Ashmore v. Estate of Duff, No. 82052-0
Ashmore v. Estate of Duff, No. 82052-0. Today in an unsigned per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court overturned a Court of Appeals ruling involving a real estate deal. The separate estates of a deceased couple disputed whether the husband's estate could sell real property that the wife might have an interest in. The purchaser of the property brought this action against both estates.
Elmer and Elsie Duff were married for 30 years. Elmer predeceased Elsie by a few months, specifically leaving nothing to Elsie in his will. After Elsie’s death, George Granberg, the personal representative of Elmer’s estate, entered into an agreement with Alan Ashmore to sell Ashmore the Duff home for $100,000. Carol Harting, Elsie’s daughter and personal representative of Elsie’s estate, sought to enjoin the sale, claiming that Elsie had a community property interest in the Duff residence. After a hearing the court granted this motion. Granberg then filed an action to determine Elmer’s and Elsie’s respective ownership rights. The trial court eventually ordered Elmer’s representative to convey the property to Elsie’s representative.
While that action was underway, but before the court’s order to convey the property, Ashmore’s attorney contacted the parties expressing the belief that Elsie had no claim to the property and demanding sale of the property to Ashmore. After the court’s order, Ashmore filed an action seeking specific performance of his purchase and sale agreement. Harting responded that the agreement expired in December 2005 and that Ashmore and Granberg did not extend it. The trial court ruled that Harting was judicially estopped from arguing that the agreement expired because she successfully enjoined the sale in November 2005. The court therefore ordered specific performance.
The Supreme Court noted that the theory of judicial estoppel “prevents a party from asserting one position in a judicial proceeding and later taking an inconsistent position to gain an advantage.”
The core factors are whether the later position is clearly inconsistent with the earlier position, whether judicial acceptance of the second position would create a perception that either the first or second court was misled by the party’s position, and whether the party asserting the inconsistent position would obtain an unfair advantage or imposes an unfair detriment on the opposing party if not estopped.
The Supreme Court ruled that Elsie’s personal representative did not take inconsistent positions, and that the trial court had not been misled. The court reversed the appeals court and remanded for further proceedings.
