Estate of Wagner v. Wright
| Decision Date | 06 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 73629-9-I,73629-9-I |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Estate of ELIZABETH K. WAGNER, ELMER R. WAGNER, as beneficiary, Appellant/Cross Respondent, v. JILL WRIGHT a/k/a JILL ARCHER, as Personal Representative and as beneficiary to the Estate of Elizabeth K. Wagner; JILL WRIGHT a/k/a JILL ARCHER, and JOHN DOE ARCHER, and the marital community composed thereof, Respondent/Cross Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
APPELWICK, J. — Elizabeth died in 2010. Her daughter, Jill, was appointed personal representative of her estate. Elizabeth's surviving husband, Elmer, disagreed with Jill's distribution of assets and management of the estate. He brought a TEDRA action to remove Jill and to settle these issues. Jill defended on the grounds that by typing Elizabeth's will, Elmer engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and asserted undue influence over Elizabeth. The trial court denied Elmer's request to remove Jill as personal representative and Jill's claims of unauthorized practice of law and undue influence. It imposed a community lien on the house in favor of Elmer, and determined that the remaining proceeds from the sale of Elizabeth's house and from Elizabeth's oil and mineral rights should be divided equally amongst the beneficiaries. We affirm.
FACTS
Elizabeth Wagner and Elmer Wagner were married on July 27, 1989. Both had children from previous marriages. Elizabeth's1 children were Jill Archer,2 Todd Kulesza, and Kurt Kulesza.
In the early 2000s, Elizabeth was diagnosed with COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). Elizabeth remained as active as she could, although she became weaker and needed to be on oxygen.
In 2009, Elizabeth wanted to revise her will. Elmer assisted her by typing the will on the computer, but Elizabeth made edits to a printed copy until she was satisfied with the will. Elizabeth gave Jill a draft of the will for her to review the changes she had made. Then, she executed the will on August 26, 2009.
Like her previous will, Elizabeth's will contained a provision stating, "Both my husband, Elmer, and I agreed prior to our marriage that assets owned prior to our marriage would be willed to our respective children per each of our individual choice." Specific bequests of Elizabeth's separate property followed this provision. The will gave Elmer a life estate in Elizabeth's house at 30326 10th Avenue South,Federal Way, WA (the Federal Way home). It provided that if the life estate terminated before Elmer's death, the total net proceeds of the sale were to be divided equally amongst Elizabeth's children and Elmer. Each would receive one-fourth of the home's value after expenses. Elizabeth gave the residue of her estate to Elmer. And, Elizabeth appointed her daughter, Jill, as personal representative.
Unlike the previous will, Elizabeth's 2009 will stated that proceeds from the "Tvedt/Murphy trust" were to be held in trust by Elizabeth's oldest living child and divided equally amongst Elizabeth's children and Elmer.
Elizabeth died on July 21, 2010, survived by her children and her husband. Jill's petition to have Elizabeth's will admitted to probate was granted, and Jill received letters testamentary on September 1, 2010.
Before Elizabeth's death, she and Elmer lived in the Federal Way home. Elmer continued to live in the home until 2012. After he vacated the home, the estate sold it.
The estate's attorney advised Jill that she had a one-third interest in the Federal Way home. Acting on this advice, Jill divided one-third of the proceeds from the sale equally amongst herself and her brothers. She split the remaining two-thirds evenly amongst herself, her brothers, and Elmer.
On April 15, 2013, Elmer filed a Trust and Estate Dispute Resolution Act (TEDRA) petition pursuant to chapter 11.96A RCW. He sought quiet title to the Federal Way house and rescission of documents executed by Jill. Elmer claimed that Jill breached her fiduciary duty, had been unjustly enriched, and had unlawfullyconverted assets of the estate. And, he requested an accounting and the removal of Jill as personal representative of the estate.
Before trial, Elmer moved to bar Jill from introducing evidence to suggest that Elizabeth's will was invalid. He argued that Jill had admitted the will to probate asserting that it was a valid will, and therefore evidence suggesting that the will was invalid should be excluded. This motion was denied. In Jill's trial brief, filed April 15, 2014, she argued for the first time that Elmer could not take under the will, because he acted as counselor and lawyer for his wife when she executed it.
The case proceeded to trial. The court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law on June 13, 2014. The court found that there was no evidence that Jill breached her fiduciary duties, that Elmer acted as Elizabeth's attorney, or that Elmer exerted undue influence over Elizabeth. The court further found that Jill did not have an ownership interest in the Federal Way home, but that the value of the community's mortgage payments and improvements to the property supported a community/equitable lien. To the extent that the TEDRA action or Jill's counterclaims could be construed as a will contest, the court declined to apply the no contest clause of Elizabeth's will. And, the court found that the "Tvedt/Murphy trust" in Elizabeth's will referred to North Dakota properties, oil/mineral rights and deeds, and the proceeds generated from them, that she had inherited from her family.
Based on these findings, the court rejected Elmer's request to remove Jill as personal representative and denied Jill's counterclaims. The court concluded that the net proceeds from the sale of the Federal Way property should bedistributed in the amount of $52,143 to Elmer, to represent his share of the community lien, with the remainder divided equally among all four of the beneficiaries. And, the court concluded that all of Elizabeth's interests in the North Dakota properties belonged to the Tvedt/Murphy trust, and the proceeds generated from those properties would be divided equally among Jill, Todd, Kurt, and Elmer.
On December 12, 2014, the court held an evidentiary hearing to determine a final disbursement. Certified public accountant (CPA) Cary Deaton testified as to the accounting his firm prepared. The court adopted Deaton's accounting and ruled that the amount owed to Elmer would be paid out of the funds held in the court registry. But, the court did not enter a final order regarding distribution.
After the evidentiary hearing, the parties continued to contest the order of the distribution. The trial court ultimately entered a final judgment and order on June 5, 2015, which was amended on June 23, 2015. This order provided that the clerk would first release $2,692 from the court registry to pay the accounting firm. Then, $19,789 would be released to Elmer to offset the overpayments to the other beneficiaries. After that, all remaining funds were to be distributed 25 percent to Elmer and 75 percent to the estate.
Elmer appeals the order on his motions in limine, the June 13, 2014 findings of fact and conclusions of law and order on civil motion regarding fees, the August 4, 2014 order on disbursement of funds, and the final judgment and order. Jill cross appeals.
DISCUSSION
Elmer contends that the trial court erred by considering Jill's claims of undue influence and unauthorized practice of law. Elmer asserts that Jill should have been removed as personal representative. And, Elmer argues that the trial court's disbursement of funds from the court registry deprived him of $4,947. Jill cross appeals on the grounds that the trial court erred in interpreting the deed to the Federal Way home as not granting her an interest in the home. She also argues that the trial court erred in imposing a community lien against the Federal Way property. Both parties seek attorney fees.
Much of the evidence produced at trial and the arguments made on appeal revolves around Elmer's role in drafting Elizabeth's will. Jill contends that the trial court erred in concluding that Elmer did not engage in the unauthorized practice of law or exercise undue influence over Elizabeth in the making of her will. Elmer argues that Jill should have been barred from raising these claims, because they constituted a will contest. And, he argues that because Jill brought a bad faith will contest, the trial court erred in not enforcing the no contest clause that would disinherit Jill.
The trial court found that there was no evidence that Elmer exercised undue influence over Elizabeth or engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and therefore denied Jill's claims. Jill argues that the trial court erred in reaching these conclusions.
Not every influence exerted over a person can be called undue influence. In re Estate of Riley, 78 Wn.2d 623, 662, 479 P.2d 1 (1970). To support the invalidation of a will, the influence exerted over the testator must have been such that the will no longer reflects the intent of the testator. In re Estate of Bottger, 14 Wn.2d 676, 701, 129 P.2d 518, (1942). Certain facts may give rise to a presumption of undue influence, including: (1) the beneficiary had a fiduciary or confidential relationship with the testator, (2) the beneficiary actively participated in the preparation of the will, and (3) the beneficiary received an unusually large part of the estate. In re Estate of Smith, 68 Wn.2d 145, 153, 411 P.2d 879, 416 P.2d 124 (1966). Other factors may include the testator's age, health, and mental acuity, the nature of the relationship between the beneficiary and the testator, the opportunity for exerting undue influence, and the naturalness of the will. Id. This presumption may be overcome by rebuttal testimony. Id. at 153-54.
Here, Elmer had a close relationship with Elizabeth. They were married for...
To continue reading
Request your trial