic Psychology and
psychological evaluations at Antioch University, Seattle, in its Psychology
Doctorate program.
Qualifications: Clinical and Forensic Psychologist. Board certified by
American Board of Forensic Psychology.
Caiarelli provided the following description of the anticipated testimony for Dr. Duthie:
Based upon his education, training and expertise as a clinician and
forensic psychologist, Dr. Duthie may testify and provide expert opinions
based on reasonable psychological probability, more likely than not, that
William R. Taylor was suffering from psychosis, anxiety/major depression
and was more easily influenced by his Taylor family members than he
likely would have been but for his mental illness and significant stresses
he was experiencing.
On May 31, Caiarelli filed a witness list identifying Dr. Duthie as an expert witness at
trial.
Before trial, Reuben and Emily filed a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of
Dr. Duthie. Reuben and Emily argued Dr. Duthie "was not previously disclosed as a
witness" and Caiarelli "never supplemented discovery responses with the scope and
basis of the testimony now sought to be offered."
12
No. 76444-6-1 (Consol. with No. 76840-9-1)/13
At the hearing on the motion in limine, Caiarelli argued Dr. Boehnlein "could not
be available to testify in this time frame, so we substituted" Dr. Duthie. Caiarelli argued
the testimony of Dr. Duthie "is identical to the witness that was disclosed and laid out in
the July 2015 disclosure. The only thing that changed is the name."
The court denied the motion to exclude Dr. Duthie's testimony. The court ruled,
"Testimony from a psychologist with regard to what the health records reveal as to
William's mental state is incredibly relevant; it's the crux of the undue influence claim."
But the court ruled that Reuben and Emily should have "the opportunity to question this
specific" witness because he "could have completely different reactions, professionally,
to the records." The court continued the trial to October 17, 2016.
King County Local Civil Rule (KCLCR)26(k)(1) states, "Each party shall, no later
than the date for disclosure designated in the Case Schedule, disclose all persons with
relevant factual or expert knowledge whom the party reserves the option to call as
witnesses at trial." For expert witnesses, the party must include "[a] summary of the
expert's opinions and the basis therefore and a brief description of the expert's
qualifications." KCLCR 26(k)(3)(C). The case schedule in this case required the parties
to disclose all possible primary witnesses by February 23, 2015 and all possible
additional witnesses by July 6, 2015. Caiarelli did not disclose Dr. Duthie as a witness
until almost a year later on May 20, 2016.
Caiarelli argues she timely disclosed and "substantially complied" with the
disclosure requirements because the description of the anticipated testimony from Dr.
Duthie "was essentially identical" to Dr. Boehnlein's. The uncontroverted record
supports finding Caiarelli did not timely disclose Dr. Duthie as a witness. Caiarelli's
13
No. 76444-6-1 (Consol. with No. 76840-9-1)/14
argument also ignores the trial court finding that Dr. Duthie is a different expert witness
with different qualifications and bases for his opinions.
Caiarelli contends the trial court abused its discretion by taking "block
deductions," rather than reducing the attorney fee award to only specific billing entries
that were for work "related to Dr. Duthie," for work performed between June 24 and
October 10, 2016. The record shows the court did not reduce the attorney fee award for
work related specifically to Dr. Duthie. The court deducted fees incurred as a result of
the delay of the trial from June 24 to October 10 that resulted in both parties "preparing
for trial twice."9
The court did not abuse its discretion by deducting attorney fees for work
performed between June 24, 2016 and October 10, 2016.
Denial of Attorney Fees Incurred in First Trial
Caiarelli contends the court abused its discretion in declining to award attorney
fees of $195,791.78 incurred in the first trial for the undue influence claim the court
dismissed against Reuben and Emily.
Below, Caiarelli argued she was entitled to prejudgment interest on the amount
Judge Rogers deducted of $195,791.78. Caiarelli asserted the court "should award the
$195,791.78 which Judge Rogers deducted for the claims against Reuben and Emily
which he dismissed." Caiarelli argued, "If the Guardian had not litigated the case
against Reuben and Emily Taylor prior to and during the November 2011 trial, she
would have lost the proceeds from the Northwestern Mutual policies."
9 Likewise, the record does not support Caiarelli's argument that the court deducted
attorney fees
as sanctions against Caiarelli for discovery violations.
14
No. 76444-6-1 (Consol. with No. 76840-9-1)/15
The order states, "This Court declines to award any of the legal fees incurred by
Ms. Caiarelli in conjunction with the November 2011 trial." The court rejected the
assertion that Judge Rogers found the $195,791.78 that he deducted "were
reasonable."
This case first went to trial before Judge Jim Rogers in November 2011.
Ms. Caiarelli prevailed on her claims against William's brother Charles, but
her claims against Reuben and Emily Taylor were dismissed at the
conclusion of trial. When awarding attorney fees against Charles, Judge
Rogers deducted $195,791.78 from Ms. Caiarelli's fee request, finding that
this sum was either work attributable to the dismissed claims against
Reuben and Emily Taylor or was unnecessary or unreasonable. Ms.
Caiarelli contends that Judge Rogers determined that the entire amount of
the fees were reasonable, just not recoverable due to the dismissal of the
claims. This Court disagrees. There was no finding by Judge Rogers that
these fees were reasonable. In fact, he concluded that from July 2011 to
November 1, 2011, counsel did not use reasonable billing judgment and
reduced all fees requested by 10 percent. He then reduced the fees billed
by another 30% to take into consideration claims lost at trial. That is the
extent of the trial court's prior ruling on the legal fees incurred to prosecute
claims against Reuben and Emily Taylor.[101
Substantial evidence supports the court's finding. Judge Rogers found the
general billing records made it "impossible" to "separate time spent" on the dismissed
claims "by time entry only." Judge Rogers found the "amount of fees and costs" billed
by Caiarelli's counsel from filing the TEDRA action reasonable but "reasonable billing
judgment was not always exercised by Caiarelli counsel." Judge Rogers notes the
billing records demonstrate "the general 'kitchen sink' approach taken" and reduced the
fee request by 10 percent. The findings state that from July 2011 to trial, counsel "have
billed essentially full time, with what appears to be no regard to cost or other usual legal
business constraints." Judge Rogers further reduced the attorney fee award by 30
percent, or $195,791.78, "for the claims lost at trial" against Reuben and Emily and for
10 Emphasis in original.
15
No. 76444-6-1 (Consol. with No. 76840-9-1)/16
unsuccessful and unnecessary work. For example, the court notes Caiarelli "moved
very late for a trial continuance in the fall of 2011" that resulted in added expense, and
the parties incurred fees as "the result of Caiarelli counsel's unsuccessful motion
practice." The findings also state that Caiarelli's expert "note[d] billing errors or matters
billed unrelated to the issues herein" and that Caiarelli conceded in briefing that fees
"should be deducted for the unsuccessful Schwab appeal before trial." Further, in the
motion for reconsideration, Caiarelli concedes, "Judge Rogers did not enter a specific
finding stating that the 30% of the fees which he declined to award against Reuben and
Emily Taylor were reasonable."11
We reject the argument that the law of the case doctrine required the court to
award $195,791.78 in attorney fees. Caiarelli asserts the "rule from the 2014 opinion
was that all reasonable fees should be awarded to [Caiarelli]" if she "prevailed at the
subsequent trial" on the undue influence claim. The law of the case doctrine "refers to
'the binding effect of determinations made by the appellate court on further proceedings
in the trial court on remand.'" Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish County, 119 Wash. 2d 91,
113, 829 P.2d 746 (1992)(quoting 15 LEWIS H. ORLAND & KARL B. TEGLAND,
WASHINGTON PRACTICE: JUDGMENTS § 380, at 55 (4th ed. 1986)). Although we awarded
attorney fees on appeal under RCW 11.96A.150, we did not address the award of
attorney fees if Caiarelli prevailed at trial.
11 Because substantial evidence supports the court's findings, Caiarelli is not entitled to
prejudgment interest.
16
No. 76444-6-1 (Consol. with No. 76840-9-1)/17
The court also found that the evidence presented in the second trial was
"significantly different" and that "very little of the legal work for the first trial was relied on
in the second trial."
First, from this Court's review of the November 2011 trial minutes and its
observation of the 2016 trial, the evidence presented by Ms. Caiarelli was
significantly different. In the first trial, counsel had no psychological expert
to testify about the impact of William's mental state on his decision-making
when making inter vivos gifts. In the second trial, Ms. Caiarelli presented
the testimony of Dr. Duthie on this issue. In the first trial, Ms. Caiarelli did
not call her divorce attorney to testify about the dissolution decree and
William's obligation to provide life insurance sufficient to cover his child
support obligation to [A.C.T.]. This testimony was presented in the second
trial. This Court finds that very little of the legal work for the first trial was
relied on in the second trial. Counsel's billing statements show that
extensive legal research was performed before the second trial, indicating
that what had been done previously was of little use in the second trial.
For these reasons, the Court rejects the fee request of $195,791.78 in
attorney fees incurred in the November 2011 trial. Because the Court
refuses to award this sum, it need not address Ms. Caiarelli's contention
that she should be awarded prejudgment interest on this sum.
Caiarelli contends substantial evidence does not support the finding that the
evidence presented in the 2011 trial was significantly different from the evidence
presented in the 2016 trial. Substantial evidence supports finding that the evidence
presented in 2011 was "significantly different" than in 2016.
Preliminarily, we reject Caiarelli's argument that the court erred by considering
the trial minutes from the 2011 trial. The minutes of the 2011 trial are a part of the
record.12 See In re Adoption of B.T., 150 Wash. 2d 409, 415, 78 P.3d 634 (2003).
The record shows that unlike the first trial, the second trial focused exclusively on
the claim that Reuben and Emily unduly influenced William to change ownership of the
12 CJC 2.9(C) states, "A judge shall not investigate facts in a matter pending or impending before
that judge, and shall consider only the evidence presented and any facts that may properly be judicially
noticed, unless expressly authorized by law."
17
No. 76444-6-1 (Consol. with No. 76840-9-1)/18
five Northwestern Mutual insurance policies. In the second trial, Caiarelli presented
new evidence of phone records and charts showing the extent of the communication
between William, Reuben, and Emily during the summer of 2005. Dr. Duthie presented
extensive expert testimony about William's mental state in the months leading to his
death in September 2005.
Although substantial evidence supports the court's finding that the evidence at
the second trial was significantly different and that Judge Rogers did not find the
$195,791.78 was either reasonable or the deduction was only related to the dismissed
claims, we conclude the court abused its discretion in declining to award any
reasonable attorney fees for the work that resulted in preserving the claim against
Reuben and Emily of undue influence over William. The 2012 order awarding fees
notes the "issues surrounding the various Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance policies
were separate facts and occupied significant time and effort by the parties." Following
the second trial, the court found:
The work of [plaintiff's counsel] resulted in a substantial benefit to
[A.C.T.]'s trust. Without the work of [plaintiff's counsel], there would be no
funds to put into a trust for [A.C.T.]. [A.C.T.] would have received no
funds from the Northwestern Mutual policies if the Respondents had
prevailed.
On remand, the court should award some amount of reasonable attorney fees for
the work that preserved the claim against Reuben and Emily of undue influence over
William to change ownership of the five Northwestern Mutual insurance policies.
18
No. 76444-6-1 (Consol. with No. 76840-9-1)/19
We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.13
WE CONCUR:
9.
13 We decline to award Caiarelli attorney fees on appeal under TEDRA.
19