Estate of Tolson, In re
| Decision Date | 05 December 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 20181-0-II,TOLSON-LAFONT and L,20181-0-II |
| Citation | 89 Wn.App. 21,947 P.2d 1242 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In re the ESTATE OF Jack Franklin TOLSON, Deceased. Camilleaina Tolson, Appellants, v. Mary H. ARDEN, Guardian Ad Litem for Terrance Michael Tolson; and Charles E. Gallup, Respondents. |
Laina Tolson, Camille Tolson-Lafont, Stockton, Pro Se Appellants.
Sharon Townsend, Stockton, Other Party.
Charles Edward Gallup, Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt, Mary H. Arden, Arden & Brandenburg Ps, Vancouver, for Respondents. MADSEN, Judge Pro Tem. 1
In this probate proceeding, the trial court found that Decedent Jack Tolson was domiciled in Washington at the date of his death. A California court had previously found Tolson to be domiciled in California. Tolson's daughter and granddaughter appeal, arguing that the trial court in Washington erred in refusing to give collateral estoppel effect to the California judgment. We conclude that the trial court erred and reverse.
Facts
On December 10, 1993, Jack F. Tolson (Decedent) died in his mobile home located in Vancouver, Washington. His daughters, Sharon Townsend and Laina Tolson, filed a petition to probate Decedent's holographic will dated September 20, 1993, in the San Joaquin County Superior Court, California. The petition listed San Joaquin County as Decedent's residence. The will itself indicated it was executed in Vancouver, although this fact is disputed by Appellants. The will left two percent of Decedent's estate to Terrance Michael Tolson (son of Decedent) and divided the remainder equally among Decedent's two daughters and his granddaughter, Camille Tolson-Lafont. Among other things, the estate included the mobile home in Vancouver and a home in Stockton, California. The petition for probate of Decedent's holographic will was granted by the California court on March 29, 1994, and letters of administration were issued to Susan Patterson as public administrator for the estate.
On March 17, 1994, Charles Gallup, an attorney practicing in Washington, filed a Request for Special Notice in the California court pursuant to § 1250 of the California Probate Code on behalf of Terrance Tolson. Gallup requested that all documents in the proceeding that were to be sent to Terrance Tolson be delivered "to the care of his attorney, Charles E. Gallup." Clerk's Papers (CP), at 111. On July 12, 1994, Gallup began proceedings for intestate succession in the Clark County Superior Court. Letters of Administration were issued to Gallup as personal representative for the estate on July 19, 1994.
On August 15, 1994, Laina Tolson filed an application for admission of Tolson's will to probate as a foreign will in the Clark County Superior Court, Washington. The application listed the Decedent as a resident of Washington State and did not object to Gallup's serving as personal representative. The court entered an ex-parte order admitting the will and appointing Gallup as the personal representative. The order was entered by a different judge than the one presiding in this case, and was done without notice to Gallup. Meanwhile, in California, Susan Patterson filed a petition to determine domicile of the Decedent because of the conflicting evidence regarding that issue. In that proceeding, Ms. Patterson requested a ruling of dual domicile in Washington and California and distribution of the respective property according to the laws of each state. On October 7, 1994, the California court held a hearing on this issue. On December 28, 1994, the California court issued a statement of intended decision rejecting dual domicile, admitting the holographic will to probate in California, and setting ancillary administration in Washington. Gallup did not file an objection to the California court's decision, and a final order issued on January 17, 1995. At that time, the will was admitted nunc pro tunc as of January 31, 1994, the original date of petition.
On December 14, 1994, while the petition to recognize dual domicile was still pending in California, Gallup filed a petition to determine the validity of Tolson's holographic will in Clark County Superior Court. In his petition, Gallup acknowledged that the domicile issue was pending in the California court and asked for the court's guidance in administering the estate. At Gallup's request, the trial court also appointed Mary Arden as guardian ad litem for Terrance Tolson.
On January 27, 1995, the Clark County Superior Court
held a hearing to determine the validity of the holographic will. Laina Tolson and Camille Tolson-Lafont (Appellants), acting pro se, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that collateral estoppel prevented the court from relitigating the issue of Decedent's domicile. The hearing was continued to April 7, 1995, and a letter opinion was issued on April 24, 1995. The court declined to dismiss the Washington action, ruling that the elements for collateral estoppel had not been met because the application for admittance of a foreign will stated that the Decedent was a resident of Washington State. The court reasoned that reliance on this statement could have lulled Terrance Tolson into inaction. The court also determined that the Full Faith and Credit Clause did not apply in this case because domicile is a jurisdictional issue.
A domicile hearing was conducted in Clark County on June 29, 1995, and on November 17, 1995, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law determining that the Decedent was domiciled in Washington. The order revoked admission of the foreign will into probate in Washington.
Analysis
Initially, Appellants argue that Gallup has no standing to contest the foreign will admitted in Washington. They argue that there was no valid timely contest of the will as well. Appellants cite RCW 11.24.010 as the basis for their contention that a petition questioning the validity of the will qualifies as a will contest. Accordingly, they argue that only a person with a pecuniary interest has standing to bring a will contest, citing In re Estate of O'Brien, 13 Wash.2d 581, 126 P.2d 47 (1942).
Gallup contends that the petition to the court was a request for direction when he was unclear how to proceed to administer the estate. He alleges that he believed the Decedent was domiciled in Washington and all the evidence indicated the same. He requested the hearing to clarify the matter, and make a final determination so he could proceed with administration. Gallup argues that since he did not have non-intervention powers, he was required to obtain a court order to distribute the assets. Gallup denies that he filed a will contest.
RCW 11.96.070(1)(c) allows a person with an interest in the administration of an estate of a deceased person to have a judicial proceeding for the declaration of rights or legal relations including "[t]he determination of any question arising in the administration of the estate or trust, including without limitation questions of construction of wills and other writings." The statute further defines a person with an interest in the estate to include the personal representative and a guardian ad litem. RCW 11.96.070(4)(b), (c). A proceeding under RCW 11.96.070(1) is in the nature of a declaratory judgment action. As personal representative of the estate, we conclude that Gallup had standing to request assistance from the superior court in determining disposition of the estate assets under that provision.
It is unclear, however, whether Gallup's petition was made pursuant to RCW 11.96.070(1)(c) or RCW 11.24.010, which provides for contest of a will. 2 The trial court appears to have treated Gallup's petition to determine the validity of Decedent's will as a will contest.
Appellants argue that Gallup's petition was actually a will contest and that it was untimely. The statutory limitation period to contest the validity of a will is four months. RCW 11.24.010. Under RCW 11.96.009(1)(a) and (b) a superior court in Washington has original jurisdiction to probate an estate when either a non-resident or a resident of this state dies in the state. The Decedent died in Clark County, where he had a mobile home at the time of death. Therefore, Clark County Superior Court had jurisdiction of the assets located in Washington for probate purposes. RCW 11.96.050(2)(b). Gallup filed a petition to determine the validity of the will on December 14, 1994, one day before the elapse of the limitation period for contesting a will. Therefore, if the Clark County proceeding was a will contest, it was timely.
Appellants also argue that Gallup breached his fiduciary duties as personal representative by taking sides with Terrance Tolson in a will contest. In In re Estate of Kvande v. Olsen, 74 Wash.App. 65, 72, 871 P.2d 669 (1994), Division I of this court ruled that a personal representative may be obligated to present his position in a probate matter where there is a dispute as to distribution because of his duty to defend the estate from invalid and doubtful suits. While we are troubled by Gallup's apparent conflicting obligations to Mr. Tolson and the Decedent's estate, we note that the court appointed a guardian ad litem for Respondent Tolson. She was most certainly in a position to contest the will. We find no merit to Appellants' challenges based on lack of standing and timeliness.
The Appellants next contend that the Clark County Superior Court erred in considering the question of domicile because (1) it was required to give full faith and credit to the California decision, and (2) Terrance Tolson is estopped from attacking the validity of the will or the California decision on domicile because he did not make any objection to the California proceeding.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause, art. IV § 1 of the United States Constitution provides:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Berry
... ... litigation by putting to rest matters previously decided between adverse parties in any state or territory of the United States." In re Estate of Tolson, 89 Wash. App. 21, 29, 947 P.2d 1242 (1997) ... A valid foreign judgment may be collaterally attacked only if the court lacked jurisdiction ... ...
-
Parentage Infant Child F. v. Ferebauer
... ... at 127, 5 P.3d 658 (quoting In re Estate of Tolson, 89 Wash.App. 21, 29, 947 P.2d 1242 (1997)). 13 A party can collaterally attack a foreign judgment if the court did not have jurisdiction ... ...
-
OneWest Bank, FSB v. Erickson
... ... if any; Occupants of the Premises; Qualchan Hills Homeowners' Association; and any persons or parties claiming to have any right, title, estate, lien or interest in the real property described in the complaint, Defendants. No. 912831. Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. Feb. 4, 2016. Fred ... " Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Estate of Tolson, 89 Wash.App. 21, 30, 947 P.2d 1242 (1997) ). The party disputing a foreign order has the burden of establishing lack of jurisdiction. In re ... ...
-
Nims v. WA. BD. OF REGISTRATION
... ... Department of Licensing.6 ... 53 P.3d 54 In Eidson, the Department of Licensing revoked the license of a real estate appraiser after finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the appraiser had made fraudulent misrepresentations. The appraiser appealed to ... [a]n action upon a statute for a forfeiture or penalty to the state." ... 24. In re Estate of Tolson, 89 Wash.App. 21, 34, 947 P.2d 1242 (1997) (quoting In re Marriage of Mudgett, 41 Wash.App. 337, 342, 704 P.2d 169 (1985)) ... 25 ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...In re, 54 Wn.2d 585, 343 P.2d 566 (1959): 223 Toivonen v. Toivonen, 196 Wash. 636, 84 P.2d 128 (1938): 314 Tolson, In re Estate of, 89 Wn. App. 21, 947 P.2d 1242 (1997): 53 Tombari v. Blankenship-Dixon Co., 19 Wn. App. 145, 574 P.2d 401, review denied, 90 Wn.2d 1015 (1978): 281 Torstensen's......
-
Table of Cases
...193, 817 P.2d 1380 (1991): 13.3(3)(a) Thornton, In re Estate of, 81 Wn.2d 72, 499 P.2d 864 (1972): 13.4(8)(b) Tolson, In re Estate of, 89 Wn.App. 21, 947 P.2d 1242 (1997): 3.3(1)(c), 10.3, 10.5(1)(a), 10.6, 11.7(1), 14.2(3) Tomlinson v. Clarke, 118 Wn.2d 487, 825 P.2d 706 (1992): 10.3(2) To......
-
§3.3 Wills
...A foreign holographic will that is valid in the state of execution will be recognized by a Washington court. In re Estate of Tolson, 89 Wn.App. 21, 947 P.2d 1242 (1997) (recognizing California holographic will); In re Wegley's Estate, 65 Wn.2d 689, 690-91, 399 P.2d 326 (1965) (recognizing O......
-
§14.2 What Law Applies, to Which Property in An Indian Estate?
...Indian Country, just as a state may probate out-of-state personal property of its domiciliaries. See, e.g., In re Estate of Tolson, 89 Wn.App. 21, 30-31, 947 P.2d 1242 (1997) (primary probate jurisdiction is in decedent's state of domicile); cf. Kelsey v. Pope, 809 F.3d 849 (6th Cir.) (memb......