 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Peterson v. Peterson8/18/2000
le without a specific statutory authorization and that we have the equitable authority to 'look beyond the statutory framework in matters involving 'fraud of the grossest kind.'' We agree with Victoria Steve Peterson that applying the discovery rule to excuse the Contestants' failure to file a timely will contest would be contrary to the Legislature's historical objective, which has been to shorten the filing period for will contests.
A. The Discovery Rule
The 'discovery rule' was adopted by the Washington Supreme Court in Ruth v. Dight, 75 Wn.2d 660, 453 P.2d 631 (1969), a medical malpractice case. The Court held that statute of limitations begins to run in medical malpractice cases when 'the patient discovers or, in the exercise of reasonable care for his own health and welfare, should have discovered the presence of the foreign substance or article in his body.' Ruth, 75 Wn.2d at 667-68. Since Ruth, Washington courts have refined the discovery doctrine, but only in tort cases. There is neither precedent nor cause for us to extend the rule here.
Moreover, even were we to consider it, this case would not present facts justifying extension of the discovery rule. The contestants were well aware of the basis of their fraud claims at the time they filed their Claim of Heirs, within the four-month statutory period. In that Claim, they alleged that the Peterson marriage was a sham, that Victoria Steve Peterson acted fraudulently, and that the marriage should be declared null and void. The Contestants needed only to file their petition within the statutory time frame; having failed to do so, they have lost their right to contest the will.
The Washington Supreme Court has declined to apply the discovery rule to a probate statute that was silent regarding the discovery rule. Ruth, 75 Wn.2d at 660. The court did not extend the discovery rule to the non-claim statute, RCW 11.40.010; Ruth, 75 Wn.2d at 670. Nor did it allow the plaintiff to recover from the tortfeasor-doctor's estate, even though it had done so for the plaintiff's medical malpractice claim, which was time barred under RCW 4.16.010 and .080(2) (1975). Ruth, 75 Wn.2d at 668-69. The court compared the three-year statute of limitations (RCW 4.16.080(2)) to the language of the non-claim statute, RCW 11.40.010. RCW 11.40.010 (1969) provided in pertinent part:
Every executor or administrator shall, immediately after his appointment, cause to be published . . . a notice . . . to the creditors of the deceased, requiring all persons having claims against the deceased to serve the same on the executor or administrator . . . within six months{} after the date of the first publication of such notice. . . . If a claim be not filed within the time aforesaid, it shall be barred. Ruth, 75 Wn.2d at 669 (emphasis added).
The court held: 'The non-claim statute is mandatory and not subject to enlargement by interpretation; and it cannot be waived'; and the plaintiff's claims against the doctor's estate were barred. Ruth, 75 Wn.2d at 669-70 (citations omitted). The language of RCW 11.24.010 has the same precision and definitiveness relating to the commencement of a will contest action, and the subsequent barring of late actions, as the non-claim statute analyzed in Ruth. Therefore, we extend the Supreme Court's ruling in Ruth to the case before us and similarly decline to extend the discovery rule.
B. Equity
The Contestants next rely on In re the Estate of Lint, 135 Wn.2d 518, 957 P.2d 755 (1998), for the principle that we have the 'equitable authority' to look beyond the statutory framework in matters involving 'fraud of th
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.
|
|