[WSBARP] TEDRA matter

Tue Feb 25 18:19:44 PST 2025

I had a recent case in which we were the prevailing party on the lack of standing issue.  However, in that case there was no standing because there was a prior Will which would have come into play if the Will at issue was invalidated and the opponent of the new Will was also excluded in the prior.  His argument was that he had standing because he "could" have been an intestate heir if all of the Wills failed.  Unless there are other facts of which I am unaware, I think the court got it wrong in your case on standing.  You probably cited these cases, but it sure seems like your client would have standing under this premise as she/he would have inherited the house (or a portion) under the first Will if the new one was invalidated.

A "person interested is one who has a direct, immediate, and legally ascertained pecuniary interest in the devolution of the testator's estate, such as would be impaired or defeated by the probate of the will or benefited by the declaration that it is invalid." Estate of Kolesar, 27 Wn.App. 2d 166, 172-173, 532 P.3d 170, 175-176 (2023), citing Estate of O'Brien, 13 Wn.2d 581, 583, 126 P.2d 47 (1942) ("...the contestant must stand to lose directly in a financial way if the will which he seeks to attack is permitted to stand.").  Even a beneficiary named in a Will does not have standing to challenge it unless it would "ha[ve] a direct, immediate, and legally ascertained pecuniary interest ... such as would be impaired or defeated by the probate of the will or benefited by the declaration that it is invalid." Estate of Jordan, 2020 Wn.App. LEXIS 2412, *11-12,[1] citing Estate of Becker, 177 Wn.2d 242, 247, 298 P.3d 720, 721 (2013).
Applying these standing requirements to a will contest in Kolesar, we held that the primary beneficiaries under a second will (which if proven would supplant a prior will) lacked standing to contest the will because they would inherit nothing if the court invalidated the second will and therefore would not suffer any direct financial loss if the relief they sought were denied.
Estate of Parman, 2024 Wn.App. LEXIS 267, *5-6, 2024 WL 551943.[2]

Karen L. Cobb
Attorney at Law
Frey Buck PLLC
(206) 486-8003<tel:(206)%20486-8003>

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Kevin Winters
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 4:23 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] TEDRA matter

Look at the vulnerable adult statutes maybe?

[cid:image001.jpg at 01DB87B0.657AC4A0]

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto: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<mailto: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

________________________________

[1] This unpublished case is cited pursuant to GR 14.1(a) as persuasive authority.

[2] See FN2.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20250226/e7f4d51f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 38530 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20250226/e7f4d51f/image001.jpg>