Travelli's Estate, In re

• Decision Date: 28 December 1970
• Docket Number: No. 241--41124--I,241--41124--I
• Parties: In the Matter of the ESTATE of Fernande TRAVELLI, Deceased. Cecile RIGAL, Marguerite Dehayes and Andre Michaut, Appellants, v. Elizabeth LARSON, for her separate estate, Norman A. Larson and Janice I. Larson, his wife, separately and as a marital community, and Fred A. Lind, as Executor, Respondents.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

Page 1015

3 Wn.App. 1015

478 P.2d 767

In the Matter of the ESTATE of Fernande TRAVELLI, Deceased.

Cecile RIGAL, Marguerite Dehayes and Andre Michaut, Appellants, v. Elizabeth LARSON, for her separate estate, Norman A. Larson and Janice I. Larson, his wife, separately and as

a marital community, and Fred A. Lind,

as Executor, Respondents.

No. 241--41124--I.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, Panel Two.

Dec. 28, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 23, 1971.

Review Denied March 25, 1971.

John R. Stair, Seattle, for appellant.

Hoover, Lind & Parkhurst, Fred N. Hoover, Richard S. Strong, Seattle, for respondent.

FARRIS, Judge.

Mrs. Travelli died on March 29, 1967. Her last will, executed on January 26, 1967, was admitted to probate on March 31, 1967. Copies of two wills dated July 6, 1960 and July 1, 1963, executed after a marriage and a divorce, a will prepared in 1964 but not executed and a letter which she intended as a holographic will, were identified as exhibits. In addition she had on one occasion conferred with a lawyer about her desire to leave one half of her estate to a sea captain who was then a friend of hers. In every instance she furnished a copy of the will to at least one of the named beneficiaries (including the will prepared in 1964 which she never executed).

She left surviving two sisters and a brother who were mentioned in her wills of 1960 and 1963 and the 1964 unexecuted will; however, they were not mentioned in the holographic will nor in the will admitted to probate, both of which were prepared after she was terminally ill with cancer. The beneficiaries herein are recent friends of the testatrix. The will was prepared by their lawyer and witnessed by him and his secretary. The trial court held that there was no undue influence or coercion practiced upon the testatrix and dismissed appellants' petition for revocation of probate of the will. The appellants contend that the finding of the trial court is not supported by the evidence. They contend that: (1) the evidence demonstrates that the beneficiaries occupied a fiduciary or confidential relation to the testatrix; (2) the beneficiaries representative participated in the preparation of the will; and (3) the beneficiaries received an unusually or unnaturally large part of the estate. These conclusions, they argue, give rise to a presumption of undue influence which was not rebutted by the beneficiaries. The trial court rejected their argument and they appeal.

Review on appeal is limited to a determination of whether there is sufficient evidence to support the finding of the trial court or whether the trial court erred in applying...