* Estate Of: Randall J. Langeland. Janell Boone, App. / X-res. V. Sharon Drown, Res. / X-app.

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
(not the court’s final written decision)
The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.

2016 JUL 18 	Ail 9:56
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the Matter of the Estate of
RANDALL J. LANGELAND.
JANELL BOONE,
Appellant/Cross-Respondent,
v.
SHARON DROWN,
Respondent/Cross Appellant.
No. 72758-3-1
(Consolidated with
No. 72759-1-1)
DIVISION ONE
PUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: July 18, 2016
Leach, J. — In this second appeal, Janell Boone and Sharon Drown seek
review of different decisions made by the trial court after remand from the first
appeal. 	Boone contends that the trial court should have found that her father and
Drown had a separate property contract. 	Alternatively, Boone claims that the trial
court mischaracterized property, exceeded its authority when dividing property,
and erred in awarding Drown attorney fees. 	Drown contends that the trial court
should have required Boone's counsel to repay funds delivered to it from the
court registry by the court clerk.
Because this court already decided as a matter of law that the property
acquired during the Langeland/Drown relationship was joint property subject to
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 72758-3-1 (consol. with
No. 72759-1-1)/2
equitable division, we reject Boone's arguments about any separate property
agreement under the law of this case. 	The trial court awarded Drown only joint
property. 	Thus, it did not erroneously award her Langeland's separate property.
Because Boone did not ask the trial court to include property that Drown acquired
or held during the relationship until her motion to reconsider the trial court's order
on remand, we decline to consider that challenge now. 	The trial court reasonably
concluded that Boone's motion to reconsider lacked a foundation in fact or law.
Thus, 	it did 	not 	abuse 	its 	discretion 	in 	awarding 	Drown 	attorney 	fees 	for
defending that motion. 	But the trial court denied Drown restitution for attorney
fees that Boone's counsel withdrew from the court registry based on untenable
grounds. 	We reverse the trial court's restitution decision and remand for the trial
court to enter judgment for Drown. 	Finally, we award Drown attorney fees for this
appeal, as permitted by RCW 11.96A.150.
FACTS
Sharon 	Drown 	and 	Randall 	Langeland 	shared 	a 	committed 	intimate
relationship (CIR) from 1991 until Langeland's death in January 2009. 	The two
lived together and shared household duties and expenses. 	They maintained
separate bank accounts. 	They tracked their monthly expenses, from groceries to
health insurance, and paid one another the difference at the end of each month.
-2-
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 72758-3-1 (consol. with
No. 72759-1-1)/3
Drown and Langeland bought a house in Bellingham in 1999. 	Langeland
paid $148,500 of the $158,500 initial purchase price, and Drown paid the other
$10,000. 	Drown signed 	a 	promissory note for $40,000 with seven 	percent
interest in favor of Langeland. 	She also signed a deed of trust securing the note.
The note required monthly payments, which Drown paid until 2008. 	Drown and
Langeland 	paid 	equally 	the 	house 	expenses, 	including 	property 	taxes,
improvements, and 	house maintenance. 	Due to Langeland's declining health,
Drown had primary responsibility for upkeep and maintenance.
Langeland formed a software business, J. Randall & Associates, in 1994.
Drown performed office work for the company from then until Langeland's death.
Drown and Langeland bought a sailboat together in 1998. 	To pay it off, in
2002 they took out a $65,000 equity loan secured by the house.1
Langeland became ill in 1998. 	From 2003 until his death, he required
daily medication and care as his medical condition became more complicated.
Drown 	cared 	for 	him. 	She 	also 	maintained 	the 	home 	and 	sailboat, 	while
continuing to work full time.
1 Along with the house (valued at $235,000.00), sailboat (sold for a net
$75,250.00), and business (with $19,257.47 in assets), Drown and Langeland
acquired the following during their CIR:
• 	An estate account containing $6,453.03
• 	A 2007 Toyota valued at $8,000.00
• 	2002 Honda valued at $4,500.00
• 	Household personal property valued at $1,078.00
-3-
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 72758-3-1 (consol. with
No. 72759-1-l)/4
Langeland died 	intestate in January 2009, survived by Drown and his
daughter, Janell Boone. 	Each asserted claims against Langeland's estate. 	After
a bench trial in May 2011, the trial court concluded that Drown owned half of the
personal property listed as jointly owned in the estate inventory and was entitled
to 24.7 percent of the house's sale proceeds. 	The court awarded Boone attorney
fees from the estate.
Drown 	appealed. 	In 	October 	2013, 	this 	court 	reversed 	in 	part 	and
remanded. 	We held that the presumption that property a couple acquires during
a CIR is jointly owned prevails over any presumption about the correctness of the
estate inventory.2 We further held that Boone failed, as a matter of law, to rebut
the joint property presumption as to three contested assets, the house, sailboat,
and proceeds from the software company.3 	We remanded for the trial court to
reconsider the proper distribution of joint assets and the issue of attorney fees.4
On 	remand, 	the 	trial 	court 	entered 	amended 	findings 	of 	fact 	and
conclusions of law (FFCL). 	The trial court found, 	consistent with this court's
decision, that the assets Drown and Langeland acquired during the CIR were
2 In re Estate of Langeland. 177 Wn. App. 315, 324, 312 P.3d 657 (2013),
review denied. 	180 Wn.2d 	1009 (2014). 	Joint property is 	in most respects
treated 	as analogous to community property for married couples. 	Connell 	v.
Francisco, 127 Wn.2d 339, 351, 898 P.2d 831 (1995).
3 Langeland. 177 Wn. App. at 327.
4 Langeland, 177 Wn. App. at 331.
-4-
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 72758-3-1 (consol. with
No. 72759-1-1)/5
joint property. 	It further concluded that the contract regarding the house "was not
executed by Drown or made freely, voluntarily and upon independent advice with
full knowledge 	of 	her 	rights"; 	that 	Drown 	signed 	it without "full candor and
sincerity" beforehand; and that Drown and Langeland did not follow the contract's
terms.
The trial court awarded Drown half of the joint property assets. 	It also
found that equity required it to distribute most of the estate's half of the joint
property assets to Drown. 	This included the other half interest in the house, the
company bank account, the estate bank account, a 2007 Toyota, and household
personal 	property. 	The 	trial 	court awarded 	Boone 	the 	estate's 	half of the
proceeds from sale of the sailboat and a 2002 Honda.
Boone challenges the amended FFCL. 	She asks this court to enforce the
alleged 	agreement 	between 	Drown 	and 	Langeland 	to 	keep 	their 	property
separate and their agreement about the house. 	She also asks this court to
reverse the trial court's award of $9,187 to Drown for having to defend against
Boone's motion to reconsider the amended FFCL.
Although the trial court awarded most of the estate assets to Drown on
remand and vacated its $70,000 attorney fee award against her, it declined to
order that Boone's counsel, Helsell Fetterman LLP, repay the funds it withdrew
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 72758-3-1 (consol. with
No. 72759-1-1)/6
from the court registry to pay this award. 	Drown cross appeals, asking this court
to remand for the trial court to enter judgment against Boone and her counsel,
Helsell Fetterman.5
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the trial court's characterization of property a couple acquired
during a CIR de novo.6 	We review the trial court's fact findings for substantial
evidence, without weighing the evidence or making our own factual findings.7
We review the legal basis for awarding attorney fees de novo.8 	We then
review the trial court's discretionary decision to award attorney fees and the
reasonableness of the amount for abuse of discretion.9
5 Excepting the house, deducting the estate's share of the Honda (which
Drown apparently kept), and adding the supersedeas funds withdrawn by Helsell
Fetterman and costs included in this court's mandate, the property the trial court
awarded Drown totaled $67,714.33. 	Drown asks for this amount in her reply
brief.
6 See In re Marriage of Skarbek. 100 Wn. App. 444, 447, 997 P.2d 447
(2000).
7 Prostov v. Dep't of Licensing. 186 Wn. App. 795, 819-20, 349 P.3d 874
(2015).
8 Hall v. Feigenbaum. 178 Wn. App. 811, 827, 319 P.3d 61. review denied,
180 Wn.2d 1018 (2014).
9 Hall. 178 Wn. App. at 827.
-6-
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 72758-3-1 (consol. with
No. 72759-1-1)/7
ANALYSIS
Law of the Case
As a preliminary matter, Drown contends that the law of the case doctrine
bars Boone's challenges to the trial court's characterization of the contested
assets as joint property. 	We agree. 	This court generally applies the law of the
case doctrine to preclude successive reviews of issues that a party raised, or
could have raised, in an earlier appeal in the same case.10
Boone contends that we did not consider, in the first appeal, the issues
she raises here. 	She argues that this court decided only the correct presumption
to apply and that Boone did not rebut that presumption by tracing the funds used
to 	purchase 	the 	contested 	assets 	to 	Langeland's 	separate 	property. 	She
contends that neither the separate property agreement nor the house agreement
was at issue at trial or on appeal, so she should be allowed to assert them now.11
We disagree. 	The law of the case precludes her arguments about the
separate property agreement and house agreement. 	We previously held that
10 State v. Worl. 129 Wn.2d 416, 424-25, 918 P.2d 905 (1996).
11 Arguing against Drown's motion for entry of judgment, Boone's counsel
acknowledged that Boone had the motive and opportunity to present the contract
issue on the first appeal, "I don't think that the Court of Appeals recognized [the
separate property agreement] as an 	issue. 	It wasn't really addressed, 	and,
frankly, that's on us." 	Counsel was incorrect that the issue was not addressed,
but his concession is well taken: 	the contract argument was available to Boone
on the first appeal.
-7-
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 72758-3-1 (consol. with
No. 72759-1-1)/8
"[a]s a matter of law, Boone failed to overcome the joint property presumption
with respect to all three contested probate assets"—the business, house, and
sailboat.12 	In doing so, we necessarily rejected the arguments Boone advances
now, that the separate property agreement prevented Drown and Langeland from
accumulating any joint property and that the alleged house agreement gave them
separate interests in the house. 	Thus, we "actually decided"13 the issues Boone
now raises again.
Boone not only raises issues this court already decided, 	but she also
reasserts the same arguments that she asserted in the prior appeal. 	Drown had
challenged 	the trial 	court's finding 	that she 	and 	Langeland 	had 	a 	separate
property agreement. 	In response, Boone argued, as she does now, that Drown
and Langeland "manifested an intent to maintain the separate character of their
property," 	and 	that 	"throughout their 	relationship, 	[they] 	split 	every expense
equally between the two of them." 	Boone also argued, as she does now, that
Drown and Langeland had a contract that established the house as separate
property.
12 Langeland. 177 Wn. App. at 327.
13 Fluke Capital & Mgmt. Servs. Co. v. Richmond, 106 Wn.2d 614, 620,
724 P.2d 356 (1986).
-8-
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 72758-3-1 (consol. with
No. 72759-1-1)/9
The law of the case doctrine is discretionary, and Boone suggests it would
be a "manifest injustice" not to enforce the purported agreements here.14 	But
declining 	to 	enforce 	the 	asserted 	agreements 	does 	not 	"result 	in 	manifest
injustice" because the equities heavily favor Drown. 	Also, 	Boone's arguments
lack merit. 	First, if we were to reach the merits of Boone's separate property
agreement claim, we would find that the record contains insufficient evidence to
prove this agreement existed. 	An agreement to manage property separately is
not the same as an agreement to convert property that is presumptively joint into
separate property.15 	The 	evidence 	Boone 	identifies as 	proof of the 	alleged
agreement proves, at most, an agreement to manage property separately. 	The
record contains no evidence that Drown or Langeland intended or attempted to
change the ownership of the property they acquired together.16 	Second, the
record 	belies 	Boone's 	assertion 	that 	Langeland 	"carefully 	negotiated" 	the
purported 	house 	agreement. 	Drown's 	testimony 	showed 	that 	she 	did 	not
understand the terms or the 	purpose of the agreement Boone now asserts.
Thus, substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings that that agreement
14 See Roberson v. Perez. 156 Wn.2d 33, 41-42, 123 P.3d 844 (2005).
15 In re Marriage of Mueller. 	140 Wn. App. 498, 506-09, 167 P.3d 568
(2007) (holding that oral agreement "to divide the remainder of [ex-husband's]
income after the payment of joint expenses" did not overcome presumption that
assets were community property (emphasis omitted)).
16 See Mueller, 140 Wn. App. at 507-08.
-9-
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 72758-3-1 (consol. with
No. 72759-1-1)/10
was not executed freely and voluntarily or with full candor and sincerity toward
Drown. 	Additionally, the record contains no evidence that Drown and Langeland
intended to convert their jointly owned earnings into separate interests in the
house. 	No 	injustice 	results 	from 	our 	refusal 	to 	reconsider 	the 	alleged
agreements here.
Langeland's "Separate Property"
Boone next contends that the trial court erred in concluding that it had
"'the 	power to 	award 	Langeland's 	separate 	property to 	Drown'" 	and 	then
awarding that "'separate property in its entirety to Drown.'"
Washington 	law "require[s] equitable distribution of property that would
have 	been 	community 	property 	had 	the 	partners 	been 	married."17 	All 	the
partners' 	joint property 	is subject to equitable division, 	regardless 	of which
partner acquired it or holds title to it.18 	But Washington courts also recognize that
because "equity is limited," the trial court may not distribute a partner's separate
property.19 	This includes property the partner acquired before the relationship
and 	property 	acquired 	"by 	gift, 	bequest, 	devise, 	or 	descent" 	during 	the
relationship.20
17 Olver v. 	Fowler. 161 Wn.2d 655, 668-69, 168 P.3d 348 (2007); see
Connell. 127 Wn.2d at 350.
18Connell. 127 Wn.2d at 351.
19 Olver. 161 Wn.2d at 668-69.
20 Connell. 127 Wn.2d at 351.
-10-
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 72758-3-1 (consol. with
No. 72759-1-1)/11
The trial court thus could 	not award 	Langeland's separate property to
Drown. 	The trial court's statement that it had the power to award Langeland's
separate property in equity is wrong. 	Boone contends that upon Langeland's
death, his interest in joint property became his separate property and was no
longer subject to equitable distribution by the court. 	Our Supreme Court has
rejected the argument that the 	death 	of one 	partner extinguishes the other
partner's right to equitable distribution of that joint property.21 	The trial court
awarded Drown only part of her and Langeland's joint property. 	It had the power
to award that property to Drown in equity, and it did not abuse its discretion in
doing so.22
Joint Property Held by Drown
Next, 	Boone asserts that the trial court erred in ordering distribution of
estate assets without considering property that Drown acquired during the CIR.
We agree that all of Drown and Langeland's jointly acquired assets were
subject to equitable distribution, including those that Drown acquired or held title
to.23 	However, 	Boone 	prepared 	the 	inventory 	of 	Langland's 	assets. 	This
included 	his 	interest in joint 	property. 	As 	Boone acknowledges, 	the estate
inventory here did not include Drown's assets. 	Boone did not challenge the
21 Olver. 161 Wn.2d at 670-71.
22 See Connell. 127 Wn.2d at 351.
23 See Connell. 127 Wn.2d at 351.
-11-
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 72758-3-1 (consol. with
No. 72759-1-l)/12
inventory through trial, an appeal, and remand.24 	"Matters not urged at the trial
level may not be urged on appeal."25 We therefore decline to consider Boone's
argument made for the first time in this second appeal.
Attorney Fees for Opposing Boone's Motion To Reconsider
After denying Boone's motion to reconsider its amended FFCL, the trial
court 	ordered 	Boone 	to 	pay 	Drown 	$9,187 	for 	attorney 	fees 	under 	RCW
11.96A.150. 	Boone contends the trial court abused its discretion in doing so.
RCW 	11.96A. 150(1) gives 	the trial 	court discretion 	to 	award 	costs 	it
"determines to be equitable," including attorney fees to any party from another
party or the estate.
The trial court explained 	that 	Boone's 	motion 	asked 	it "to ignore the
binding Court of Appeals decisions in this case." 	It further explained that Boone's
motion 	contended that the court should 	not have issued 	its amended 	FFCL
without an evidentiary hearing, even though she had asked the court to enter her
own proposed FFCL without a hearing.
This court's opinion bound the trial court on 	remand. 	It followed that
opinion with 	its amended 	FFCL. 	Boone's motion for 	reconsideration merely
24 Boone claims that on remand she asked the trial court to consider
Drown's jointly held assets before making a distribution. 	But she did so only in
her motion to reconsider after the trial court entered its amended FFCL.
25 Lewis v. City of Mercer Island. 63 Wn. App. 	29, 	31, 	817 P.2d 408
(1991).
-12-
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 72758-3-1 (consol. with
No. 72759-1-l)/13
repeated arguments that were unsuccessful before. 	The trial court did not abuse
its broad discretion in awarding Drown attorney fees under RCW 11.96A.150.
Restitution for Drown
Drown cross appeals. 	She claims that the trial court erred in denying
restitution of the estate funds withdrawn from 	the court registry and 	paid to
Helsell Fetterman for the now-vacated attorney fee award.
In June 2011, after Drown lost at trial, 	her counsel paid into the court
registry all the estate funds under his control.26 	In August 2011, the trial court
heard Boone's motion for $98,035.80 for fees and costs. 	It awarded $70,000.00,
but through a mistake failed to correct the amount in parts of Boone's proposed
order that it signed. 	As a result, the court directed its clerk to pay to Helsell
Fetterman $98,035.80 in attorney fees and costs from the court registry, "or as
much 	as 	is 	contained 	therein.27 	Helsell 	Fetterman, 	nonetheless, 	withdrew
26 These included $75,240.97 from Drown's client trust account. 	With an
added $23,525.85 from the estate checking account and J. Randall & Associates
business account, the court registry contained $98,766.82 of estate funds as of
June 9, 2011.
27 The trial court judge crossed out Helsell Fetterman's proposed amount
of attorney fees, $98,035.80, in some places but not in others. 	Boone's attorney
acknowledged in the hearing that the amounts should be changed to $70,000.00.
That is the amount the court stated at the hearing that it would award and the
amount it found to be reasonable. 	Moreover, despite the literal meaning of the
phrase "or as much as is contained therein," Boone offers no explanation why
Helsell Fetterman would be entitled to the entire contents of the court registry
regardless how large that amount was. 	Drown's reading of the order is more
reasonable: 	had 	the 	registry 	contained 	less 	than 	Helsell 	Fetterman 	was
-13-
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 72758-3-1 (consol. with
No. 72759-1-l)/14
$101,498.82 from the registry on August 24, 2011.28 	The record provides no
explanation why Helsell Fetterman did not return the excess funds to the clerk.
The trial court also ordered Drown to continue paying $683 per month into
the court registry to supersede the judgment that the house belonged to the
estate.29 	When this court remanded the case in October 2013, Drown had paid
$28,003 	into the 	registry 	as 	supersedeas. 	Because 	of 	Helsell 	Fetterman's
withdrawal, however, the registry contained only $25,271. 	In her cross appeal,
Drown asks for the $2,732 difference and an amount equal to the estate funds
ultimately awarded to her by the trial court.
In the first appeal, we vacated the $70,000 fee award against Drown.
Accordingly, Drown asked on remand that the trial court order restitution for the
amount Helsell Fetterman withdrew.30 	The trial court denied Drown's request. 	It
decided that she was not entitled to restitution under RAP 12.8 because she had
awarded, the order would have entitled Helsell Fetterman to the entire amount
therein.
28 	Helsell 	Fetterman 	did 	not 	notify 	Drown 	or 	her 	counsel 	before
withdrawing the funds or file a satisfaction of judgment afterward.
29 The trial court did not order supersedeas for the attorney fees.
30 In particular, Drown asked the trial court to award her $64,982.33 from
Helsell Fetterman and Boone, consistent with this court's mandate and the trial
court's 	FFCL on 	remand. 	She asked 	also that the trial 	court order Helsell
Fetterman and Boone to return $2,732.00 of Drown's supersedeas funds, for a
total of $67,714.33. 	She asked, alternatively, for a $67,714.33 judgment against
Boone coupled with an order that Helsell Fetterman return the $101,498.82 to the
court registry.
-14-
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 72758-3-1 (consol. with
No. 72759-1-l)/15
not paid any of the $70,000. 	The trial court further found that the record did not
show that Helsell Fetterman lacked authority to withdraw estate assets from the
court registry. 	It explained that Helsell Fetterman was acting pursuant to court
order.31 	It further explained, in denying Drown's motion to reconsider, that the
fees it authorized the clerk to 	pay Helsell Fetterman from 	the estate were to
defend the estate against Drown's claims.
In addition to the missing supersedeas funds, Drown contends that Helsell
Fetterman owes her $61,085.50, the portion of the withdrawn funds she says this
court determined 	belonged 	to 	her. 	In the first 	appeal, 	we 	awarded 	Drown
$3,896.83 for costs under RAP 14.4. 	Drown contends that the trial court thus
erred in denying her a judgment of $67,714.33 plus 12 percent interest.32
This court reviews a trial court's decision about restitution under RAP 12.8
for abuse of discretion.33 	The rules of appellate procedure "'will be 	liberally
interpreted to promote justice.'"34 Restitution is an equitable remedy, and the trial
court should award it "in appropriate circumstances" when a party "partially or
31 That order "direct[ed] the attorney for the Personal Representative to
withdraw the estate assets being held in the court registry and apply those assets
to the fees and costs incurred by Helsell Fetterman, LLP, in defense of estate
assets."
32 This amount is the sum of $61,085.50, $3,896.83, and $2,732.00.
33 Ehsani v. McCullough Family P'ship. 160 Wn.2d 586, 589, 159 P.3d 407
(2007).
34 Sloan v. Horizon Credit Union. 167 Wn. App. 514, 520, 274 P.3d 386
(2012) (quoting RAP 1.2(a)).
-15-
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 72758-3-1 (consol. with
No. 72759-1-l)/16
wholly satisfied a trial court decision" that this court then modified or reversed.35
To identify "appropriate circumstances," Washington courts look to the common
law of restitution as the Restatement of Restitution § 74 (Am. Law. Inst. 1937)
describes 	it:36 	"'A person 	who 	has 	conferred 	a 	benefit 	upon 	another 	in
compliance 	with 	a 	judgment... is 	entitled 	to 	restitution 	if the 	judgment 	is
reversed 	or set aside, 	unless 	restitution would 	be 	inequitable or the 	parties
contract that payment is to be final.'"37 	This rule is subject to an exception where
restitution "would not serve the purpose of remedying unjust enrichment."38
In In re Marriage of Mason,39 this court held that an ex-husband was
entitled to restitution from his ex-wife's trial attorney after the attorney's fee award
was reversed on appeal. 	The trial court originally ordered the ex-husband to pay
the 	attorney directly, 	under 	RCW 26.09.140, 	and 	named 	the 	attorney as 	a
judgment creditor.40 	Noting that the attorney was a "judgment creditor in his own
35 RAP 12.8; Ehsani. 160 Wn.2d at 589.
36 Ehsani. 160 Wn.2d at 590-91; State v. A.N.W. Seed Corp., 116 Wn.2d
39, 45-46, 802 P.2d 1353 (1991). 	In the current version of the Restatement, the
relevant section is Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 18
(Am. Law. Inst. 2011).
37 Ehsani. 160 Wn.2d at 592 (quoting Restatement of Restitution § 74).
38 Ehsani. 160 Wn.2d at 592.
39 48 Wn. App. 688, 692-93, 740 P.2d 356 (1987).
40 Mason. 48 Wn. App. 	at 691. 	The dissolution statutes provide, "The
court may order that the attorneys' fees be paid directly to the attorney who may
enforce the order in his or her name." 	RCW 26.09.140.
-16-
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 72758-3-1 (consol. with
No. 72759-1-l)/17
right" under that judgment, this court held that restitution under RAP 12.8 was
appropriate.41
The Supreme Court clarified the scope of Mason in Ehsani v. McCullough
Family Partnership,42 where it held that an attorney was not liable in restitution for
fees he had received as proceeds of a judgment that was later reversed. 	The
trial court initially awarded the defendants judgment against the plaintiff, who paid
the amount of the judgment into the client trust account of the defendants'
attorney. 	Then, at the defendants' direction, that attorney distributed those funds
to 	the 	defendants' 	creditors, 	including 	himself. 	The 	plaintiff 	successfully
appealed the judgment. 	On remand, the plaintiff asked the trial court to order the
attorney to return the fees as restitution.43 	The Supreme Court held that, unlike
in Mason, these were not "appropriate circumstances" for restitution under RAP
12.8.44
The Supreme Court acknowledged the general rule that a person who has
paid a judgment to another "is entitled to restitution if the judgment is reversed."
But the court identified an exception to this rule that applies when restitution
"would not serve the purpose of remedying unjust enrichment."45 The court held
41 Mason. 48 Wn. App. at 692-93.
42 160 Wn.2d 586, 588, 159 P.3d 407 (2007).
43 Ehsani. 160 Wn.2d at 589.
44 Ehsani. 160 Wn.2d at 593-94.
45 Ehsani. 160 Wn.2d at 591-92.
-17-
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 72758-3-1 (consol. with
No. 72759-1-l)/18
this to 	be the case where a 	judgment creditor's attorney receives judgment
proceeds from his client and retains them as payment for legal services. 	In this
case, the court explained, that attorney "'received the money as a 	bona fide
purchaser'.. . under 	the 	terms 	of 	a 	valid, 	preexisting 	agreement 	with 	the
judgment creditor."46 	Thus, the clients (judgment creditors), but not the attorney,
were liable in restitution under RAP 12.8.47 The court explained, "Mason actually
stands for the 	more 	limited 	proposition that an 	attorney paid 	pursuant to 	a
statutory scheme making him a real party in interest may be liable in restitution
for 	the 	amount 	of 	his 	fees 	when 	the 	trial 	court's 	favorable 	judgment 	is
subsequently reversed."48
This court distinguished 	Ehsani when it affirmed a 	restitution award in
Arzola v. Name Intelligence. Inc.49 	The trial court had decided that the amounts
an 	employer owed 	its employees were 	wages 	and 	awarded 	the employees
attorney fees under wage-claim statutes.50 This court reversed that decision. 	On
remand, the trial court awarded the employer restitution for the attorney fees.
This court affirmed that restitution decision. 	We reasoned that the judgment was
46 Ehsani, 160 Wn.2d at 593 (quoting Restatement of Restitution, § 74,
cmt. h), 595.
47 Ehsani, 160 Wn.2d at 595.
48 Ehsani, 160 Wn.2d at 596.
49 188 Wn. App. 588, 594, 355 P.3d 286 (2015).
50 Arzola. 188 Wn. App. at 591; RCW 49.52.
-18-
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 72758-3-1 (consol. with
No. 72759-1-l)/19
not paid directly to the attorney's client trust account, as in Ehsani, but instead
"itself awarded attorney fees to the lawyers as part of a statutory scheme."51 	We
noted that the trial court erred by awarding fees under the statute. 	We reasoned
that it would be inequitable to make the employer bear the cost of the employees'
attorney fees.52
Here, the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to order restitution for
the vacated attorney fee award. 	First, Boone and the trial court are incorrect that
Drown did not pay any of the $70,000 judgment against her. 	Whether the funds
Helsell 	Fetterman 	withdrew 	came 	from 	the 	court 	registry 	or 	Drown's 	bank
account, the record shows that Boone, Drown, and the trial court all understood
the attorney fee award to be a transfer from Drown to Boone.53 	Because the trial
court finally determined on remand that Drown owned the majority of the estate
assets, most of the money Helsell Fetterman withdrew from the court registry in
August 2011 belonged to Drown.
Second, 	Boone and the trial court are also incorrect that the registry's
payment to 	Helsell Fetterman was an 	administrative expense of the 	estate.
Helsell Fetterman did not represent the estate at any time when the firm was
51 Arzola. 188 Wn. App. at 594.
52 Arzola, 188 Wn. App. at 594.
53 For instance, in moving for the fees, 	Boone claimed she "should be
allowed to pay her attorneys the incurred fees and costs out of the Court Registry
now, pending deposit of said fees and costs by Sharon Drown into the registry."
-19-
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 72758-3-1 (consol. with
No. 72759-1-1)/20
accruing the 	awarded fees and costs. 	The court revoked Boone's letters of
administration 	in 	February 	2009. 	It 	appointed 	Carol 	Lenington 	personal
representative. 	She hired separate counsel, Brian Hansen. 	Boone asserts that a
brief exchange of letters with Hansen gave Helsell Fetterman authority to defend
the estate. 	But those 	letters cannot reasonably 	be construed to 	state this:
Hansen did not approve of Boone defending against any or all claims against the
estate. 	He 	said 	only that 	the 	estate 	did 	"not 	object" 	to 	Boone's 	seeking
recoupment of an 	IRA 	(individual 	retirement account).54 	Moreover, 	Hansen
demanded that Boone hold 	the estate harmless for 	her attorney fees. 	Both
Hansen 	and 	Lenington 	later attested 	that they did 	not 	request, 	approve, 	or
receive notice that Helsell 	Fetterman would defend against Drown's claims or
otherwise represent the estate. 	They added that they would not have approved
this 	action 	had 	they 	known 	about 	it. 	Instead, 	Lenington 	noted, 	the 	only
nonadministrator to work for the estate's benefit was Drown.
Thus, 	the 	record 	shows 	that 	Boone 	and 	Helsell 	Fetterman 	did 	not
represent the estate between February 2009 and June 2011. 	The statutes the
trial court cited to support its attorney fee award apply only to expenses for "a
personal 	representative" 	and 	its 	attorney 	or 	to 	"costs 	of 	administration."
54 Boone ultimately failed to recoup the IRA benefits from Drown, and the
trial court excluded the fees she incurred in that effort from its award.
-20-
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 72758-3-1 (consol. with
No. 72759-1-l)/21
Therefore, the trial court erred in awarding the fees to Helsell Fetterman under
RCW 11.48 and 11.76.55
Boone nonetheless contends that Ehsani precludes restitution here. 	She
contends 	Mason 	does 	not apply 	because 	Helsell 	Fetterman did 	not receive
payment directly from Drown under a statutory scheme making the firm a real
party in interest.
Again, 	we 	disagree. 	Helsell 	Fetterman, 	like 	the 	attorney 	in 	Mason,
received attorney fees through a court order directing that the fees be paid to it
under statutes providing for attorney fees to be paid directly to the attorney.56
This made the firm a "real party in interest" in the Ehsani court's words. 	The trial
court directed the clerk to pay the fees directly to Helsell Fetterman, not to a
client trust account as in Ehsani. 	As in Arzola, the trial court's statutory basis for
the fees was wrong.57
Finally, it would be inequitable to allow Helsell Fetterman to keep Drown's
supersedeas funds or the assets the trial court determined belong to Drown.58
55 RCW 11.48.050 provides that an estate's personal representative "shall
be allowed all necessary expenses in the care, management, and settlement of
the estate." 	RCW 11.48.210 allows "just and reasonable" compensation for a
personal representative and its attorney. 	RCW 11.76.110 provides for "payment
of costs of administration" before payment of any other debts of an estate.
56 See RCW 11.48.050, 210; RCW 11.76.110.
57 See Arzola, 188 Wn. App. at 594.
58 See Arzola. 188 Wn. App. at 593-94.
-21-
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 72758-3-1 (consol. with
No. 72759-1-0/22
The trial court allowed Helsell Fetterman to withdraw $31,498.82 based on a
clerical error, then declined to remedy that error. 	Helsell Fetterman offers no
reasonable 	justification 	for 	keeping 	these 	funds. 	This 	court 	vacated 	the
$70,000.00 fee award, which, in any case, the trial court had based on the false
premise that Boone and 	Helsell 	Fetterman represented the estate. 	Allowing
Helsell Fetterman to keep those funds would deny Drown the practical benefit of
her successful appeal and cause her to pay her unsuccessful opposing party's
legal expenses. 	Drown, who shared her life with Langeland and cared for him
during nearly a decade of illness, would receive nothing from the estate except
Langeland's half of the house. 	Restitution is meant to remedy just this type of
unfairness.59
CONCLUSION
The law of this case precludes Boone's two main arguments, as this court
previously held that she failed to overcome the joint property presumption with
respect to the contested assets. 	Boone's remaining arguments lack merit. 	We
reverse the trial court's denial of Drown's restitution request because the trial
court based its conclusion that Drown is not entitled to restitution on untenable
grounds. 	We therefore remand for the trial court to enter judgment for Drown
See Young v. Young. 	164 Wn.2d 477, 484, 	191 	P.3d 	1258 (2008)
(notions of fairness and justice require recovery when a party would be unjustly
enriched).
-22-
59
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 72758-3-1 (consol. with
No. 72759-1-l)/23
with an 	interest rate in accord with RCW 4.56.110(4).60 	And considering the
same equities that compel restitution for Drown, we award Drown attorney fees
for this appeal.61
WE CONCUR:
60 See Arzola. 188 Wn. App. at 595 ("An award of prejudgment interest is
appropriate where a party retains funds rightly belonging to another party and
thereby denies the party the use value of the money."). 	Although the trial court
has discretion to reduce the maximum interest rate, it would abuse that discretion
to 	do 	so 	without 	setting 	forth 	adequate 	reasons. 	See 	In 	re 	Marriage 	of
Harrington. 85 Wn. App. 613, 631, 935 P.2d 1357 (1997).
61 SeeRCW11.96A.150.
-23-