Clise's Estates, In re, 37034
| Citation | 64 Wn.2d 320,391 P.2d 547 |
| Decision Date | 23 April 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 37034,37034 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Parties | In the Matter of the ESTATES of Paul E. CLISE, Deceased, and Beulah Fay Clise, Deceased. Willie WATKINS et al., legal heirs of Beulan Fay Clise, Deceased, Appellants, v. Sarah Elizabeth SELLERS, legal heir of Paul E. Clise, Deceased, Respondent. |
Stephen E. Chaffee, Sunnyside, Kenneth C. Hawkins, Yakima, for appellants.
Gordon & Ripple, Spokane, Peterson, Taylor & Day, Pasco, for respondent.
Paul E. Clise and Beulah Fay Clise, husband and wife, entered into a community property and survivorship agreement in 1958, by the terms of which all of their property was made community property, which should vest in the survivor on the death of either party. There was no provision for distribution of the property in the event of the simultaneous deaths of the parties.
On June 20, 1961, Paul and Beulah Clise died simultaneously in an automobile accident in Adams County. Each left a will naming the other as sole beneficiary. These wills contained no provision for distribution of the estates of the parties in the event of their simultaneous deaths.
The Clises owned several insurance policies, most of which insured the life of the husband. In the probate of his estate, the court decreed that the proceeds of the policies insuring his life should be paid to his estate and pass to his legal heirs. The heirs of the wife appeal from the order approving final account and decree of distribution in the estate of Paul E. Clise and from the order approving final account in the estate of Beulah Fay Clise, which denied the appellants' motion to include in the property of that estate one half of the proceeds of the policies insuring the life of Paul E. Clise.
The court in each instance followed the holding of In re Saunders' Estates, 51 Wash.2d 274, 317 P.2d 528, wherein we held that RCW 11.05.040 applies to policies of insurance which are community property. That statute provides:
'Where the insured and the beneficiary in a policy of life or accident insurance have died and there is no sufficient evidence that they have died otherwise than simultaneously the proceeds of the policy shall be distributed as if the insured had survived the beneficiary.'
Against the contention that the wife had a vested interest in one half of the proceeds of the policies insuring the husband's life, which were community property, we held that, as the statutory survivor, the husband was entitled to all of the proceeds. Consequently, his heirs took the proceeds, to the exclusion of the heirs of the wife.
The arguments advanced by the heirs of the wife in that case are urged again by the appellants here. We have re-examined the reasoning which led to the conclusion reached in that opinion and do not find it to be in error.
According to the community property agreement and the wills of Paul E. and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Egelhoff, Matter of
...his statutory heirs inherit the proceeds. In re Saunders' Estates, 51 Wash.2d 274, 276, 317 P.2d 528 (1957); In re Clise's Estates, 64 Wash.2d 320, 321, 391 P.2d 547 (1964). Similarly, under RCW 11.07.010, we treat David as having survived Donna for purposes of distributing life insurance p......
-
Waldman v. Maini
...278; In re Wedemeyer's Estate, 109 Cal.App.2d 67, 240 P.2d 8 (1952); Brown v. Lee, 371 S.W.2d 694 (Tex.1963); In re Clise's Estates, 64 Wash.2d 320, 391 P.2d 547 (1964); In re Saunders' Estates, 51 Wash.2d 274, 317 P.2d 528 47. Saunders' Estates, 317 P.2d at 530; see also Wedemeyer's Estate......
- Martin v. Port of Seattle
-
Wagner v. Wagner
...been modified. It is the general rule that parties are presumed to contract with reference to existing statutes (In re Estate of Clise, 64 Wash.2d 320, 391 P.2d 547 (1964); Caruthers v. Sunnyside Valley Irrig. Dist., 29 Wash.2d 530, 188 P.2d 136 (1947)), and a statute which affects the subj......