In Re The Estate Of: Angela E. Nowell

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the Matter of the Estate of:
ANGELA ELAINE NOWELL,
Deceased,
DEBORAH OSBORNE,
Appellant,
v.
EL-FATIH PAUL NOWELL,
Respondent.
No. 88386-1-I
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
CHUNG, J. — Deborah Osborne appeals from an order denying her motion
for revision of a King County court commissioner’s order denying her petition to
be appointed as administrator of the estate of her deceased sister Angela
Nowell. We affirm.
Angela,1 a resident of King County, died intestate on November 6, 2020.
On May 23, 2024, Osborne, representing herself, filed a petition in King County
Superior Court to be appointed the administrator of Angela’s estate. A King
County court commissioner denied Osborne’s petition because Angela’s
husband Nowell had already been appointed administrator of the estate in Pierce
County and “[t]his court cannot modify that order and cannot appoint a ‘second’
1 For clarity, we refer to Angela Nowell by her first name as she shares a last name with
her surviving spouse, El-Fatih, whom we refer to as Nowell.

No. 88386-1-I/2
2
administrator.’ ” Osborne separately appealed from the Pierce County Superior
Court’s January 10, 2025, order denying her motion to revise the Pierce County
court’s commissioner’s order denying her motion to vacate Nowell’s letters of
administration. A commissioner of this court linked the appeals for review by the
same panel.2
In this appeal, Osborne argues that the King County Superior Court erred
because she had already opened probate in King County and no motion to
change venue to Pierce County Superior Court was filed in that action. She
further argues that Nowell unlawfully filed for appointment in Pierce County and
the King County court commissioner should have compelled him to respond to
her petition instead of denying it.
In the linked appeal (“Pierce County appeal”), we rejected essentially
identical arguments and held that Osborne offered no tenable basis to vacate
Nowell’s appointment in Pierce County. See In re Estate of Nowell, No. 88154-0-
I, slip op. at 1 (Wash. Ct. App. April 6, 2026) (unpublished). Because no letters of
administration had been granted in the King County probate and the appointment
of Nowell as administrator of his wife’s estate in Pierce County was otherwise
proper, no change of venue from King County to Pierce County was required. Id.
at 5-6. We adopt the facts and reasoning from our opinion in the Pierce County
appeal and hold that the King County Superior Court did not err in denying
Osborne’s motion to revise the commissioner’s order denying her petition.
2 The background facts are set out in greater detail in our opinion in the linked appeal, In
re Estate of Nowell, No. 88154-0-I (Wash. Ct. App. April 6, 2026) (unpublished).

No. 88386-1-I/3
3
Osborne also alleges “procedural disparities and due process concerns”
regarding this court’s rulings on motions filed by both parties. We considered and
rejected the same arguments in numerous motions Osborne filed in the Pierce
County appeal. Nowell, No. 88154-0-I, slip op. at 7-10. Consistent with our
opinion in that matter, the same motions and arguments raised in this matter are
also denied.
Nowell requests reasonable attorney fees and costs on appeal under RAP
18.1(a) and RCW 11.96A.150. We exercise our discretion and award reasonable
attorney fees and costs to Nowell under RCW 11.96A.150 subject to compliance
with RAP 18.1. Osborne’s request for an award of sanctions against Nowell
under RAP 18.9(a) is denied.
Affirmed.
WE CONCUR: