[WSBAPT] Nonintervention PR not keeping beneficiaries informed

Fri Mar 14 13:13:09 PDT 2025

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES?

I’m really enjoying this discussion about how far a PR can, should, or must go to keep beneficiaries informed.  

Ironically, today we have another article about the PR (appointed primarily in Kitsap County) now on the run over his “probate for profit” scheme. (Here’s the latest article <https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/tacoma-man-on-the-run-in-probate-for-profit-scheme-ags-office-says/> from the Seattle Times if you missed it. ) This guy reportedly exploited his role as a professional fiduciary, appointed as PR or involved in “at least 213 estates”, which were opened mostly in Kitsap County (Decedents from several counties), only to abscond with estate funds after selling off properties. 

I suspect we’ll see courts growing more cautious with non-intervention estates and low-bond PR appointments. Testators, PRs, and attorneys alike naturally want to reduce probate costs by limiting court oversight, minimizing bonds, and sometimes limiting communication with anxious beneficiaries.  However, this case highlights how those very cost-saving measures might increase risks, potentially leading to greater scrutiny in the future.

Chris Neil | Attorney | Neil & Neil, P.S.
5302 Pacific Avenue, Tacoma, WA 98408 | Chris.Neil at NeilLaw.com
(253)475-8600 | f:(253)473-5746
So that you know: This email address is not continuously monitored. So, if your matter is urgent, please phone my office.
Also, this message is not encrypted. Therefore, it may not be secure. This message and attachments are confidential and may contain privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by email or 253-475-8600 and delete this message from your information system. Further use, disclosure, or copying of information in this email is not authorized, and receipt by anyone other than the named recipient is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege; or other confidentiality protections.  Thank you. 

> On Mar 14, 2025, at 12:26 PM, Carmen Rowe <carmen at gryphonlawgroup.com> wrote:
> 
> Dittoing both Paul (that I am not trying to be contrarian) and Eric (both his comments about transparency avoiding problems, but also having represented PRs fending off problematic requests, whether in nature or in volume), I have to say that I come down on the side of none of these general fiduciary duties giving rise to a claim for information. These are about execution of the duties. If a PR did not execute the duties in accordance with these principles, yes there is liability. But unless the beneficiary has some role in executing one or another function, none of this requires the procedural step of keeping people updated on each step along the way. 
> 
> On the issue of sale of property, for example - if the PR did not sell the property for what someone thinks is a FMV, or there was some collusion that harmed the beneficiaries (even collusion is not enough alone - say the PR sold property to him/her/themselves, doesn't do it if beneficiaries not harmed and is equivalent to an arms-length transaction). Good faith, care, loyalty, impartiality to beneficiaries are all met if the end result is correct.
> 
> On the flip side, consider a beneficiary that is constantly asking about every step (seen it) ... that is constantly challenging steps (seen it) ... whose nosiness about the sale comes about from intent to mess with it in some way (seen it) ... constantly pushing to get their money ASAP and not wanting to be patient to let the entire process play out (seen it) ... are desparate to push for a partial distribution when a major asset sells regardless of other factors that may be in play for the PR (seen it) ... etc. Your client may be fair and reasonable about it all - but surely you can imagine other scenarios where people are not. Sometimes just disclosing information part way through can cause unwarranted issues that then drive up costs or complications or delay - and now by catering to one beneficiary you harmed the others, and violated rule #4. 
> 
> Or: perhaps your client's requests are valid, but if the PR has to communicate with your client, they have to send it to the other beneficiaries (impartiality), and one of them may be the ones the PR is worried about.
> 
> If there were concerns, I suppose you could bring a motion asking the court to perform some form of advisory role (which is what you're asking, really, just that court is giving the beneficiary the authority to do it), if there is provable evidence that something hinky is going on and you want to prevent a later harm. 
> 
> But wouldn't that defeat the non-intervention powers? Seems with that level of distrust you need to substantiate removal of the PR altogether.
> 
> Otherwise I think that in such an estate you are left with challenge to the end result, and PR liability if they failed in these duties in execution. 
> 
> Also consider statutory interpretation principles. When the statute expressly laid out very precise, specific obligations of timing and subject of notices and communications to beneficiaries, and that it would have been very easy to put in some language about "reasonable" or otherwise occasional status communications in-between but they did not, I think you would be hard pressed to say that there is an obligation under general rules of duty that are really going to executing the estate such that the end result is fair, absent a case that interjected that in the common law. Plus, the deceased opted for non-intervention, an option expressly afforded under statute.
> 
> I empathize with your client - but I think they are facing the limitations of a statutory structure set up to ensure fairness in every estate, and to every PR, not just a kind and reasonable beneficiary.
> 
> Carmen Rowe
> 
> 
> 
> Phone: (360) 669-3576 (direct cell)
> Email:  Carmen at GryphonLawGroup.com
> 
> Olympia/Lacey and primary mailing office:
> 1415 College Street SE, Lacey, WA 98503
> 
> Seattle office: We are currently moving our Seattle location - notice of new address coming soon!
> 
> Privileged and confidential: This message is confidential. If you receive this message in error, please let us know, and please delete and disregard any information it contains. We thank you for your respect in not sharing this email with anyone. 
> 
>> From: Marcus Fry <MFry at hawleytroxell.com <mailto:MFry at hawleytroxell.com>>
> To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto:wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
> Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] Nonintervention PR not keeping beneficiaries
>         informed
> Message-ID:
>         <SA1P221MB106625152DE5C88FA67BCA99CFD22 at SA1P221MB1066.NAMP221.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM <mailto:SA1P221MB106625152DE5C88FA67BCA99CFD22 at SA1P221MB1066.NAMP221.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>>
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> 
> A personal representative owes the following fiduciary duties (RCW 11.104B.050 as well as common law):
> 
>   1.  Duty of good faith;
>   2.  Duty of care- utilize the skill, judgment and diligence with would be employed by an ordinarily cautious and prudent person in the management of her own business affairs;
>   3.  Duty of Loyalty;
>   4.  Duty to administer an estate impartially towards all beneficiaries unless Will instructs otherwise.
> 
> Just to be clear, I represent a beneficiary who has requested information (both by filing special request for proceedings and directly via counsel) regarding the status of the sale of the property and other transactions and the PR has responded with silence or disclosure after the transaction is completed.  I believe this violates one or more of the above duties, imposed on even a nonintervention PR.
> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***
> _______________________________________________
> WSBAPT mailing list
> WSBAPT at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbapt

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20250314/26e136b3/attachment.html>