[WSBARP] TEDRA matter

[Eric Nelsen]

I saw a case recently, can't remember where (sorry), indicating that when the PR is alleged to have received an improper inter vivos gift, or maybe breached a fiduciary duty to the decedent under a POA while they were alive, that the proper plaintiff to pursue the case is the PR of the Estate-which means that the remedy is to request removal of the PR and appointment of someone else to investigate the claim and determine if it should be pursued.

The cause of action is based on the deed, not the Will, correct? It's a challenge to the validity of the deed and/or fraud in the procurement of the deed and/or PR's breach of fiduciary duty during decedent's life because PR was either a POA or had some confidential relationship and position of trust?

In your case, I think it's reasonable to request that the Will beneficiary be appointed as PR. But the court might decide that a neutral should be appointed instead. The beneficiary certainly has standing to request removal of the PR, even if no direct interest in house.

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen
Sayre Law Offices, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA 98144-3909
206-625-0092
eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com>

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Jenna Brozik
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 3:00 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] TEDRA matter

Hello list mates,

Beneficiary of a will challenged the PR for undue influence and filed a TEDRA action.  At the same time Decedent executed new will before she passed away, Decedent transferred her house by deed to the PR in the PR's name. Beneficiary challenged the transfer of the home as undue influence in the TEDRA action.  Judge ruled he didn't have jurisdiction over the home in a TEDRA action because it wasn't an asset that passed at death.  (Yes, this was to our surprise also).  So the beneficiary filed a separate civil suit against the PR claiming fraud and undue influence regarding the transfer of the home before Decedent passed away.  Judge ruled the beneficiary did not have standing to sue because the fraud/undue influence did not occur directly to the beneficiary but to the Decedent.  Beneficiary argued that the house, if the undue influence/fraud did not occur, would have passed to the residue of the estate, per the Decedent's will,  in which she was a beneficiary.

Any comments on this whether the beneficiary would have standing or any other comment that is relevant would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Jenna Brozik
Managing Attorney
PRINZ & BROZIK PLLC
445 S. Grand Avenueecut
Pullman, WA 99163
509-338-0908 Telephone
509-338-3527 Facsimile

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20250225/5051a41b/attachment.html>