Parman v. Estate of Parman

1

ELIZABETH M. PARMAN, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. ESTATE OF RUTH MARIE PARMAN, and SHAWN PARMAN, a single man, Respondents/Cross-Appellants.

No. 57860-3-II

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2

April 23, 2024

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

LEE J.

Elizabeth Bartlett, formerly Elizabeth Parman, appeals nine orders from the superior court that culminated in the summary judgment dismissal of her claims of unjust enrichment prior to 2015 breach of joint venture/partnership, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel against the Estate of Ruth Parman (the Estate), and tortious interference with business expectancy against Shawn Parman. The Estate and Shawn Parman (collectively, the Parmans) cross-appeal a superior court order denying their motion to cancel a lis pendens.

We reverse the superior court's summary judgment dismissal of Elizabeth's claim for unjust enrichment prior to 2015 and remand for further proceedings. However, we affirm the superior court's dismissal of Elizabeth's other claims against the Parmans on summary judgment. And because the Parmans did not timely appeal the order denying the motion to cancel the lis pendens, we dismiss the Parmans' cross-appeal.

FACTS

A. BACKGROUND

Elizabeth Bartlett^[1] and Shawn Parman married in 1986. Shawn's^[2] parents were Robert and Ruth Parman, both now deceased.

In 1997, Elizabeth and Shawn bought a 7.1-acre property in Olympia, Washington, known as the Renata Lane Property. Elizabeth intended to construct a horse ranch on the property. According to Elizabeth, she bought the property with separate gift money from her parents. However, she deposited the funds into a joint checking account she shared with Shawn and used funds from that account to purchase the property in both her and Shawn's names.

Robert and Ruth moved in with Shawn and Elizabeth in 1997. In 1998 Robert, Ruth, Shawn, and Elizabeth agreed to build a home together on the Renata Lane Property where both couples along with Shawn and Elizabeth's young sons, would live.

In 2000, Shawn and Elizabeth conveyed the Renata Lane Property to Robert and Ruth via quitclaim deed. Shawn and Elizabeth also signed a "Joint Venture and Joint Venture Dissolution Agreement" (JV Agreement). Clerk's Papers (CP) at 106. According to Elizabeth, Robert and Ruth needed to have the property in their name in order to obtain a loan to help with completion of the home construction. Elizabeth contends that "[i]t was never intended by any party that the quitclaim deed conveying the property to Ruth and Robert be an absolute transfer of title." CP at 1853. According to Shawn, it was Shawn and Elizabeth's financial troubles that led to their conveyance of the property to Robert and Ruth. According to Ruth, she and Robert agreed to the arrangement to "try to keep a young family together" because Shawn and Elizabeth "couldn't afford a home on their own," and Ruth feared that Elizabeth "would have had to take her boys and go back to her family" otherwise. CP at 379-80.

The JV Agreement stated in relevant part:

SHAWN and ELIZABETH PARMAN . . . and ROBERT and RUTH PARMAN . . . agree as follows:

That the parties hereto entered into a Joint Venture Agreement for the construction of a new residence on a parcel of real estate in Thurston County, State of Washington. It was the intent of the parties that two homes would be constructed on site, one for each of the married parties.

. . . .

Shawn Parman and Elizabeth Parman have insufficient funds to contribute anything further to the joint venture agreement and, accordingly, are unable to continue to participate therein.

. . . .

. . . [I]t is agreed that this joint venture shall be terminated and in exchange for completing the property and funding the same to completion, and holding Shawn and Elizabeth Parman harmless from any financial responsibility, Shawn and Elizabeth Parman will quit claim all right, title and interest in the subject property to Ruth and Robert Parman as their sole and separate property and this joint venture will then be dissolved.

Based upon the foregoing, the parties do hereby agree that upon execution of the Quit Claim Deed divesting Shawn and Elizabeth Parman of any interest in the subject property, they shall be free from any claims of any sort . . . . Further, the subject development shall be the sole and separate property of Ruth and Robert Parman.

CP at 106-08.

Elizabeth asserts that the JV Agreement was, in fact, "an explicit understanding" where Elizabeth would

(a) contribute the subject property, purchased from her separate funds, (b) make further valuable improvements to the subject property, and (c) pay one-half the costs of the mortgage, utilities, taxes and the insurance on the subject property beginning in January, 2001, and Bob and Ruth Parman would in return (d) pay one-half the costs of the mortgage, utilities, taxes and insurance on the subject property, (e) complete the construction of a house on the subject property and in addition would (f) convey one-half the subject property to [Elizabeth] and one-half the subject property to Shawn . . . upon the death of Bob and Ruth Parman.

CP at 5.

In 2001, Shawn and Elizabeth filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, for which they received a discharge. They did not list the Renata Lane Property as an asset.

In 2004, Robert and Ruth executed parallel wills that conveyed their interest in the Renata Lane Property to one another, and then 50% of the property to Elizabeth with the remainder to Shawn, after the last to die. In 2005, Robert passed away. Elizabeth continued to make improvements to the property over the next several years.

In 2016, Shawn and Elizabeth separated, and in 2017, divorced. Neither Shawn nor Elizabeth listed the Renata Lane Property as an asset in their divorce decree.

Following Shawn and Elizabeth's divorce, Ruth updated her will in 2017 to convey 100% of her interest in the Renata Lane Property to Shawn. According to Ruth, she removed Elizabeth from her will based on the way Elizabeth "treated [her] and the rest of [the] family members." CP at 62.

B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. Complaint and Counterclaims

In June 2018, Elizabeth filed a complaint against Ruth and Shawn. Against Ruth, Elizabeth alleged (1) joint venture/partnership; (2) estoppel; (3) unjust enrichment; and (4) negligent/intentional misrepresentation. Against Shawn, Elizabeth alleged tortious interference with contract/business expectancy. Elizabeth sought a judgment against Ruth and Shawn in the amount of expenditures and contributions Elizabeth made to the Renata Lane Property.

In their answer to Elizabeth's complaint, the Parmans advanced a counterclaim to quiet title to the Renata Lane Property.^[3] In her answer to the counterclaim, Elizabeth stated: "It was never intended by any party that the quitclaim deed conveying the property to Bob Parman and Ruth Parman be an absolute transfer of title, and Elizabeth Parman retained an equitable interest in the property and treated the property as though she was a co-owner of the property." CP at 25. Further, Elizabeth requested a decree quieting title to her "equitable interest in the property." CP at 25. In the alternative, Elizabeth reiterated her initial claim for relief, or a judgment against Ruth in the amount of all expenditures and contributions Elizabeth made on the Renata Lane Property.

In June 2019, Ruth passed away. In July 2019, Shawn submitted Ruth's 2017 will to probate. Shawn was appointed as personal representative of Ruth's estate. The Estate was later substituted in the action brought by Elizabeth.

Elizabeth filed a notice of appearance in the probate of Ruth's estate. In October 2019, Elizabeth submitted a creditor's claim against the Estate, citing RCW 11.40.070(1). The claim alleged that Elizabeth sought to recover "capital contributions to, and her share of the profit from, the joint venture/partnership," amounting to $375,000. CP at 2393. Elizabeth additionally listed as a basis for her claim that the Estate was "unjustly enriched" and that "[f]urther facts and circumstances are set forth in claimant's complaint and answer to counterclaims in the case of Parman v. Parman, Thurston County Superior Court cause #18-2-03269-34." CP at 2394. Elizabeth did not, however, contest Ruth's will. The Estate rejected Elizabeth's claim.

2. Lis Pendens

In July 2019, Elizabeth filed a notice of lis pendens on the Renata Lane Property. In September 2020, the Parmans moved to cancel the lis pendens because Elizabeth's claims amounted to a money judgment and a lis pendens pertained only to actions affecting real property. According to Elizabeth, her intention in filing the lis pendens was "to ensure that any third-party transferee of the property would take subject to the claims of [Elizabeth] for reimbursement for over $143,500 of her separate funds she spent on improving the property over the nearly 20-year period." CP at 173. She claimed her "equitable interest" in the property affected its title, so a lis pendens was appropriate. CP at 173. Further, Elizabeth argued that under RCW 4.28.320, her action against the Parmans had not "'settled discontinued, or abated,'" and therefore there was no basis to cancel the lis pendens. CP at 182.

Due to a misunderstanding about motion deadlines, Elizabeth filed her response to the Parmans' motion to cancel the lis pendens one day late. As a result, when she filed her response, she also moved for an extension. The Parmans opposed Elizabeth's motion to extend time. In their opposition to the extension of time, the Parmans claimed that Elizabeth failed to comply with notice requirements of RCW 4.28.320^[4] because she did not personally serve or publish a summons of the lis pendens within 60 days of its filing.

...