Carlton v. Black

153 Wn. 2d 152 (2004) · Supreme Court of Washington · December 9, 2004

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the reversal of summary judgment admitting Margaret Black's lost 1993 will to probate because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding its execution. The court held that execution and contents of a lost will must be proved by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, and clarified the application of res judicata in probate proceedings. It also affirmed the instruction that all issues concerning the competing 1992 and 1993 wills be resolved in one proceeding.

Holdings

  1. Under RCW 11.20.070, both the execution and the contents of a lost will must be proved by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.
  2. Summary judgment admitting the 1993 lost will was improper because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the will was properly executed and whether Janet Taylor signed as an attesting witness.
  3. Res judicata can apply to an unappealed summary judgment in a probate proceeding, but the summary judgment here would not bar later claims concerning competency or undue influence because the trial court expressly excluded those issues from the summary judgment proceeding.
  4. The trial court abused its discretion by reserving issues concerning the validity of the wills for a later will contest; all issues concerning the 1992 and 1993 wills should be resolved in one proceeding on remand.
  5. The trial court abused its discretion by awarding attorney fees only to Richard Burns; the attorney-fee issue must be reconsidered on remand under the court's discretion, including whether the litigation benefited the estate and whether a party acted in good faith.

Questions Presented

  1. What burden of proof applies to execution and contents of a lost will under RCW 11.20.070?
  2. Whether summary judgment admitting the 1993 lost will was proper despite disputed evidence concerning its execution.
  3. What role res judicata plays in probate proceedings and whether the limited summary judgment proceeding would preclude later challenges to the wills' validity.
  4. Whether all issues concerning the 1992 and 1993 wills should be resolved in one proceeding.
  5. Whether the trial court properly awarded attorney fees solely to the personal representative under the 1992 will.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (38)

  • Failor's Pharmacy v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 125 Wn. 2d 488, 493, 886 P.2d 147 (1994)(followed)
  • Balise v. Underwood, 62 Wn. 2d 195, 199, 381 P.2d 966 (1963)(followed)
  • La Plante v. State, 85 Wn. 2d 154, 158, 531 P.2d 299 (1975)(followed)
  • Snohomish County v. Rugg, 115 Wn. App. 218, 224, 61 P.3d 1184 (2002)(followed)
  • Barrie v. Hosts of Am., Inc., 94 Wn. 2d 640, 642, 618 P.2d 96 (1980)(followed)
  • In re Estate of Ney, 183 Wash. 503, 505, 48 P.2d 924 (1935)(followed)
  • State v. Mollichi, 132 Wn. 2d 80, 87-88, 936 P.2d 408 (1997)(followed)
  • In re Estate of Nelson, 85 Wn. 2d 602, 605-08, 537 P.2d 765 (1975)(limited)
  • In re Estate of Peters, 43 Wn. 2d 846, 860-61, 264 P.2d 1109 (1953)(distinguished)
  • State v. Young, 125 Wn. 2d 688, 696, 888 P.2d 142 (1995)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 38.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Washington Supreme Court