No.

769553
___________________________________________________________

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION I

___________________________________________________________

In re the Estate of Leeanna R. Mickelson

HEATHER J.E.L. BENEDICT,

Appellant,
v.

JAMES A. MICKELSON,

Respondent.

___________________________________________________________

ON APPEAL FROM THE KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Case No.: 16-4-06644-2
The Honorable Barbara Linde

___________________________________________________________

BRIEF AND ADDENDUM OF APPELLANT

___________________________________________________________

HEATHER J.E.L. BENEDICT

f/k/a Heather J. Mickelson
Daughter of Decedent, Pro Se
PMB 7865
PO Box 257
Olympia, WA 98507-257
hjelbenedict@gmail.com
(253) 209-7434

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s)

TABLE OFAUTHORITIES…………………………..………………….i

A. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR………………………...…..……1, 2

B. STATEMENT OF THE CASE…………………………………2, 3

C. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT……………………………..….3, 4

D. ARGUMENT………………………..…………………………4 - 6

E. CONCLUSION……………………………………………..……..7

F. ADDENDUM……………….………………………………..8 - 20

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes
Washington State:

RCW 11.28.110
RCW 11.28.330
RCW 11.28.340

Rules
Washington State:

CR60

King County:

LCR 60

2
A. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

1. Whether the lower court did err in failing to follow the

simple statutory scheme codified in RCW 11.28 and otherwise made

available to the general public via a publication by Mucklestone1 and held

in the local law library for public use of forms and thus did err in failing to

deliver the outcome expected of a judicial administration to simply

process the statutory scheme provided by the Legislature?

2. Whether the lower court did err in vacating an order

without complying with LCR60 which requires a show cause hearing

when it simply changed its mind and once again diverted from a

prescribed scheme prescribed as influenced by an attorney representing

another heir thus making a playground of the legal process where the

attorneys profit at the expense of the simple respect that is shown a citizen

in making the determination of testacy or intestacy?

3. Whether the lower court did err in penalizing an heir during

the administration of her mother’s estate and allowing members of the

1
Mr. Robert S. Mucklestone is a Washington State attorney with Perkins Coie LLP and
author of the Washington Probate and Procedure and Tax Manual with Forms (3d ed.
2009), an authoritative source endorsed by the Washington State Bar Association. On
November 1, 2016, I met with Mr. Mucklestone whom confirmed I was following the
correct procedure and forms to petition a Washington State Superior Court for an order
of intestacy.

3
Washington State Bar Association to financially gain while the heir’s

daughter is being penalized for wanting closure within the parameter

prescribed by her Legislature and made available in the local law library.

B STATEMENT OF THE CASE

My mother died on May 1, 2012. Efforts to have the court

administer the scheme set forth in RCW 11.28 resulted in the Washington

State Court of Appeals Division II not returning a determination of

whether or not my mother died testate or intestate. (Mickelson vs.

Mickelson, Court of Appeals Division II No. 46056-1-II, on October 24,

2017, https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2049056-1-

II%20Unpublished%20Opinion.pdf). On November 16, 2016, the King

County Superior Court entered an order of intestacy making the

determination that my mother died intestate. Clerk’s Papers (CP at 3). On

January 3, 2017, the order of intestacy was improperly vacated by the

same Commissioner that entered it after being influenced by an attorney to

once again divert from the process provided by the legislature for

determination of intestacy. (CP at 114). This diversion went to the extent

of diverting the Court from its own Local Rules to continue to frustrate the

administration of the process prescribed by the legislature to make a

determination of intestacy for a decedent of Washington State. Rather, the

4
legal process has been abused to create a playfield for attorneys to bill

thousands of dollars and dance around the simple finding requested of the

court based on the process prescribed by the legislature and made

available for the public in the local law library. From the perspective of a

citizen looking to the judicial system to make a simple determination of

only two possibilities, intestate or not, the legal system has gone far astray

from providing a citizen this simple respect and closure on their life.

The judiciary has abandoned the statutory scheme which was

published and made available to the public for the determination of testacy

or intestacy and heirship of on the citizens of the state. A citizen heir has

been prevented from utilizing the forms made available at her local law

library to have the court enter a finding of intestacy for her own mother.

The heir has been dragged into an unnecessary punitive litany of legal

proceedings aimed at misdirecting the court from its judicial

administrative duties.

C. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

It should not take this long for an agency to figure out whether or

not a citizen died testate or intestate and who the heirs of the citizen are.

The failure of the judiciary to follow the simple statutory scheme set forth

in RCW 11.28 and to allow an attorney to guide the administrative of

5
justice away from the prescribed statutory scheme for determination of

intestacy and heirship was error. There is no actual reason for the Court to

abandon its duty to administer the courts in a manner consistent with the

statutes and court rules prescribed and since this has become the pattern in

this case the court should enter an order which affirms the order of

intestacy and heirship and fulfill its duty under RCW 11.28 to enter the

determination of intestacy and heirship subject the four month notice

provision of the same.

The continued penalization of an heir who made an initial attempt

to follow the simple statutory scheme and has been dragged through

unnecessary stalling and avoiding a simple question that citizens should

have an expectation of being able to rely on the judicial system to deliver

without what has been occurring. There is no reason for the judicial

system to move in a direction where they essentially refuse to make the

simple determination and are locked into a tradition which now prevents

them from delivering the judicial administration which a citizen has a

reason to expect from the system.

D. ARGUMENT

The application for letters of administration or adjudication of

intestacy and heirship as set forth in RCW 11.28 requires the petitioner to

6
apply in ex-parte for the initial order which is then made final after four

months if there is no showing of a will. The forms necessary for this

process are made available to the public at the local law library in a

publication by Mucklestone to approach the court for a determination of

intestacy and heirship. There is no reason for the Court not to make the

determination as a function of its duties to the public to administer justice.

This finding is a small amount of respect to show a citizen after their

death.

The continued frustration of statutorily prescribed process for

determination of intestacy and heirship by the court including the

frustration of the Local Rules for the process of vacating an order is an

abuse of the legal process which needs to be bridled in so that the Court

can move forward with the currently active probate in King County.

There was no reason to thwart two counties from determining something

which is prescribed in RCW 11.28 and prevent the court from attending to

its duties of administering justice and entering a determination of intestacy

for my mother.

A citizen should be able to follow the simple scheme according to

the forms made available to the public at their local law library. In this

case an initial determination of intestacy is called for by the statute and the

court is supposed to allow four months for anyone to prove different.

7
How this probate has taken so many turns is due primarily to opposing

side forever attempting to bury simple findings and to penalize the heir

who wants an honest answer from her judicial system which is there to

provide that service and is failing. They do this while blaming the

unnecessarily burdening an heir.

The dance of avoiding the duty of determining the testacy or

intestacy of a citizen is something which has to be initiated by a citizen

and at which point the legislative process has the right or expectation to be

followed by the judiciary to output the determination, not to harass and

penalize the heir for wanting an honest answer. The heir initially

requested a finding of intestacy and heirship and the judicial system has

allowed members of the bar to derail the simple procedures provided by

the legislature and made available to citizens. This is an unacceptable

form of bullying.

Punishing a citizen for expecting the judiciary to follow the

statutory schemes prescribed by our legislature is not warranted or

authorized and all the judgments for fees should be vacated if only to

show respect to citizens at such a difficult social time is not the time to

show the prowess of professional courtesy but to avoid even the

appearance of such an impropriety.

8
E. CONCLUSION

The citizens of Washington State should be able to utilize forms

available in the local law library outlining a very simple process for

requesting that the court enter a determination of intestacy and heirship for

their deceased mother. No citizen should be taken through a legal

wonderland where the attorneys are raking in the money and diverting the

judicial system from administering the justice which is their duty. In this

case, the justice which is required is for my mother’s determination of

intestacy and heirship to be entered in a final form. Res judicata requires

such a final finding not the continued aversion from such a finding. The

order of adjudication of intestacy and heirship should be affirmed and the

punitive awards of attorney fees should be reversed.

DATED this 26th of December, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

________________________

HEATHER J.E.L. BENEDICT

Pro Se, Daughter
f/k/a Heather J. Mickelson

9
 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION I

No. 769553

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on the 4th of December, 2017, affiant sent the
BRIEF AND ADDENDUM OF APPELLANT to the individuals identified
below in the manner so indicated.

James Albert Mickelson

c/o Kenyon Luce via US Mail
Luce & Associates, P.S.
4505 Pacific Hwy St A
Fife, WA 98424

Gale Elizabeth McArthur

c/o Stuart Morgan via US Mail
710 Market Street
Tacoma, WA 98402

Court of Appeals Division I via US Mail

600 University Street
Seattle, WA 98101

I declare under the penalty and perjury under the laws of the State of
Washington the foregoing is true and correct.

Signed and dated this 4th day of December, 2017 in Seattle, Washington.

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________________

Heather Jean Elsie Lincoln Benedict

PMB 7865, PO Box 257
Olympia, WA 98507

10