 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Peterson v. Peterson8/18/2000
vision news story aired regarding the Peterson estate. In response to the news story, a self-proclaimed gypsy nation representative, J. James Marks, telephoned the Contestants' counsel. According to the Contestants, Marks corroborated their allegations of fraud in their Creditor's Claim and Claim of Heirs.
On May 22, 1998, more than two months after the statutory four-month period for will contests had expired, the Contestants filed a Petition for Revocation of Probate of Peterson's will and codicil (Petition) based on fraud. The Petition contained the same allegations of fraud as in the Claim of Heirs: that the marriage was a sham to allow Victoria Steve Peterson and her family to continue to 'engage{} in a conspiracy to defraud decedent of his money, property and estate.' The Contestants also detailed the dates and changes Clarence Peterson had made to his will and the accompanying codicils. The Contestants alleged that: (1) Clarence Peterson was subjected to over-reaching, duress, fraud, and undue influence as a result of misrepresentations and frauds perpetrated by Victoria Steve Peterson and other members of her family; and (2) as a result, Victoria Steve Peterson procured Clarence Peterson's signature on the will that 'granted her significant bequests at the expense of decedent's natural bounty. The wills signed by decedent were not the results of decedent's free will.'
On June 8, 1998, the Contestants took the deposition of J. James Marks, Jr. Victoria Steve Peterson was once married to his son, and her ex-father-in-law was willing to share what he knew of her background. He also provided information about gypsy females who sought 'gustimano' or 'sugar daddies' 'that gypsy girls prey on to receive supplemental income.' Marks related Victoria Steve Peterson's interactions with Clarence Peterson and how she bragged she had hooked 'a whale.'
Victoria Steve Peterson moved to dismiss under CR 12(b)(1), because the Contestants' Petition was untimely. RCW 11.24.010. The trial court granted her motion to dismiss with prejudice.
The Contestants filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing for the first time that the trial court should extend the 'discovery rule' to will contests in probate proceedings. The trial court declined to do so and denied the motion.
The Contestants appealed. Their primary argument for applying the discovery rule to this will contest is that they could not have learned of the facts underlying the fraud until after the period to file a will contest had expired.
ANALYSIS
We review a trial court's denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Meridian Minerals Co. v. King County, 61 Wn. App.195, 203-04, 810 P.2d 31, rev. denied, 117 Wn.2d 1017, 818 P.2d 1099 (1991). Abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision rests on untenable grounds or untenable reasons. State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12, 26, 482 P.2d 775 (1971); Meridian Minerals, 61 Wn. App. at 204. Granting a motion to dismiss under CR 12(b)(1) is a question of law, which we review de novo, drawing all inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Vestron Inc. v. Home Box Office Inc., 839 F.2d 1380, 1381 (9th Cir. 1988); Kearney v. Kearney, 95 Wn. App. 405, 411 974 P.2d 872 (1999)(citing Cutler v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 124 Wn.2d 749, 755, 881 P.2d 216 (1994)). The Contestants ask us to apply the common law discovery rule to toll RCW 11.24.010's four-month period for filing will contests for cases of fraud Swhen contestants cannot and do not learn of the facts underlying the fraud until after the four-month limitations period' has expired. They argue that we can extend the discovery ru
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|