 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Peterson v. Peterson8/18/2000
e grossest kind.' Lint is inapposite. Lint involved a will contest that challenged the validity of the testatrix's will and the validity of her brief, non-legal marriage to Christian Lint. Lint, 135 Wn.2d at 530.
After receiving information that Christian was exercising undue influence over the testatrix and isolating her from family and friends, the contestants timely filed their petition to challenge the will. Lint, 135 Wn.2d at 530. The trial court concluded that the testatrix's will was 'procured by fraud and undue influence and that her marriage to Christian was void due to lack of solemnization, {the testatrix's} incompetence at the time of marriage,' and 'exceptional circumstances indicating fraud of the grossest kind.' Lint, 135 Wn.2d at 530 (emphasis added).
There were also substantial questions regarding about the testatrix's competence when she signed financial powers of attorney, which a notary refused to notarize. Lint, 135 Wn.2d at 524-25. The 'married couple' not only lacked a marriage license, but a video tape of the ceremony revealed that the testatrix was not well and was unable to complete sentences or repeat words after they were spoken to her. Lint, 135 Wn.2d at 526. Furthermore, Lint helped her 'practice writing her name' before they arrived at the courthouse to apply for a marriage license. Lint, 135 Wn.2d at 526.
The Lint court found these exceptional circumstances allowed them to go outside the statutory framework of RCW 26.09.040 to declare the marriage invalid, even though one of the marriage partners was dead. Lint, 135 Wn.2d at 539. Although nullifying an unsolemnized, fraudulent marriage, the Lint court did not, however, circumvent the Legislature's time-limit for filing will contests, in spite of allegations of fraud.
Nor has the Washington Supreme Court been willing to use the rules of civil procedure to enlarge the statutory period for will contests, which were based on fraud. In re Estate of Toth, 138 Wn.2d 650, 981 P.2d 439 (1999). In holding that the four-month period for contesting wills was not tolled by the CR 6(e), the court stated:
Will contests are statutory proceedings, and courts 'must be governed by the provisions of the applicable statute.' In re Estate of Van Dyke, 54 Wn. App. 225, 228, 772 P.2d 1049 (1989). RCW 11.24.010 sets the time period for interested parties seeking to contest wills that have been admitted to probate. The statute provides that any person seeking to contest a will 'shall appear within four months immediately following the probate or rejection' of the will. Washington cases have held that the time period imposed by RCW 11.24.010 begins to run on the date the will is admitted to probate. In re Estate of Barr, 76 Wn.2d 59, 60-61, 455 P.2d 585 (1969); In re Estate of Young, 23 Wn. App. 761, 763, 598 P.2d 7 (1979). Toth, 138 Wn.2d at 653.
C. Legislative History
The courts' decisions are consistent with legislative history relating to RCW 11.24.010. Initially, the time period to contest a will was one year. State ex rel. Wood v. Superior Court, 76 Wash. 27, 31, 135 P. 494 (1913) (citing Rem. & Bal{l}. Code, sec. 1307 ({Pierce's Code} 409 sec. 115). In 1917, the Legislature reduced the period to six months. Laws of 1917, ch. 156, sec. 15. Fifty years later, the Legislature again reduced the period, this time, from six to four months, the time period applicable to the case before us. Laws of 1967, ch. 168, sec. 6.
The Legislature was not silent regarding the four-month period for commencing a will contest. RCW 11.24.010. Unlike RCW 26.09.040, which enumerates the reasons for in
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.
|
|