Becker v. White (In re Estate of Becker)
| Decision Date | 11 April 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 87544–8.,87544–8. |
| Citation | 298 P.3d 720,177 Wash.2d 242 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Virgil Victor BECKER, Jr., Deceased. Catherine Jane Becker, Carol–Lynne Janice Becker, and Elizabeth Diane Margaret Becker, Respondents, v. Jennifer White, in her capacity as Personal Representative of the Estate of Virgil Victor Becker, Jr., Respondent. Nancy Becker, Petitioner. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Ladd B. Leavens, Rebecca J. Francis, Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Bruce Andrew McDermott, Garvey & Schubert Barer, Seattle, WA, for Respondents.
[177 Wash.2d 244]¶ 1 When Dr. Virgil “Tory” Becker, Jr. died, his will left everything to his youngest daughter. His three older daughters contested the will, and we are now asked whether his surviving spouse, Dr. Nancy Becker, has standing to participate in that will contest. A person has standing if they have a direct, immediate, and legally ascertainable interest in an estate. If a will is declared invalid, estate law entitles a surviving spouse to 50 percent of the decedent's estate through either intestacy or, if there is a prior will, as an omitted spouse. We hold that because Nancy 1 has a direct, immediate, and legally ascertainable interest in Tory's estate if the will is declared invalid, she has standing in the will contest.
¶ 2 In 2008, Tory died in a plane crash. In his will, he left everything to his youngest daughter, Barbara Becker. His will expressly left nothing to his current wife, Nancy (mother of Barbara), or to his three adult daughters from a previous marriage—Catherine Jane Becker, Carol–Lynne Janice Becker, and Elizabeth Diane Margaret Becker (hereinafter the “adult daughters”). In the will, Tory named Nancy as personal representative of the estate.
¶ 3 A few months after Tory's will was submitted to probate, the adult daughters filed suit contesting the validity of the will. In addition to the will contest, the adult daughters and their mother Linda Bulger (Tory's first wife) filed 14 creditors' claims against the estate. Jennifer Rydberg was later appointed guardian ad litem (GAL) for Barbara.
¶ 4 The parties attempted mediation and Rydberg, the adult daughters, and Bulger signed a settlement agreement (the CR 2A Settlement Agreement), which gave $600,000 to the adult daughters and Bulger to settle the creditors' claims and for attorney fees. Of the remaining estate, the settlement gave just under 50 percent to Barbara and just over 50 percent to the adult daughters. The CR 2A Settlement Agreement did not determine which assets were community property and which were Tory's separate property. Nancy refused to sign the agreement on her own behalf or as personal representative of the estate, but the others signed the agreement anyway.
¶ 5 Rydberg and the adult daughters petitioned the trial court to appoint a co-personal representative for the limited purpose of reviewing the CR 2A Settlement Agreement. After a hearing, the trial court removed Nancy as personal representative because of various conflicts of interest. Jennifer White was subsequently appointed the personal representative of the estate. White has indicated that she does not believe the CR 2A Settlement Agreement is in the best interests of Barbara or the estate and that she will refuse to sign it.
¶ 6 The parties attempted to submit the CR 2A Settlement Agreement to the court for review and approval, and Nancy attempted to appear personally in the matter. Rydberg then filed the motion at issue in this case, entitled “Guardian ad Litem's Motion to Determine Standing of Nancy Becker Regarding CR 2A Agreement of Heirs to Resolve Will Contest and Creditors' Claims, and Distribute Estate.” Rydberg contended that Nancy had no standing to participate in the review and approval of the CR 2A Settlement Agreement because she was not a “ ‘real party in interest’ ” to the matters addressed by the settlement agreement. Clerk's Papers at 183. The court agreed and found that Nancy had no standing to participate in either the settlement agreement or the resolution of the creditors' claims and will contest.
¶ 7 Nancy filed for discretionary review with the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court and found that she did not have standing. In re Estate of Becker, noted at 167 Wash.App. 1036, 2012 WL 1255160 (2012). Nancy then petitioned this court for review, and we granted review. In re Estate of Becker, 175 Wash.2d 1010, 287 P.3d 594 (2012). At this time, the trial court has not reviewed or approved the CR 2A Settlement Agreement.
¶ 8 If a decedent's will expressly leaves nothing to the surviving spouse, does the surviving spouse have standing when a third party contests the will?
¶ 9 Standing is a threshold issue, which we review de novo. Knight v. City of Yelm, 173 Wash.2d 325, 336, 267 P.3d 973 (2011).
¶ 10 The Trust and Estate Dispute Resolution Act (TEDRA), chapter 11.96A RCW, provides for judicial and nonjudicial resolutions to trust and estate disputes and related matters. RCW 11.96A.010. Under TEDRA, if all parties agree to a resolution to a matter related to a trust or an estate, the matter can be settled by a written agreement signed by all parties. RCW 11.96A.220. That agreement is then “binding and conclusive on all persons interested in the estate or trust.” Id. TEDRA defines a “ ‘[p]arty’ ” as any member of a listed category “who has an interest in the subject of the particular proceeding.” RCW 11.96A.030(5). The listed categories include, inter alia, a surviving spouse, heirs, and beneficiaries. RCW 11.96A.030(5)(d)-(f). The definition of “ ‘[p]ersons interested in the estate or trust’ ” includes “all persons beneficially interested in the estate or trust.” RCW 11.96A.030(6).
¶ 11 Since Nancy is a surviving spouse, she is a party under TEDRA if she has an interest in the subject of the particular proceeding. “ ‘[A] “person interested” is one who has a direct, immediate, and legally ascertained pecuniary interest in the devolution of the testator's estate, such as would be impaired or defeated by the probate of the will or benefited by the declaration that it is invalid.’ ” In re Estate of O'Brien, 13 Wash.2d 581, 583, 126 P.2d 47 (1942)(quoting Petitt v. Morton, 28 Ohio App. 227, 235, 162 N.E. 627 (1928)(addressing the issue of whether an executor named in an earlier will has standing to contest a later will)). While Tory's will expressly left nothing to Nancy, that will is being contested in this case by the adult daughters. If the will is declared invalid, Tory's estate will be distributed either intestate or pursuant to a prior will. Under either circumstance, Nancy would inherit 50 percent of Tory's estate, either through intestacy laws or through the omitted spouse statute.2RCW 11.04.015(1); RCW 11.12.095. Thus, Nancy has a very substantial interest in the estate if the will contest were to be successful. Because Nancy would have a significant interest in the estate if the will were declared invalid, she has a direct interest in any settlement of the will contest. Therefore, she is a party under TEDRA.
[177 Wash.2d 248]¶ 12 The adult daughters contend that if the current will were declared invalid and a will were submitted that was executed prior to Nancy and Tory's marriage, Nancy would not be able to claim that she was an omitted spouse because she acknowledges that Tory explicitly left her nothing in the current will. We find this argument untenable. The adult daughters cannot claim that the current will is invalid as to their father's explicit desire to leave them nothing but valid as to his wife.
¶ 13 The adult daughters also argue that Nancy has no interest in the estate because she was not named in the will. Of course, the adult daughters were similarly not named in the will, and their interest in the estate—like Nancy's—exists only if the will is declared invalid. The adult daughters argue that they have standing because they chose to file a will contest and that Nancy does not have standing because she failed to contest the will. However, her decision not to file a will contest would not prevent her from receiving her fair share should a court find that will to be invalid and thus does not affect her standing. If the will contest is successful, the estate will pass intestate or pursuant to a prior will—it will not simply pass to those who chose to contest the will. Nancy's direct interest in the estate was created when the adult daughters challenged the validity of Tory's will. She now has a right to participate in the settlement agreement under TEDRA.
¶ 14 Virginia has similarly concluded that a party who would inherit intestate is a necessary p...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stevens Cnty. v. Stevens Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't
...citizens, and the county holds standing to enforce the rights of its residents.¶45 We review standing de novo. In re Estate of Becker , 177 Wash.2d 242, 246, 298 P.3d 720 (2013). Standing is not intended to be a high bar. Washington State Housing Finance Commission v. National Homebuyers Fu......
-
Alexander v. Sanford, 69637–8–I.
...not derivative claims, this contention fails. ¶ 28 “Standing is a threshold issue, which we review de novo.” In re Estate of Becker, 177 Wash.2d 242, 246, 298 P.3d 720 (2013). “To have standing, one must have some protectable interest that has been invaded or is about to be invaded.” Orion ......
-
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife
..., 119 Wash.2d 640, 648-49, 835 P.2d 1030 (1992) (internal citation omitted). ¶ 89 Standing is reviewed de novo. In re Estate of Becker , 177 Wash.2d 242, 246, 298 P.3d 720 (2013). The party seeking judicial review of agency action bears the burden of establishing standing to obtain judicial......
-
Bavand v. OneWest Bank, FSB
...695, 702, 725 P.2d 411 (1986) ), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 139, 190 L.Ed.2d 105 (2014).57 Id.58 In re Estate of Becker, 177 Wash.2d 242, 246, 298 P.3d 720 (2013).59 176 Wash.App. 475, 309 P.3d 636 (2013).60 Id.at 482–83, 309 P.3d 636.61 Id.at 484, 309 P.3d 636.62 Id.at 503–09, ......
-
Table of Cases
...434 (2005): 12.3(2), 13.4(5) Beard, In re Estate of, 60 Wn.2d 127, 372 P.2d 530 (1962): 13.7(5)(f) Becker, In re Estate of, 177 Wn.2d 242, 298 P.3d 720 (2013): 5.3(8)(b), 13.1(4), 13.2(2), 13.3(1)(a) Beneficiaries of Estate of Fuller ex rel. Richland v. Taylor, 133 Wn.App. 1024, No. 55586-3......
-
§13.3 Will Contests
...to will contests are discussed below. [Page 13-26] (a) Standing Standing is a threshold issue. In re Estate of Becker, 177 Wn.2d 242, 298 P.3d 720 (2013). A person has standing if he or she is a "person interested," meaning one who has a direct, immediate, and legally ascertainable interest......
-
Chapter A. Establishing The Will
...v. Gourley, 72 Wash. 462, 472, 130 P. 743 (1913). 89 See O'Brien's Estate, 13 Wn.2d 581; In re Estate of Becker, 177 Wn.2d 242, 247, 298 P.3d 720, 723 (2013) (surviving spouse, who was expressly left nothing in husband's will and so would benefit from its invalidity, has standing in a third......
-
Table of Cases
...(1966): 312 Bay v. Estate of Bay, 125 Wn. App. 468, 105 P.3d 434 (2005): 131, 136, 137, 138, 152 Becker, In re Estate of, 177 Wn.2d 242, 298 P.3d 720 (2013): 378 Becklund's Estate, In re, 7 Wn. App. 10, 497 P.2d 1327 (1972): 127, 128, 129, 160, 161, 425, 426 Beck's Estate, In re, 79 Wash. 3......