 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Peterson v. Peterson8/18/2000
validating a marriage, RCW 11.24.010 directs 'any person' interested in 'any will' to appear within four months 'immediately following the probate,' and '{i}f no person shall appear within the time under this section, the probate or rejection of such will shall be binding and final.' (Emphasis added.) Here, the statute is unambiguous that the period for contesting a will begins at the date of probate and ends four months later. RCW 11.24.010.
Washington courts have historically declined to extend the statutory period in which to contest a will:
{T}his court has held that, a will having been admitted to probate, and no contest initiated within the statutory limitation, the superior court can not entertain an application for probate of a later will (State ex rel. Wood v. Superior Court, 76 Wash. 27, 135 P. 494); that 'all contests based upon any cause affecting the validity of the will must be commenced within . . . {the time limited}, and if not so commenced the probate becomes a final adjudication as to the validity of the will, binding upon the whole world, . . . ' (Horton v. Barto, 57 Wash. 477, 107 P. 191, 135 Am. St. 999 {1910}); that the statute bars any subsequent contest or proceeding at law or in equity to set aside the probate on the ground of fraud inducing the will or procuring its probate, or on the ground that it has been revoked by a subsequent marriage (In re Hoscheid's Estate, 78 Wash. 309, 139 P. 61 {1914}).
In re Randall's Estate, 8 Wn.2d 622, 625-26, 113 P.2d 54 (1941) (emphasis added). Even in the case of will contests, our Supreme Court has acknowledged that 'factual inequities do not justify circumventing a clear rule articulated by the Legislature.' Toth, 138 Wn.2d at 657. The Contestants correctly relate that the Legislature has applied the discovery rule to probate proceedings. Relying on RCW 11.96.060(1), they argue that the discovery rule has been applied to actions against trustees and that, accordingly, we should extend the discovery rule to will contests. But this argument is again contrary to the legislative intent: RCW 11.96.060(1) demonstrates that although the Legislature has expressly extended the discovery rule to actions against trustees, it has declined to do so in will contests. Reading RCW 11.24.010 and 11.96.060(1) together, we infer that had the Legislature intended to extend the discovery rule to RCW 11.24.010, it would have done so. Consequently, because the Legislature did not express its intent to extend the discovery rule to will contests, we decline to do so.
We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Contestants' request to extend the discovery rule to will contests and their motion for reconsideration. Affirmed.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.
Hunt, J.
We concur:
C.J. Armstrong
Bridgewater, J.
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.
|
|