By Peter Dolan, Chair of ELM’s Trust and Estate Litigation Practice
Warning Signs of Fiduciary Misconduct Under Washington Law
Your parent dies. Your sibling is named trustee or personal representative. At first, everything seems normal.
Then questions start going unanswered. Financial information becomes difficult to obtain. The estate remains open month after month. Legal fees continue to accumulate. Assets appear to be moving, but nobody can explain why.
The problem may not be dishonesty, but it could be. And when substantial assets are involved, waiting to find out can be expensive.
Removal proceedings are among the most serious disputes that arise in trust and estate administration. They often involve allegations of self-dealing, conflicts of interest, hostility toward beneficiaries, missing information, or mismanagement of significant trust and estate assets. Washington courts have authority to intervene when a fiduciary can no longer administer an estate or trust impartially or in the beneficiaries’ best interests. RCW 11.68.070; RCW 11.28.250.
Trustee and personal representative disputes frequently involve family homes, investment portfolios, retirement assets, business interests, and other substantial assets.
Common Situations That Lead to Removal Proceedings
The Fiduciary Is Treating Estate Property Like Their Own
One of the most common concerns we hear is: “The trustee is acting like the assets belong to them.”
Examples include:
- Using estate or trust funds for personal purposes.
- Transferring trust or estate property without adequate explanation.
- Occupying trust or estate real estate while excluding others.
- Combining personal and fiduciary funds.
- Favoring their own financial interests over those of the beneficiaries.
Washington courts take these issues seriously. In the case of In re Estate of Jones, the Washington Supreme Court upheld findings that a personal representative breached fiduciary duties by treating estate property as his own and commingling personal and estate funds. In re Estate of Jones, 152 Wn.2d 1, 93 P.3d 147 (2004).
A fiduciary does not need to commit outright theft before removal becomes appropriate. Using fiduciary authority for personal advantage may be enough.
The Fiduciary Has Become Adverse to Beneficiaries
A trustee or personal representative is supposed to act for the benefit of the estate, trust, and beneficiaries. Problems arise when beneficiaries begin to feel like they are being treated as opponents.
Common warning signs include:
- Requests for information being ignored.
- Beneficiaries being excluded from important discussions.
- Hostile communications.
- Litigation that appears designed to punish certain beneficiaries and reward others.
- One beneficiary receiving significantly different treatment than others.
Not every disagreement warrants removal. But Washington courts have recognized that extreme hostility can make impartial administration impossible.
For example, bad will created through prior litigation may support removal of a trustee. Waits v. Hamlin, 55 Wn. App. 193, 199, 776 P.2d 1003 (1989). Similarly, in Matter of Estate of Reugh, the Court of Appeals concluded that hostility and insults directed toward a beneficiary reinforced the need for removal because they demonstrated an inability to administer the estate impartially. Matter of Estate of Reugh, 10 Wn. App. 2d 20, 67, 447 P.3d 544 (2019).
The question is not whether family members get along. The question is whether the fiduciary can still make objective decisions and uphold the high standard required for their conduct.
The Fiduciary Has a Personal Financial Interest in the Outcome
Many removal cases involve conflicts of interest rather than outright misconduct.
Examples include:
- The fiduciary has their own claim against the estate.
- The fiduciary is deciding whether claims affecting them personally should be approved.
- Property ownership is being disputed.
- The fiduciary stands to benefit financially from decisions made on behalf of the estate or trust.
This type of conflict can be especially serious because the fiduciary is expected to act impartially while simultaneously pursuing personal interests.
Washington courts recognize that a fiduciary may be removed when a conflict threatens beneficiaries’ rights or creates a risk of waste. In re Estate of Jones, 152 Wn.2d at 19. In the case of In re Livingston’s Estate, the Court of Appeals affirmed removal where the personal representative’s financial interests conflicted with her fiduciary obligations to other creditors and beneficiaries. In re Livingston’s Estate, 7 Wn. App. 841, 844-45, 502 P.2d 1247 (1972).
Administration Has Effectively Stopped
Many beneficiaries become concerned when years pass and little work appears to have been done.
Common signs include:
- Missing inventories.
- Delayed accountings.
- Creditor claims remaining unresolved.
- Beneficiaries receiving no distributions.
- No meaningful plan to conclude administration.
A personal representative’s principal duties generally include collecting assets, resolving claims, and distributing property. Estate of Morris, 89 Wn. App. 431, 434, 949 P.2d 401 (1998). Washington law also requires estates to be settled as rapidly and efficiently as reasonably possible. RCW 11.48.010.
Delay alone does not prove misconduct. Probate can be complicated. But when administration appears stalled while expenses continue to accumulate, beneficiaries often have legitimate concerns.
Important Information Is Missing
Trust and estate administration depends on transparency. Beneficiaries are often alarmed when:
- Major assets do not appear on inventories.
- Property values seem inaccurate.
- Transfers cannot be explained.
- Financial records are unavailable.
- Requests for information go unanswered.
Washington law generally requires a personal representative to prepare an inventory of estate assets and comply with statutory disclosure obligations. RCW 11.44.015; RCW 11.44.050.
Missing information does not necessarily establish wrongdoing. However, when incomplete records are combined with conflicts of interest, self-dealing, or delayed administration, closer scrutiny may be warranted.
These Cases Often Require Litigation, Not Routine Probate Administration
Many probate attorneys help families open and close uncontested estates. However, removal proceedings are very different from a typical probate or trust administration.
They frequently involve:
- Fiduciary-duty claims
- Allegations of self-dealing
- Financial investigations
- Discovery and depositions
- TEDRA litigation
- Evidentiary hearings
- Requests for immediate court intervention
For that reason, lawyers who do not regularly litigate trust and estate disputes often refer these matters to attorneys with fiduciary-litigation experience. Washington’s Trust and Estate Dispute Resolution Act (“TEDRA”) gives courts broad authority to resolve these disputes and fashion appropriate relief. RCW 11.96A.020.
We Frequently See Cases Involving
Our trust and estate litigation practice handles disputes involving:
- Trustees accused of favoring one branch of a family over another.
- Fiduciaries alleged to have transferred estate or trust assets to themselves.
- Missing inventories and accountings.
- Estates that remain open while expenses continue to rise and nothing is done.
- Fiduciary hostility that prevents objective administration.
- Requests for appointment of independent professional fiduciaries.
- Personal representatives who have asserted their own creditor claims against an estate.
- Trusts and estates containing significant real estate, investment portfolios, retirement assets, and business interests.
These disputes are often about far more than money. They are frequently disputes about control, transparency, fairness, and whether the fiduciary can still fulfill their obligations.
Not Every Fiduciary Dispute Requires Removal
Many disagreements can be resolved through better communication, additional disclosure, accountings, mediation, court supervision, or limited court intervention.
Removal is typically reserved for situations where continued administration by the existing fiduciary creates unacceptable risk to the beneficiaries, the trust, or the estate. The right remedy depends on the facts. If a fiduciary must be removed, the person asking for removal may also request that the trust or estate pay their legal fees to bring the removal action. RCW 11.96A.150.
The challenge is determining the difference before assets are depleted, positions become entrenched, and litigation becomes significantly more expensive.
Schedule a Confidential Consultation
Ellis, Li & McKinstry represents beneficiaries, heirs, trustees, personal representatives, and other interested parties in contested trust and estate matters throughout Washington. We regularly handle disputes involving fiduciary misconduct, trustee removal, personal representative removal, beneficiary conflicts, TEDRA proceedings, and related trust and estate litigation.
If you are concerned that a trustee or personal representative can no longer administer an estate or trust fairly and objectively, contact our trust and estate litigation team. We can evaluate the fiduciary’s conduct, the assets at risk, the available evidence, and the legal remedies that may be available to protect your interests.
Key Authorities
RCW 11.28.250; RCW 11.44.015; RCW 11.44.050; RCW 11.48.010; RCW 11.68.070; RCW 11.96A.020; In re Estate of Larson, 103 Wn.2d 517 (1985); In re Estate of Jones, 152 Wn.2d 1 (2004); Estate of Morris, 89 Wn. App. 431 (1998); In re Livingston’s Estate, 7 Wn. App. 841 (1972); Wilkins v. Lasater, 46 Wn. App. 766 (1987); Waits v. Hamlin, 55 Wn. App. 193 (1989); and Matter of Estate of Reugh, 10 Wn. App. 2d 20 (2019).
Disclaimer
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. The law, available remedies, and potential deadlines depend on the specific facts of each