[WSBAPT] Unusual Codicil Distribution Scheme Question

[Ryan Castle]

OK this would make a good bar exam question maybe:

I represent a PR in a large WA testate estate. PR is daughter of deceased.
No spouse. PR just appointed by court, no bond, nonintervention. Decedent
executed valid Will with attorney representation. Then years later decedent
executed valid codicil without assistance of attorney (!!!). The Codicil
has a horrible distribution scheme that reads:

Beneficiary 5 "to receive an amount agreed upon by" PR (also Beneficiary1),
Beneficiary 2, Beneficiary 3, and Beneficiary 4 "by mutual decision. PR
(Beneficiary 1) is the tie breaker."

Beneficiary 5's gift would come out of residuary, thereby reducing gifts of
other residuary beneficiaries listed in Will. Of the "voting" benes, only
bene 4 is a residuary beneficiary. My concern obviously is the discretion
given to my client PR who has fiduciary duties to estate/beneficiaries. I
am inclined to advise that my client simply "vote" to follow the original
will distribution scheme in order to adhere to her fiduciary duties. The
other "voting" beneficiaries seem inclined to do the same but unsure at
this point.

Any advice on how to handle this horribly drafted clause to protect my
client? Best if they all simply abstain from voting, assuming they all
agree to do that? I assume the "voting" Benes should document their
decision via TEDRA Agreement?

-- 

Ryan Castle (he/him)
Castle Law Firm, PLLC
Managing Attorney
T: 360-592-3504
1313 E. Maple St., Suite 790
Bellingham, WA 98225
https://ryancastlelawfirm.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20250207/df63e33b/attachment.html>