WIXLIB

No. 69546 ",1:.COURT OF APPEALS, DIVISION I,OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTONIN RE THE ESTATE OF T. MARK STOVER, Deceased,TERESA V AUX-MICHEL,RespondentiCross-Appellant,v.ANNE VICTORIA SIMMONS, as PersonalRepresentative of the Estate of T. MARK STOVER, Deceased,Petitioner.ANSWERING BRIEF AND OPENING CROSS-APPEAL BRIEFOF TERESA VAUX-MICHELBrian Fahling, WSBA #18894Law Office of Brian Fahling4630 116th Ave. NEKirkland, W A 98033(425) 202-7092Attorney for Teresa Vaux-MichelNN:-:.:.:T-' . . :"-.

Table of Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . .iv-vii- -- - -----I.INTRODUCTION . . . . . .1II.ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR ON CROSS APPEAL. . . . 2III.ISSUES RELATED TO ASSIGNMENTS OF ERRORON VAUX-MICHEL'S CROSS-APPEAL . . . . . 5IV .COUNTER-STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . .5A.Mr. Stover Feared That He Would Be Murdered . . 5B.Mr. Stover Wanted to Marry Ms. Vaux-Michel and toProvide For Her if He Was Murdered as He Feared HeWould Be . . . . . . . . . . . . 6C.Ms. Simmons . . . . . . . . 71.Estranged from her brother . . . . . . . .72.Ms. Simmons' testimony contradicted by adetective and a private investigator . . . . . 83.Statements made by Stover to attorney Kradel andprivate investigator Hearon were notprotected by attorney-client privilege, and even ifthey were, the Privilege was waived . . . 11D.Vaux-Michel's Creditor Claim and Petition . 12E.The Trial Court Ruled for Vaux-Michel, ButReduced by One-Third Her Attorney's Fee Request. . 13- - -- ------ - ---- ---- - - -----1.Both checks are authentic, but only onewas awarded to Vaux Michel . . . . . . . 132.Mr. Stover's Checks to Ms. Vaux-Michel weregift's causa mortis . . . . . . . . . . 133.Attorney's fees reduced . . . . . . . . 14-- ------- ---------- -- --- --------- - -- ---- -- -

V.ARGUMENT FOR ANSWERING BRIEF . . 14A.B.The Trial Court Correctly Ruled that Vaux-Michel TimelyFiled her Petition . ' " . 141.Standard of review . . " . . 142.Simmons improperly conflated Vaux-Michel'screditor claim with her petition to have theclaim allowed . . . . . 163.When Simmons failed to accept or rejectVaux-Michel's claim as required,Vaux-Michel proceeded under RCW11.40.080 and timely filed her petition . 174.The trial court correctly ruled thatCR 6 is applicable to RCW 11.40.080and RCW 11.40.100 . . . . . 22The Trial Court Correctly Ruled That the CheckLeft by Mr. Stover for Ms. Vaux-Michel wasa Gift Causa Mortis . . . . . . 301.Evidentiary standard is clear and convincing . . .302.Elements required to prove gift causamortis . . . 30a.The law regarding delivery anddonor's intent. . . . 31b.The law regarding acceptance ofa gift . . . 343.The evidence for the gift causa mortis wasbeyond substantial, it was conclusive . . 354.Stover's statements to Vaux-Michel'switnesses were not hearsay and they were notwithin the dead man statute . 38ii

C.VI.The Trial Court Did Not Err in AwardingAttorneys Fees . . .41ARGUMENT FOR MS . VAUX'S CROSS-APPEAL. . .41A.The Trial Court Erred when it Failed to Award theCheck Found by Simmons to Vaux-Michel. . .411.B.The evidence relied upon by the trial court inconcluding the check found by detectiveLuvera was a gift causa mortis supports theconclusion that the check found bySimmons is a gift causa mortis . .41The Trial Court Erred in Reducing Vaux-Michel'sAttorney's Fees Request. . . . .421.Standard of review . 422.The trial court abused its discretion inreducing the lodestar . 43a.Findings of fact and conclusionsoflaw . 43b.The trial court abused its discretionby not considering the high riskof non-payment . . . .46VII.ATTORNEY'S FEES ON APPEAL . .48IX.CONCLUSION . 49Appendixiii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCasesAmerican Nat'l Fire Ins. Co. v. B & L Trucking & Const. Co., 82 Wn.App. 646, 669, 920 P.2d 192 (1996) . 42Bowers v. Transamerica Title Ins. Co., 100 Wn.2d 581,597,675 P.2d 193(1983) . 43,47,48Canterwood Place, L.P. v. Thande, 106 Wn. App. 844,5 P.3d 495 (2001). 22,26,27,29Capello v. State, 114 Wn. App. 739, 60 P.3d 620 (2002) . 23, 27Christensen v. Ellsworth, 162 Wn.2d 365, 173 P.3d 228 (2007) . 24Chuang Van Pham v. City of Seattle, 159 Wn.2d 527, 151 P.3d 976 (2007). 47City ofSeattle v. State, 138 Wn.2d 693,695 P.2d 619 (1998) . 21Colonial Imps., Inc. v. Carlton Nw., Inc., 121 Wn.2d 726,853 P.2d 913(1993) . 15Crawfordv. Washington, 541 U.S. 36,124 S.Ct. 1354,158 L.Ed.2d 177(2004) . 15Croton Chem. Corp. v. Birkenwald, Inc., 50 Wash.2d 684,314 P.2d 622(1957) . 14Dillabough v. Brady, 115 Wash. 76, 196 Pac. 627 (1921) . 28Dingley v. Robinson, 149 Wash. 301,270 P. 1018 (1928) . 32,33Durandv. Himc Corp., 151 Wn. App. 818,214 P.3d 189 (2009) . 47Endicott v. Saul, 142 Wn. App. 899, 176 P.3d 560 (2008) . 15Hamlin v. Hamlin, et aI., 59 Wash. 182, 109 P. 362 (1910) . 35In re Estate ofBussler, 160 Wn. App. 449, 247 P.3d 821 (2011),abrogated in part on other grounds by Crawford v. Washington, 541U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) . 15In Re Estate ofKordon, 126 Wn. App. 482 (2005) . 19In re Estate of Lint, 135 Wn.2d 518, 957 P.2d 755 (1998) . 15In re Estate of McDonald, 60 Wn.2d 452,374 P.2d 365 (1962) . 30In Re Estate of Aliller, 134 Wn. App. 885, 143 P.3d 315 (2006) . 39In re Estate of Palucci, 61 Wn. App. 412, 810 P.2d 970 (1991) . 23iv

In re Estate 0/ Peterson, 102 Wn. App. 456, 9 P.3d 845 (2000) . 28In re Estate o/Toth, 138 Wn.2d 650,981 P.2d 439 (1999) . 23,27In re Estate o/Van Dyke, 54 Wn. App. 225, 772 P.2d 1049 (1989) . 23In re Estate 0/ White, 129 Wash. 544 225 P. 415 (1924) . 30Johnston v. Von Houck, 150 Wn. App. 894,209 P.3d 548(2009) . . 20, 21, 41King County v. Knapp's Estate, 56 Wn.2d 558, 354 P.2d 389 (1960) . 28Leipham v. Adams, 77 Wn. App. 827, 894 P.2d 576 (1995) . 34, 35MacKenzie v. Steeves, 98 Wash. 17,167 P. 50 (1917) . .31, 32, 33Mahler v. Szucs, 135 Wn.2d 398,957 P.2d 63 (1998) . 42Malicott v. Nelson, 48 Wn.2d 273,293 P.2d 404 (1956) . 20Martin v. Johnson, 141 Wn. App. 611, 170 P.3d 1198 (2007) . 48McCarton v. Estate o/Watson, 39 Wn.App. 358 (1984) . 30, 31, 32, 33McMillon v. Budget Plan a/Va., 510 F.Supp. 17,19 (E.D.Va.l980) . 25Morgan v. Kingen, 166 Wn.2d 526, 210 P.3d 995 (2009) . 42Newsome v. Allen, 86 Wash. 678,683, 151 P. 111 (1915» . 32, 33Petrarca v. Halligan, 83 Wn.2d 773, 775,522 P.2d 827 (1974) . 25Phinney v. State, 36 Wash. 236, 78 P. 927 (1904) . 30Ramseyv. Mading, 36Wn.2d303,217P.2d 1041 (1950) . 40Rigg v. Lawyer, 67 Wn.2d 546, 408 P.2d 252 (1965) . 28Ruth v. Dight, 75 Wn.2d 660, 453 P.2d 631 (1969) . 28Scott Fetzer Co. v. Weeks, 122 Wn.2d 141,859 P.2d 1210 (1993) . 42Sinclair v. Fleischman, 54 Wn. App. 204, 773 P.2d 101, review denied,113 Wn.2d 1032, 784 P.2d 531 (1989) . 34State v. Sullivan, 60 Wn.2d 214, 373 P.2d 474 (1962) . 40State v. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821, 83 P.3d 970 (2004) . 15Stikes Woods Neighborhood Ass'n v. City 0/ Lacey, 124 Wn.2d 459, 880P.2d 25 (1994) . 25Van Duyn v. Van Duyn, 129 Wash. 428,225 P. 444 (1924) . 17,27Waite v. Grubbe, 43 Or. 406, 73 P. 206, 99 Am. St. Rep. 764 (1903) . 33Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan Cnty., 141 Wash.2d 169,4 P.3d123 (2000) . 14Whitney v. Canadian Bank o/Commerce, 232 Or. 1,374 P.2d 441(1962) . . 31v--.-----. -- ----------- -- . -. -- .---.--. - ------ - - - - -

Wilson v. Joseph, 101 Wash. 614, 172 P.745 (1918) . 38StatutesRCW 11.40.051 . 19RCW 11.40.040 . 19RCW 1.12.040 . 30RCW 11.24.010 . 26RCW 11.24.020 . 25RCW 11.40.051 . 19RCW 11.40.070 . 18RCW 11.40.080 . passimRCW 11.40.080(2) . 21, 22RCW 11.40.100 . passimRCW 11.96A.090(1) . 25RCW 11.96A.1S0(1) . 43RCW 59.12.070 . 27RCW 71.09.040 . 28RCW 71.09.040(2) . 28RulesCR 1; . 24CR 19(b) . 25CR 6 . . passimCR 6(a) . 28, 31CR 6(e) . . . . . 23, 29CR 81 . 24, 26, 27, 28ER 801(d) . 41ER 801 (d)(2) . 39RAP 18.1 . 48vi

Other AuthoritiesW. Thornton, Gifts and Advancements § 145 (1893) . 318 JOHN HENRY WIGMORE, EVIDENCE IN TRIALS AT COMMON LAW § 2292(McNaughton 1961 & Supp. 1991) . .39, 40vii

I.INTRODUCTIONMark Stover, known as the dog whisperer and dog trainer to thestars, knew his life was in danger. In the late summer and fall of 2009, hetold friends that he feared his ex-wife, Linda Opdycke, and her father,were going to have him murdered. He also told these friends that he lovedand planned to marry Teresa Vaux-Michel and that he had left a check forher in case he was murdered. On October 28, 2009, Mr. Stoverdisappeared, and on October 22, 2010, a Skagit County jury convictedMichiel Oaks, the live-in boyfriend of Linda Opdycke, of murdering MarkStover.After his murder, two checks made out to Ms. Vaux-Michel, eachin the amount of 150,000, were found in Mr. Stover's home. One check,not attached to a check register, was found on October 29, 2009, on Mr.Stover's desk where he said it would be, by Detective Luvera of the SkagitCounty Sheriffs Office, another check was found approximately a monthlater by Mr. Stover's estranged sister, Anne Victoria Simmons. That checkwas found in the desk drawer and it was attached to a check register.Detective Luvera called Ms. Simmons and told her about the check. Hethen mailed it to her. Ms. Simmons, though, denied that the detective hadtold her about the check. Ms. Simmons also flatly denied Ms. Hearon'stestimony about conversations she had with Ms. Simmons while searchingAnswering Brief- 1

Mr. Stover's house together. Her denials cannot be reconciled withDetective Luvera's and Ms. Hearon's testimony.Ms. Vaux-Michel timely filed and presented a creditor claim, andwhen Ms. Simmons failed to timely accept or reject the claim, Ms. VauxMichel petitioned the court to allow the claim. The trial court ruled thatthe check found by Ms. Simmons and the check found by DetectiveLuvera were authentic, but relied upon the check found by DetectiveLuvera in its analysis of the facts in the case and in awarding Ms. VauxMichel 150,000.Both checks should have been awarded because the only differencebetween the two checks is that the Luvera check was found on Mr.Stover's desk and the other check, the one found by Ms. Simmons, wasfound in his desk drawer. The same facts of the case, the same argumentsand the same findings and conclusions set forth by the trial court insupport of its award of the Luvera check to Ms. Vaux-Michel apply withequal force to the Simmons check.The court awarded Ms. Vaux-Michel fees, but erred in reducingthe lodestar by one-third. The trial court made some inaccurate findgs andacknowledged, but did not consider in its lodestar calcualtion, as it shouldhave, the high risk of non-payment to counsel. And finally, Ms. VauxMichel is entitled to her fees in connection with this appeal.Answering Brief- 2

II.ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR ON CROSS APPEAL1.The trial court erred in its Conclusion of Law No.5 in itsSeptember 24, 2012, decision on the merits to the extent that it referredonly to the check discovered by Detective Luvera, and not also the onediscovered by Ms. Simmons, for purposes of its analysis of the facts of thecase.2.The trial court erred in its Conclusion of Law No.7 in itsSeptember 24,2012, decision on the merits to the extent that it did not alsorefer to the check discovered by Ms. Simmons.3.The trial court erred in its Conclusion of Law No.8 in itsSeptember 24,2012, decision on the merits to the extent that it did not alsorefer to the check discovered by Ms. Simmons.4.The trial court erred in its Conclusion of Law No.9 in itsSeptember 24,2012, decision on the merits to the extent that it did not alsorefer to the check discovered by Ms. Simmons.5.The trial court erred in its Conclusion of Law No. 10 in itsSeptember 24, 2012, decision on the merits to the extent that it did not alsorefer to the check discovered by Ms. Simmons.6.The trial court erred in its Conclusion of Law No. 11 in itsSeptember 24,2012, decision on the merits to the extent that it did not alsorefer to the check discovered by Ms. Simmons.Answering Brief- 3