Erin Peters v. Holly Kenner

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
ERIN PETERS, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Diana
Hafer,
Appellant,
v.
HOLLY KENNER, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Raymond
and Orvalla Hafer,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 40648-2-III
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
LAWRENCE -B ERREY , C.J. — Holly Kenner was the personal representative of both
of her parents’ estates. She also was the person responsible for winding up the family
business, Hafer Farms, LLC. Diana Hafer,1 wife of Randal Hafer, had a 16.66 percent
interest in Hafer Farms. Diana was not a beneficiary of either Hafer estate.
Diana brought suit against the personal representative to enjoin her from using
Hafer Farms’ assets to fund a settlement reached between her husband and his mother’s
estate. Diana claimed that those assets were needed to satisfy her 16.66 percent interest
in Hafer Farms. The personal representative claimed that the settlement involved not just
1 Diana passed away while this case was pending. Erin Peters is the personal
representative of Diana’s estate. Regardless, we will refer to the appellant as Diana.
FILED
MARCH 3, 2026
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

No. 40648-2-III
Peters v. Kenner
2
Randal, but also his wife, Diana, and the settlement accounted for Diana’s 16.66 percent
interest in Hafer Farms.
The trial court granted Holly Kenner’s motion for summary judgment. Our de
novo review of the record did not uncover any evidence that Diana is entitled to
additional proceeds beyond Ms. Kenner’s proposed payment. Because Diana failed to
show she has a clear legal or equitable right to additional proceeds beyond the proposed
payment, we affirm.
FACTS 2
Raymond died in 1984 and Orvalla died on October 9, 2017. Raymond and
Orvalla were survived by their four children: Justin Hafer, Randal Hafer, Nathan Hafer,
and Holly Kenner. Holly Kenner obtained letters testamentary and became the duly
appointed personal representative to probate both estates. The estates were worth
approximately $6.5 million collectively. Estate assets included real property, farming
equipment, and an interest in Hafer Farms, LLC.
2 Several individuals in this appeal share a surname, so we refer to them by their
first names for clarity. We mean no disrespect.

No. 40648-2-III
Peters v. Kenner
3
At the time of Orvalla’s death, the following individuals owned the following
membership interests in Hafer Farms: Orvalla (33 percent); Justin and his wife Debra
(16.66 percent each); and Randal and his wife Diana (16.66 percent each).
Holly Kenner, as personal representative of her parents’ estates, assumed control
of Orvalla’s membership interest. In 2019, Ms. Kenner hired a certified public
accountant (CPA) to prepare a proposed plan for distributing Hafer Farms’ assets. The
proposed plan projected the following distributions: Orvalla ($1,099,261); Justin and
Debra ($1,007,963); and Randal and Diana ($974,028).
Ms. Kenner and Justin appointed Ms. Kenner dissolution manager of Hafer Farms.
Although Diana never consented to Ms. Kenner’s appointment, Ms. Kenner began to
carry out the terms of the proposed liquidation in accordance with the CPA’s plan.
Several distributions of Hafer Farms’ assets were made to Justin and Debra and to
Randal and Diana. Distributions to Randal and Diana included: irrigation pivots worth
$55,000.00, a pump station valued at approximately $28,548.72, small equipment worth
$45,301.38, other equipment valued at approximately $100,000.00 retained by the
couple, and a check of nearly $100,000.00. Randal and Diana refused to cash the check
because they did not agree to the CPA’s plan.

No. 40648-2-III
Peters v. Kenner
4
As part of the estate administration, Ms. Kenner terminated various leases between
the estates and Hafer Farms and executed a lease between the estates and a corporation
owned by Justin. This led to a lawsuit between Randal and Ms. Kenner in her personal
representative capacity. The parties mediated the dispute and entered into a written
settlement agreement in which Ms. Kenner agreed to pay Randal $1,225,000 “from the
Estate” in exchange for a “waiver and receipt of final distribution.” CP at 58.
Ms. Kenner, as personal representative of the Hafer estates, filed a motion for
court approval of the settlement that differed from the terms of the written settlement
agreement. The proposed settlement did not indicate that the funds would come from
Orvalla’s estate, it included Diana and Ms. Kenner in her capacity as dissolution
managers as necessary parties to the agreement, and it required Randal and Diana to
waive any right to further distributions from Hafer Farms. The trial judge in that case
denied the motion and no order was entered.
In early June 2023, Diana sent a letter to Ms. Kenner seeking assurances that
Hafer Farms’ remaining assets—approximately $300,000 in cash—would not be used to
satisfy her husband’s mediated settlement. In the letter, Diana asserted that Hafer Farms
owed her “‘several hundred thousand dollars.’” CP at 9.

No. 40648-2-III
Peters v. Kenner
5
When Ms. Kenner did not respond by the letter’s deadline, Diana brought the
underlying action seeking a preliminary injunction against Ms. Kenner. In the action, she
sought to prevent Ms. Kenner from using Hafer Farms’ cash to satisfy, in her view, an
estate obligation. She claimed that unless an injunction was issued, “Ms. Kenner will be
permitted to convert and commingle company assets and, in the process, tortiously
interfere with [her] contractual and statutory rights to receiv[e] a distribution for her
membership interest.” CP at 105. Diana asserted that she had not been paid for her
membership interest in Hafer Farms and was entitled to a distribution of the company’s
cash.
On July 31, 2023, Diana died intestate. The trial court appointed her daughter,
Erin Peters, personal representative of Diana’s estate.
Ms. Kenner moved for summary judgment against Diana. She claimed that the
value that Randal and Diana had received, coupled with the settlement amount, would
fully compensate them for their portions of the estates and Hafer Farms. Ms. Kenner
included a table showing the planned distribution of Hafer Farms’ assets and the
corresponding values assigned. The table shows three columns—Justin and Debra (one-
third owners), Randal and Diana (one-third owners), and the Orvalla estate (one-third
owner). The table shows that Ms. Kenner intended to reimburse capital contributions

No. 40648-2-III
Peters v. Kenner
6
made by each of the three, and that the remaining funds would be divided evenly between
the three—roughly $653,750 each.
Diana reasserted the positions set forth in her complaint and responded to Ms.
Kenner’s arguments. Diana did not refute the information contained in Ms. Kenner’s
table showing equal distributions would be made among Hafer Farms’ members.
The trial court granted Ms. Kenner’s motion and dismissed Diana’s request for
injunctive relief with prejudice.
Diana appealed.
ANALYSIS
We review a trial court’s order on a motion for summary judgment de novo.
Wilkinson v. Chiwawa Cmtys. Ass’n, 180 Wn.2d 241, 249, 327 P.3d 614 (2014). A court
may grant summary judgment if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party, establishes that there is no genuine issue of any material fact and that
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. CR 56(c); Wilkinson, 180
Wn.2d at 249.
Injunctive relief
A party seeking injunctive relief must show (1) they have a clear legal or equitable
right, (2) they have a well-grounded fear of immediate invasion of that right, and (3) the

No. 40648-2-III
Peters v. Kenner
7
acts complained of are either resulting in or will result in actual and substantial injury to
them. Kucera v. Dep’t of Transp., 140 Wn.2d 200, 209, 995 P.2d 63 (2000).
Here, it is undisputed that Justin and Debra, Randal and Diana, and the Orvalla
estate each had a one-third ownership interest in Hafer Farms. Ms. Kenner provided a
table showing a detailed breakdown of Hafer Farms’ assets, values, and their past and
intended distributions. After accounting for each member’s adjusted capital accounts, the
table shows that each one-third entity would receive approximately the same distribution.
Diana did not respond to this. Instead, the only response we can find in the record
comes from the letter Diana sent to Ms. Kenner before she initiated this lawsuit. In that
letter, Diana asserted Hafer Farms owed her “‘several hundred thousand dollars.’” CP at
9. This assertion lacks any calculation. It did not set forth a value of Hafer Farms, did
not show credits for Hafer Farms’ assets that she and Randal had received or retained,
and it did not explain whether it included the nearly $100,000 check issued by Hafer
Farms that Diana refused to cash. “‘[C]onclusory statements without adequate factual
support are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.’” 	Farias v. Port
Blakely Co., 22 Wn. App. 2d 467, 493, 512 P.3d 574 (2022) (quoting Guile v. Ballard
Cmty. Hosp., 70 Wn. App. 18, 25, 851 P.2d 689 (1993)).

No. 40648-2-III
Peters v. Kenner
8
In its ruling, the trial court did not explain why it granted Ms. Kenner’s motion for
summary judgment. Nevertheless, “[w]e may affirm the trial court on any grounds
established by the pleadings and supported by the record.” Truck Ins. Exch. v. VanPort
Homes, Inc., 147 Wn.2d 751, 766, 58 P.3d 276 (2002). Here, Diana failed to adequately
contradict the information in Ms. Kenner’s table that showed each of Hafer Farms’ 33.33
percent interest would receive equal distributions. For this reason, Diana failed to show
she had a clear legal or equitable right to any additional compensation beyond the
intended distribution. We conclude that the trial court did not err in dismissing Diana’s
request to enjoin the intended distribution.
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to
RCW 2.06.040.
_________________________________
Lawrence-Berrey, C.J.
WE CONCUR:
______________________________ 	_________________________________
Cooney, J. 	Murphy, J.