; 

I 

1 

I 

i 

1 

_, 

l 

FILED 

MARCH 23, 2017 

In the Office of the Clerk of Court 

WA State Court of Appeals, Division Ill 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

DIVISION THREE 

In the Matter of the Guardianship of 

PAULA A. FOWLER. 

PAULA A. FLOWER and 

JOSEPH VALENTE, 

Respondents, 

v. 

LIN O'DELL, 

Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 32979-8-111 

UNPUBLISHED OPINION 

PENNELL, J. -Lin O'Dell served as Paula Fowler's limited guardian. Ms. O'Dell 

appeals the superior court's findings of fact, conclusions oflaw, arid order on show cause 

that found Ms. O'Dell violated several statutes and standards of practice and ordered her 

to (1) pay investigative fees, and (2) disgorge excessive service fees of $2,591.50. Ms. 

O'Dell appeals, arguing the superior court's order violated her due process rights. We 

affirm. 
I 

I 

I 

l 

f 

No. 32979-8-111 

In re Guardianship of Fowler 

FACTS 

In 2007, Ms. O'Dell was appointed as limited guardian of Ms. Fowler and her 

estate. In 2013, at a hearing to consider the guardian's proposed annual report, 

accounting and budget, the court noted concerns with Ms. O'Dell's performance. The 

court subsequently entered an order to show cause, detailing 13 suspected violations of 

fiduciary duties, standards of practice, and state statutes. The order required Ms. O'Dell 

to respond and provide the court with additional information. Ms. O'Dell timely 

responded, providing the court with what it characterized as "voluminous material." 

Report of Proceedings (RP) (Dec. 31, 2013) at 7, 12; Clerk's Papers (CP) at 277. Upon 

receiving Ms. O'Dell's submission, the court appointed Joseph Valente as investigator 

and special master to review the matter and answer specified questions. 

Mr. Valente reviewed the guardianship file, including Ms. O'Dell's recent 

submission of materials and declarations from Ms. O'Dell and Ms. Fowler. He also 

followed up directly with Ms. O'Dell for additional information. Mr. Valente then filed a 

comprehensive report in response to the court's order. His report did not agree with all 

the allegations set forth in the show cause order. However, the report did include several 

findings that were critical of Ms. O'Dell. Mr. Valente recognized that serving as Ms. 

Fowler's guardian had "been a nightmare for [Ms. O'Dell]." CP at 363. Fortunately, Mr. 

2 
No. 32979-8-111 

In re Guardianship of Fowler 

Valente concluded Ms. O'Dell's violations of statutes and standards of practice had "no 

direct impact" on Ms. Fowler, outside the imposition of some excessive fees. Id. Ms. 

O'Dell filed a written response to Mr. Valente's report, disputing his findings. 

On March 4, 2014, the court held a review hearing at which Ms. O'Dell, Mr. 

Valente, and Ms. Fowler addressed the court. At no time prior to or during the hearing 

did Ms. O'Dell request an evidentiary hearing. 

At some point after the hearing, the court issued proposed findings of fact and 

conclusions of law. 1 Ms. O'Dell then filed a detailed written objection claiming, among 

other things, that the court's procedure violated due process because no witnesses were 

called and there had not been opportunity for cross-examination. 

Shortly after receiving Ms. O'Dell's objection, the court held a presentment 

hearing. Ms. O'Dell, Mr. Valente, and Ms. Fowler all addressed the court. During her 

remarks, Ms. O'Dell criticized the court's procedures and claimed she had not been given 

a sufficient opportunity to respond to Mr. Valente's report. The court disagreed with Ms. 

O'Dell's procedural concerns, though it noted the court bore some responsibility for 

failing to promptly "raise specific issues" in the guardianship. RP (Nov. 20, 2014) at 46. 

1 The record on appeal does not include the court's proposed findings or the date 

of its submission to the parties. 

3 
'.I 

No. 32979-8-III 

In re Guardianship of Fowler 

Ultimately the court entered final written findings and conclusions which were consistent 

with the recommendations in Mr. Valente's report. The court ordered (1) Ms. O'Dell pay 

$3,000.00 to Mr. Valente for his services as investigator and special master, (2) Ms. 

O'Dell disgorge to the guardianship estate $2,591.50, and (3) dismissal of the 

Washington limited guardianship. 

Ms. O'Dell appeals. 

ANALYSIS 

Ms. O'Dell contends the superior court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary 

hearing to resolve disputed issues of fact she established in her declaration and in 

response to the show cause order. According to Ms. O'Dell, the court essentially 

employed a summary judgment procedure to rule against her without following CR 56( c ). 

We review the superior court's disposition for abuse of discretion. In re Guardianship of 

Cornelius, 181 Wn. App. 513,528,326 P.3d 718 (2014). 

No statute or court rule requires a trial or evidentiary hearing prior to termination 

of a guardianship. Both RCW 11.88.120(1) and the former RCW 11.88.120(1) and (4) 

( 1991) provide that a court, for good reason, may modify or terminate a guardianship and 

grant relief "as it deems just and in the best interest of the incapacitated person." 

Supplementing this, the legislature has given courts "full and ample power and authority 

4 
No. 32979-8-III 

In re Guardianship of Fowler 

... to administer and settle ... [ a ]ll matters concerning the estates and assets of 

incapacitated ... persons." RCW l l.96A.020(l)(a); see In re Guardianship of McKean, 

136 Wn. App. 906, 913-14, 151 P.3d 223 (2007). RCW 1 l.96A.020(2) grants the court 

"full power and authority to proceed ... in any manner and way that to the court seems 

right and proper." 

Perhaps recognizing the lack of statutory support, Ms. O'Dell couches her 

argument in terms of due process. She claims the fundamental principles of due process 

required the court to hold an evidentiary hearing prior to terminating the guardianship and 

imposing approximately $5,000 in costs and fees. We do not dispute that Ms. O'Dell was 

entitled to due process prior to imposition of the superior court's final order. However, 

due process is a flexible concept that does not demand a strict set of procedures in every 

situation. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319,334, 96 S. Ct. 893, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976). 

To comport with due process, a court procedure must provide notice and a meaningful 

opportunity to be heard. Morrison v. Dep 't of Labor & Indus., 168 Wn. App. 269, 273, 

277 P.3d 675 (2012). 

No due process violation occurred here. Prior to issuance of the final order, the 

court provided Ms. O'Dell with detailed written notice of its concerns. Not only did Ms. 

O'Dell receive notice in the form of the superior court's initial order to show cause, she 

5 
No. 32979-8-III 

In re Guardianship of Fowler 

also received the more comprehensive report by Mr. Valente. Ms. O'Dell was given 

ample opportunity to respond to both documents. She submitted a lengthy written 

response to the order to show cause and also responded in writing to Mr. Valente's report. 

After the show cause and review hearings, Ms. O'Dell filed a written objection to the 

court's proposed findings. She addressed the court orally during hearings held before 

each of the court's orders. At no point during this process did Ms. O'Dell request an 

evidentiary hearing. 2 

We are unmoved by Ms. O'Dell's complaint that the superior court improperly 

considered unswom testimony that had not been subject to cross-examination. With the 

exception of the declaration from Ms. Fowler,3 the only factual information considered by 

the court came from Ms. O'Dell. Mr. Valente was not a witness. His review was limited 

to existing court records and information supplied by Ms. O'Dell. The accuracy and 

reliability of the hearings would not have been enhanced by requiring Mr. Valente to 

present his findings as a witness, subject to cross-examination. 

2 Ms. O'Dell first raised her concerns regarding the court's procedures in her 

objection to the court's proposed findings. However, even at that late date Ms. O'Dell 

never requested an evidentiary hearing. 

3 Ms. Fowler's declaration is referenced in Mr. Valente's report, but it does not 

appear to be part of the record on appeal. In any event, Ms. O'Dell's claims on appeal 

pertain to the superior court's reliance on Mr. Valente's report, not Ms. Fowler's 

declaration. 

6 
No. 32979-8-111 

In re Guardianship of Fowler 

Because the procedure utilized by the superior court comported with due process, 

we affirm the order terminating Ms. Fowler's guardianship and requiring disgorgement of 

excessive service fees. Ms. O'Dell separately appeals the provision of court's order 

requiring payment of Mr. Valente's fees. Her arguments rest entirely on her due process 

claims regarding the perceived need for an evidentiary hearing. Because we disagree 

with Ms. O'Dell's position, her argument regarding fees is rejected as well. 

APPELLATE ATTORNEY FEES 

Mr. Valente asks this court to award attorney fees, citing to RCW 11.96A.150, 

which permits us to award attorney fees "in such amount and in such manner as the court 

determines to be equitable." We respectfully decline this request. While the court 

appreciates Mr. Valente's assistance throughout this case, his participation on appeal was 

largely a result of his own volition, in order to secure payment of the fees awarded by the 

superior court. See Commissioner's Ruling, In re Guardianship of Fowler, No. 32979-8-

111 (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 2015). That goal has been accomplished. Meanwhile, at least 

some equities weigh in Ms. O'Dell's favor, including the significant financial obligations 

imposed by the superior court as well as the difficulties encountered by Ms. O'Dell in 

working on Ms. Fowler's case. The court declines to impose further financial burdens on 

Ms. O'Dell in the form of attorney fees. 

7 
No. 32979-8-111 

In re Guardianship of Fowler 

CONCLUSION 

The orders of the superior court are affirmed, and Mr. Valente's request for 

appellate fees is denied. 

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 

2.06.040. 

WE CONCUR: 

(..,_,,_,_<"- \Sw.,,1 , P. c3. 5-;~LUf!e, ~ Lawrence-Berrey, A.CJ./ Siddoway, J. 

8