Court of Appeals Division III
State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

			

                                                                    FILED
                                                                JAN 31, 2012

                                                         In the Office of the Clerk of Court
                                                      WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

In re the Matter of the Guardianship of:                  No.  26942-6-III (cons. with 
                                                )         No. 28655-0-III)
DORIS JEAN HOOGSTAD.                            )
                                                )
JENON LAURENE,                                  )
                                                )         Division Three 
                             Appellant,         )
                                                )
         v.                                     )
                                                )
LORI PETERSEN,                                  )
                                                )         UNPUBLISHED OPINION
                             Respondent.        )
                                                )

       Sweeney, J.  --  Guardianship matters still sound in equity despite extensive 

regulatory statutory schemes.  Here, the court appointed a guardian for the person and 

estate of an elderly impaired woman and then approved the management of the estate by 

that guardian.  The court's actions are easily supported in both fact and law and we affirm 

the orders of the trial court in all respects and award fees to the prevailing guardian.

                                            FACTS

       Doris Jean Hoogstad is an 85-year-old widow who suffers from dementia.  She has  

No. 26942-6-III, No. 28655-0-III
In re Guardianship of Hoogstad

three grown children -- two daughters and a son -- and has lived most of her life in 

Creston, Washington.  Her youngest daughter, Sherene L. Nelson, petitioned for the 

appointment of a guardian on May 7, 2007.  That same day, the court appointed Lin D. 

O'Dell, a registered guardian ad litem, as the guardian ad litem for Ms. Hoogstad.  

       Ms. O'Dell filed a report on Ms. Hoogstad in July 2007.  She concluded that Ms. 

Hoogstad suffered from mild to moderate dementia and required an outside professional 

guardian.  Ms. O'Dell also expounded on her contacts with Jenon Laurene, Ms. 

Hoogstad's eldest daughter.  Ms. Laurene apparently agreed that her mother needed a 

guardian, but asserted that she should be appointed.  Ms. Laurene is a retired registered 

nurse.  She lives on a disability pension in the Seattle area.  Ms. Laurene insisted that 

having her mother live with her was a good arrangement for the entire family.  Ms. 

O'Dell disagreed:

              I also recommend that Jenon not be appointed as Guardian for the 
       Person and the Estate.  I have been communicating with Jenon for some 
       time via telephone or e-mail.  She is extremely opinionated and very 
       controlling.  I believe that she will do anything to get her way.  I also 
       believe she does not distinguish her need from her mother's needs.  Jenon is 
       very efficient and does get things done, but cannot or will not believe or 
       understand that Doris Jean has civil rights and even with a Guardianship, 
       she remains an individual with certain rights. 

Clerk's Papers (CP) at 802.

       Ms. O'Dell supplemented her report in August 2007.  She noted that Ms. Laurene 

and Ms. Hoogstad had signed a rental 

                                               2 

No. 26942-6-III, No. 28655-0-III
In re Guardianship of Hoogstad

agreement for a home in Renton, Washington, and that Ms. Hoogstad did not remember 

signing that agreement; and that:  

              Before leaving Spokane, Jenon took her mother to the bank and 
       switched the Safety Deposit Box into her name as well as Doris Jean's 
       name.  In the spring of 2006, there was $33,000.00 in this Safety Deposit 
       Box.  It was unknown how much money was left when the boxes were 
       transferred.
              . . . .
              . . . I also believe that Doris Jean is being financially exploited by 
       her daughter.  I continue to recommend that an independent Guardian be 
       appointed.  

CP at 7-8.

       The court held a hearing for the appointment of a guardian on August 15, 2007.  

Neither Ms. Laurene nor Ms. Hoogstad appeared at the hearing.  The court appointed

Lori Petersen, a professional guardian, as the guardian of Ms. Hoogstad's person and 

estate.  Ms. Laurene moved for reconsideration of the order on August 30.  The court 

denied that motion on November 15.  

       Ms. Petersen petitioned for, and the court entered, an order that approved a budget, 

disbursements, and an initial personal care plan on February 25, 2008.  Ms. Petersen also 

petitioned for authority to sell Ms. Hoogstad's real property; it consisted of a mobile 

home on three acres in Creston, Washington.  Ms. Laurene responded on March 7, with: 

(1) a motion for order conditioning sale, (2) a petition for orders to issue a citation 

                                               3 

No. 26942-6-III, No. 28655-0-III
In re Guardianship of Hoogstad

removing Ms. Petersen as guardian and appointing a successor guardian, (3) a response to 

petition for an order authorizing the sale of the real property, (4) a motion to condition 

the sale of the real property on a just appraisal, and (5) another motion to condition the 

sale on a just appraisal.  

       Ms. Laurene filed all of these pleadings again on March 10, 2008, along with: (1) 

a second motion regarding escrow upon sale; and (2) a response to and request to deny 

the petition for an order approving budget, disbursements, and initial care plan.  The court 

entered an order on March 12, that denied all of Ms. Laurene's motions and approved the 

request to sell the real property after Ms. Laurene failed to appear at the hearing.  

       On March 17, 2008, Ms. Laurene moved the court to reconsider the order 

approving the sale of the real property and all of the earlier motions and of her petition to 

remove Ms. Petersen as guardian. She also moved to stay the sale of real property.  Ms. 

Laurene then appealed all of the court's rulings on March 17.  

       Ms. Laurene requested that the trial court allow her to appear by telephone.  Ms. 

Petersen objected.  On April 10, 2008, the court again denied Ms. Laurene's motion for 

reconsideration and her motion to stay, because she failed to appear in person:

              I had a request for appearance by telephone by Ms. Laurene.  I told 
       her that she had to be here for this hearing.  She set the hearing  --  for this 
       date.  I understand that under Rule 43 that I have discretion, but she has not 
       showed up for previous hearings, and I wanted her here to testify, and to be 
       cross examined.  And I sent her a letter on top of that saying she had to be 

                                               4 

No. 26942-6-III, No. 28655-0-III
In re Guardianship of Hoogstad

       here.  And as I understand it she acknowledged she got the letter; she 
       requested another appearance by telephone, which I didn't respond to 
       because I've already told her she had to be here.

Report of Proceedings (RP) (Apr. 10, 2008) at 27-28.

       Ms. Laurene petitioned the Court of Appeals to stay the sale of Ms. Hoogstad's 

real property on April 20. A commissioner here denied the petition.  Ms. Laurene then 

moved to modify the commissioner's ruling; that was denied on October 7.  Ms. Laurene 

petitioned for, and was denied, review of the order by the Supreme Court on December 

29, 2008.

       Ms. Petersen later received an offer to purchase Ms. Hoogstad's real property and 

petitioned the court for an order directing the sale on April 22, 2009.  Ms. Laurene 

requested that the court deny the petition.  The court ordered the sale on May 8.  The 

court confirmed the sale in June.  Ms. Laurene then advised Ms. Petersen for the first 

time that Ms. Hoogstad had executed a quitclaim deed on July 26, 2007 quitclaiming the 

property to Ms. Laurene and reserving only a life estate. Ms. Hoogstad apparently signed 

the deed 20 days before the court appointed Ms. Petersen as guardian.  The deed was not 

recorded, however, until June 11, 2009.  As a result, Ms. Petersen could not transfer clear 

title.  The property is currently being leased pursuant to an order entered by the court on 

September 24.  

                                               5 

No. 26942-6-III, No. 28655-0-III
In re Guardianship of Hoogstad

       Ms. Laurene appealed "all" of the court's rulings.  Ms. Petersen moved this court 

to determine which trial court orders, if any, were reviewable, as many were not timely 

appealed.  We ruled that the only orders that were appealable were (1) the petition for 

orders to issue citation removing the guardian and appointing a successor guardian; (2) 

the response to the request to deny the petition for an order approving a budget, 

disbursements, and an initial care plan; and (3) the second motion regarding escrow upon 

sale.  

       In August 2009, Ms. Petersen moved for an order directing Ms. Laurene to return 

Ms. Hoogstad's car, a 2000 Pontiac Bonneville, so that it could be sold.  Ms. Petersen 

confirmed with the Department of Licensing that Ms. Laurene had transferred title to 

herself.  Ms. Petersen wanted the car sold because Ms. Hoogstad could no longer drive.  

The court had ordered that title be transferred back to Ms. Hoogstad in December 2008.  

Ms. Laurene responded that the car was the only means of transportation reasonably 

available to her and Ms. Hoogstad.  The court held a hearing and then directed that the 

car be turned over to Ms. Petersen.  

       Ms. Laurene appealed that order to this court.  She also moved the superior court 

to stay the order directing return of the car.  Ms. Petersen responded that Ms. Laurene 

lacked standing to take any legal action on behalf of Ms. Hoogstad except through Ms. 

                                               6 

No. 26942-6-III, No. 28655-0-III
In re Guardianship of Hoogstad

Petersen, as her guardian.  

       The court heard argument on the motion in October 2009.  During the hearing, Ms. 

Laurene disclosed that Ms. Hoogstad's Pontiac had been totaled in an accident in 

approximately June 2009 and she, Ms. Laurene, had used the insurance proceeds to buy a 

2000 Honda Civic.  The court entered findings, conclusions and an order denying Ms. 

Laurene's motion for stay:

       Ms. Laurene intentionally withheld this information [regarding the vehicle] 
       from the Court at all levels, as well as counsel, and was maintaining motor 
       vehicle insurance on an automobile which she did not own, and was not 
       authorized to drive pursuant to the underlying Lincoln County guardianship 
       action. 
              . . . .
              . . . Ms. Laurene, who is unable to set forth any authority 
       demonstrating standing or privity in this proceeding, continues to file 
       pleadings and various actions with the Court purporting to act in the best 
       interests of Ms. Hoogstad.   

CP at 486-87 (Findings of Fact 2, 4). The court then barred Ms. Laurene from filing 

further motions or requests for relief from the court in the matter.  Ms. Laurene also 

appealed that order. 

                                        DISCUSSION

       Ms. Laurene appears in this matter pro se.  Her brief is 75 pages long (not 

including the appendices), convoluted, and in many respects improper.  See RAP 10.3, 

10.7.  She petitioned this court to accept her brief as presented because she (1) could not 

reduce the volume any further and (2) could 

                                               7 

No. 26942-6-III, No. 28655-0-III
In re Guardianship of Hoogstad

not figure out how to format a document with Microsoft Office 2007.  A commissioner of 

this court accepted the brief, excluding any appendices not admitted by the superior 

court.  Her essential complaints appear to be that the court should have appointed her not 

Ms. Petersen as guardian and that the court should not have approved the actions of the 

guardian to transfer Ms. Hoogstad's real property or her car.  We do our best to answer 

those concerns. 

       Standing is a question of law that we review de novo.  In re Guardianship of 

Karan, 110 Wn. App. 76, 81, 38 P.3d 396 (2002).  Ms. Laurene contends that the court 

erroneously concluded that she lacked standing.  She contends that her interests are 

inextricably intertwined with Ms. Hoogstad's.  She claims that her mother currently 

speaks only through her.  Ms. Petersen concedes that the interests of Ms. Laurene and 

Ms. Hoogstad are inextricably intertwined, although only because of the unauthorized 

and improper actions of Ms. Laurene.  Ms. Petersen nevertheless contends that the court 

was justified in denying Ms. Laurene standing and prohibiting her from filing further 

pleadings in this matter in an effort to protect Ms. Hoogstad.  RCW 11.96A.020.

       Standing requires that a plaintiff have a personal stake in the outcome of a case in 

order to bring suit.  Gustafson v. Gustafson, 47 Wn. App. 272, 276, 734 P.2d 949 (1987).  

"[T]he doctrine of standing prohibits a litigant from asserting another's legal right."  

                                               8 

No. 26942-6-III, No. 28655-0-III
In re Guardianship of Hoogstad

Miller v. U.S. Bank of Wash., N.A., 72 Wn. App. 416, 424, 865 P.2d 536 (1994).  Family 

members of an incapacitated person who is under the protection of a guardian have the 

right, with cause, to apply for an order modifying a guardianship.  RCW 11.88.120(2)

("any person").  

       The facts here help explain our response to Ms. Laurene's concerns.  Ms. Laurene 

drove her mother from Spokane to the west side of the state some time after the petition 

for guardianship was filed in May 2007 and the appointment of a guardian ad litem.  

They inspected a home in Renton, Washington, and apparently signed a rental agreement.  

Ms. Hoogstad does not remember signing the agreement.  Before leaving Spokane, Ms. 

Laurene took Ms. Hoogstad to the bank and switched her safety deposit box into Ms. 

Laurene's name, and removed some $30,000 in cash.  Sometime later, Ms. Laurene also 

had Ms. Hoogstad transfer title to the 2000 Pontiac Bonneville into her name.  Ms. 

Laurene also had Ms. Hoogstad deed her real property in Creston, Washington, to her.  

       Ms. Laurene and her mother's interests certainly are intertwined now.  But that 

does not give Ms. Laurene standing to act on her mother's behalf.  The court appointed a 

guardian ad litem in May 2007 and a professional guardian of person and estate in August 

2007.  Those guardians then had standing to act on behalf of Ms. Hoogstad.  RCW 

11.92.060.

                                               9 

No. 26942-6-III, No. 28655-0-III
In re Guardianship of Hoogstad

       Ms. Laurene, as the daughter of Ms. Hoogstad, had the right to petition for an 

order modifying a guardianship.  RCW 11.88.120(2).  She could challenge the 

guardianship but not the individual actions of the guardian.  

       Ms. Laurene contends that Ms. O'Dell, as guardian ad litem, improperly refused to 

consider her the guardian of her mother.  She argues that she was a viable candidate for 

the appointment and that Ms. Hoogstad clearly wanted her appointed as guardian.  Ms. 

Laurene contends that the court erred in appointing Lori Petersen because Ms. Petersen 

has continuously failed to carry out the fiduciary responsibilities of a guardian.  She 

contends that Ms. Petersen has mismanaged the estate, misappropriated social security 

funds belonging to Ms. Hoogstad, and improperly acted to sell the real property against 

Ms. Hoogstad's wishes. 

       Ms. Petersen responds that Ms. Laurene's challenge to her appointment as

guardian should be stricken as untimely.  She notes that the court established the 

guardianship on August 15, 2007.  Ms. Laurene moved for reconsideration on August 30.  

And the court entered the order dismissing Ms. Laurene's motion for reconsideration on 

November 15.  Ms. Petersen contends that Ms. Laurene failed to appeal within 30 days of 

entry as required by RAP 5.2(a) or 5.2(c). 

       We review a superior court's order denying reconsideration for abuse of 

                                               10 

No. 26942-6-III, No. 28655-0-III
In re Guardianship of Hoogstad

discretion.  Rivers v. Wash. State Conference of Mason Contractors, 145 Wn.2d 674, 

685, 41 P.3d 1175 (2002).  Jurisdiction, however, is a question of law and so we review 

de novo whether the court has the authority to pass on the challenge.  Crosby v. Spokane 

County, 137 Wn.2d 296, 301, 971 P.2d 32 (1999).

       A timely notice of appeal is a prerequisite to appellate jurisdiction.  RAP 5.2; In re 

Marriage of Maxfield, 47 Wn. App. 699, 710, 737 P.2d 671 (1987).  A notice of appeal 

must be filed within 30 days after entry of the trial court decision.  RAP 5.2(a).  If a 

notice of appeal is not filed "within 30 days of entry of an appealable order, the appellate 

court is without jurisdiction to consider it."  Maxfield, 47 Wn. App. at 710.  

       Here Ms. Laurene failed to timely appeal the final order of guardianship entered 

on August 15, 2007.  The notice of appeal was filed March 18, 2008, and sought review 

of "all of the decisions of the Superior court." CP at 129. Ms. Laurene moved for 

reconsideration of the August 15 guardianship order on August 30, andd the court denied 

that motion on November 15.  Under RAP 5.2(a), Ms. Laurene had 30 days from that 

final denial to file her notice of appeal.  Her March 18, 2008 filing comes too late.  

Accordingly, we do not have jurisdiction to pass on the propriety of the final order of 

guardianship.  

       Ms. Laurene also takes issue with the specific guardian appointed, Ms. Petersen.  

                                               11 

No. 26942-6-III, No. 28655-0-III
In re Guardianship of Hoogstad

She contends that Ms. Petersen has continuously failed to carry out her fiduciary 

responsibilities as guardian.  She contends that Ms. Petersen has financially mismanaged 

the estate, misappropriated social security funds belonging to Ms. Hoogstad, and 

improperly acted to sell the real property against Ms. Hoogstad's wishes.  Ms. Laurene 

wrote that Ms. Petersen "has been a vicious, abusive and corrupt guardian." CP at 684.  

       "'A fiduciary is a person with a duty to act primarily for the benefit of another.'"  

Cummings v. Guardianship Servs. of Seattle, 128 Wn. App. 742, 755 n.33, 110 P.3d 796 

(2005) (quoting Guarino v. Interactive Objects, 122 Wn. App. 95, 128, 86 P.3d 1175 

(2004)).  The guardian of the person and estate of an incapacitated person owes a 

fiduciary duty to her ward.  In re Guardianship of Eisenberg, 43 Wn. App. 761, 766, 719 

P.2d 187 (1986).  Among the various duties of a guardian is to conserve and protect the 

estate of the ward and act for the benefit of the ward when the ward's interests can be 

properly determined.  RCW 11.92.040(5).  Again, the family members of the ward have 

the right, with cause, to apply for an order modifying a guardianship.  RCW 

11.88.120(2).  

       Ms. Laurene petitioned to remove Ms. Petersen as guardian and for appointment of

a successor guardian.  She outlined a list of complaints about Ms. Petersen's handling of 

things.  The court dismissed those motions when Ms. Laurene failed to appear.  But, 

                                               12 

No. 26942-6-III, No. 28655-0-III
In re Guardianship of Hoogstad

regardless, Ms. Laurene makes no showing that Ms. Petersen has misappropriated funds 

or acted improperly.  Her unsupported assertions of impropriety, without more, do not 

support a challenge to Ms. Petersen's appointment or her management of the estate.  

       We are without jurisdiction to address whether the court properly appointed a 

guardian for Ms. Hoogstad and there is no showing, in any event, to support the 

allegations that Ms. Petersen has acted improperly. 

       The management of the guardianship by the superior court is reviewed for abuse of 

discretion.  RCW 11.92.010; In re Guardianship of Johnson, 112 Wn. App. 384, 387-88, 

48 P.3d 1029 (2002).  A court abuses its discretion when it acts on untenable grounds or 

for untenable reasons.  In re Marriage of Gillespie, 89 Wn. App. 390, 398-99, 948 P.2d 

1338 (1997).  

       Ms. Laurene contends that the superior court erred when it ordered her to sell her 

mother's real property because Ms. Hoogstad did not want the property sold.  Ms. 

Laurene does not have standing to argue this issue on behalf of her mother.  Again, 

regardless, the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the property sold.

       A guardian simply serves as the court's agent through which the court seeks to 

protect the ward's interest.  See RCW 11.92.010; In re Guardianship of Gaddis, 12 

Wn.2d 114, 123, 120 P.2d 849 (1942).  The courts retain "full and ample power and 

                                               13 

No. 26942-6-III, No. 28655-0-III
In re Guardianship of Hoogstad

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

incapacitated . . . persons." RCW 11.96A.020(1)(a).  A court may "proceed with [estate] 

administration and settlement in any manner and way that to the court seems right and 

proper." RCW 11.96A.020(2).

       Here, the real property had to be sold because Ms. Hoogstad's expenses of $1,700 

per month exceeded her $1,000 per month income.  The court found that Ms. Petersen 

had "followed the statutory requirements for placing the property for sale" and ordered 

the property placed for sale.  Ms. Petersen received a reasonable offer to purchase the real 

property.  

       The court had tenable grounds and reasons, as presented by Ms. Petersen, for 

ordering the sale of real property.  Ms. Laurene should not have been allowed to 

challenge the order.  

       Ms. Laurene has standing to challenge or modify the guardianship as a family 

member under RCW 11.88.120(2).  Telephonic argument on civil motions, including 

family law motions, may be heard by conference call in the discretion of the court.  

CR 7(b)(5).  The court also has discretion to permit witnesses to testify through a 

contemporaneous transmission to the court from an outside location.  CR 43.  

       Here, the court denied Ms. Laurene's request to appear by phone. He told her 

                                               14 

No. 26942-6-III, No. 28655-0-III
In re Guardianship of Hoogstad

personally and sent her a letter that she had to attend the April 10, 2008 hearing.  The

judge noted that Ms. Laurene set the hearing and he wanted her there to testify and be 

cross-examined. Ms. Laurene had failed to appear at previous hearings.  Ms. Laurene did 

not appear and the court struck her motions. The court had discretionary authority to do 

just that.  CR 7(b)(5).  

       Ms. Laurene offers no support for her challenge to the court's order to sell Ms. 

Hoogstad's car.  And, as we have already noted, she has no standing to challenge the sale.  

Regardless, the court found that Ms. Hoogstad was unable to drive and that there were 

other methods of transportation available to her.  The court found that Ms. Laurene had 

replaced Ms. Hoogstad's original automobile without the court's or the guardian's 

knowledge.  And the court further found that "Ms. Laurene is clearly using the 

replacement vehicle, a 2000 Honda Civic, primarily for her personal use.  The file would 

reflect that Ms. Hoogstad is in her late 80's, is significantly demented and is unable to 

drive a motor vehicle." CP at 486.  

       The court had tenable grounds and reasons for ordering the sale of the car.  Ms. 

Laurene should not have been allowed to challenge the order anyway. 

       We affirm the orders of the trial court.

       Ms. Petersen requests fees on appeal pursuant to RCW 11.96A.150 and RAP 18.1.  

                                               15 

No. 26942-6-III, No. 28655-0-III
In re Guardianship of Hoogstad

She argues that the filings by Ms. Laurene, and her lack of candor to the court, the 

guardian, and counsel justify an award of fees.  We agree and award Ms. Petersen fees on 

appeal.

       A majority of the panel has determined that 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.

                                                    _______________________________
                                                    Sweeney, J.
WE CONCUR:

________________________________                    _______________________________
Kulik, C.J.                                         Korsmo, J.

                                               16