Ashmore v. Estate of Duff, No. 82052-0

Posted on April 16, 2009 by Michael Reitz

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.

Tags: , , ,

Tomorrow's opinions

Posted on April 15, 2009 by Michael Reitz

The Supreme Court will issue opinions in at least three cases.

Ashmore v. Estate of Duff, No. 82052-0. Whether a real estate sale should proceed. Elmer Duff and his wife Elsie died in 2005 within a few months of each other. Mr. Duff’s personal representative executed a real estate purchase and sale agreement for $100,000 with Alan Ashmore for real property in Walla Walla. Ms. Duff’s personal representative moved to enjoin the sale, believing Ms. Duff had a community or lien interest in the property and that it had been undervalued. She offered to buy the house for $105,000. The court granted her motion to enjoin the sale while the estate's affairs were finalized. 

Over a year later, Mr. Ashmore sent a demand letter demanding to close the sale. Ms. Duff’s representative rejected his demand, stating that the sale agreement with Mr. Ashmore. Mr. Ashmore sued. The trial court ruled Mr. Ashmore was entitled to specific performance of the purchase and sale agreement, and that Ms. Duff’s representative was prevented from claiming expiration of the agreement, as closing was made legally impossible through no fault of Mr. Ashmore. The Court of Appeals agreed.

In re the Personal Restraint Petition of Bradley, No. 81045-1. In 2002, petitioner Anthony Bradley pled guilty to possessing cocaine with the intent to deliver. In agreeing to the plea deal, Mr. Bradley had been misinformed about the standard penalty range for the possession charge. The question before the court is whether his plea was voluntary and whether it can be withdrawn. (Case briefs and argument)

State v. Mendoza, No. 80477-0 & State v. Henderson, No. 80553-9 (consolidated).  The issue in these consolidated appeals is whether criminal defendants acknowledge their prior criminal convictions as asserted by the state when they fail to object at sentencing.

Frank Mendoza was convicted of second degree robbery and unlawful imprisonment. At trial, Mr. Mendoza’s attorney inadvertently elicited information from a witness about Mr. Mendoza’s prior criminal history. At the sentencing phase of the trial, the prosecuting attorney submitted a statement of the defendant’s criminal history, and the prosecutor referred to the criminal history in his remarks to the court. Defense counsel made no objection to the criminal history and accepted it as presented. Mr. Mendoza appealed his conviction on the basis of ineffective counsel and trial court errors. The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, but remanded the case for resentencing, requiring the State to prove Mendoza’s criminal history by a preponderance of the evidence. The State of Washington appealed to the Supreme Court. (Case briefs and argument)

Tags: , , , ,