Appeals court hears challenge to trustee's distributions from Czarnecki trust

An appellate panel heard oral argument on an appeal over distributions from the Czarnecki revocable living trust, focusing on whether the trial court's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and whether the surviving spouse-trustee abused his discretion.

Christopher Lee, attorney for the appellant, told the court that "a trustee is a fiduciary held to the highest standard" and argued that broad discretionary language in a trust does not remove the court's authority to review distributions. Lee said the trial court's finding that the surviving spouse needed the funds was not supported by substantial evidence and that distributions still must be "necessary" after considering the beneficiary's other income and assets.

The court repeatedly pressed counsel to identify which specific findings in the record were being challenged and emphasized appellate review's limits. One judge noted that unchallenged factual findings become verities on appeal and summarized the trial court's findings that the father's finances had been depleted by end-of-life care for his wife and that testimony supported the need for distributions.

Samantha Shaw, counsel for respondent Ron Czarnecki, said the case came after a four-day bench trial and that the trial court entered detailed findings in February and March orders. "After weighing the evidence and testimony, the trial court found that Ron's distributions to himself were authorized under the trust, they were reasonable and necessary, and that he did not breach his fiduciary duty," Shaw said. She argued many assignments of error were abandoned in briefing and told the panel she would focus her oral argument on abuse-of-discretion points: trust interpretation, removal, and the fee award.

Shaw urged the panel to construe the trust's language as creating a primary purpose of the surviving spouse's maintenance, noting the provision the parties discussed says the surviving trustor's "continued support and maintenance is paramount" and that the trust should not be preserved for remaindermen at the expense of the surviving spouse. On removal, Shaw said Washington law requires evidence of harm and necessity to justify removing a trustee and cited a precedent where a late accounting alone did not warrant removal. On attorneys' fees, she told the court the trial judge awarded fees under the statute the transcript records as "RCW 11.96A.150" (cited in argument) and that the March order explained findings including bad-faith considerations supporting the award.

The judges pressed both sides on the interplay between the trust's textual language and the trial record, exploring whether the appeal simply reargued credibility and fact determinations. The court asked Lee how relief could be obtained if certain core factual findings (for example, that the father's finances were depleted by his wife's care) remained unchallenged on appeal.

The hearing also touched on specific trust provisions: the panel noted the trust explicitly referenced California real property and that certain transfers or encumbrances require consent of special co-trustees, but the present dispute centered on income distributions rather than sale or encumbrance of property. Counsel for respondent emphasized there was no evidence the trust itself was harmed by the trustee's actions.

The court paused the argument for a short break, saying, "We'll see you in a few minutes." The panel's decision will appear in a written disposition after the judges complete their deliberations.