Source: https://www.washington-wills.com/contesting/will-contest/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 00:04:46+00:00

Document:
The Problem: Decedent has left a Will that contains a provision you want to eliminate, for example, you are a child of the Decedent and the Will gives all of the Decedent’s property to Decedent’s surviving spouse (or vice versa).
Your Remedy: File with the Court a Petition challenging the legal validity of the Will, usually known as a Will Contest or a Petition to Set Aside the Will.
A person’s right to dispose of his/her property at death by Will, according to the Courts, is a valuable right protected by statute. Estate of Price, 75 Wn.2d 884 (1969). A Will that is rational on its face and executed in legal form is presumed to be valid. Estate of Eubank, 50 Wn.App. 611, 617 (1988). Any Will admitted to probate is presumed to be valid. Estate of Jolly, 3 Wn.2d 615 (1940). Therefore, a challenger of the Will has the burden of proof to show its invalidity. RCW 11.24.030; Estate of DeLion, 28 Wn.2d 649 (1947).
A challenger of a Will must prove its invalidity by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. Estate of Black, 153 Wn.2d 152 (2004). Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence exists when the ultimate fact in issue is shown by the evidence to be highly probable. Estate of Watlack, 88 Wn.App. 603 (1997). “Highly probable” means significantly greater than the usual civil standard of proof, “by the preponderance of the evidence.” Therefore, to invalidate the Will, its must provide evidence that the Will’s invalidity is significantly greater than “more likely than not.” The Personal Representative of a contested Will is responsible for its defense. Estate of Esala, 16 Wn. App. 339 (1977).
There is no right to a trial by jury in a challenge to a Will. RCW 11.24.010; Estate of Clayson, 26 Wash. 253 (1901). Therefore, if the challenge proceeds to trial, it will be determined by the Court.
Courts have no jurisdiction over Wills except as provided by statute. Pond v. Faust, 90 Wash. 117 (1916). Therefore, a challenge to a Will is a purely statutory proceeding, and the Court hearing a challenge to a Will is limited in its ability to find a Will invalid by the provisions of the applicable statute. Estate of Kane, 20 Wn.2d 76, (1944); Estate of Van Dyke, 54 Wn.App. 225 (1989); Estate of Kordon, 126 Wn.App. 482 (2005).
Under RCW 11.20.020, upon the Will’s submission to the Court for admission to probate.
Under RCW 11.24.010, after Will’s admission by the Court to probate.
Application for probate — Hearing — Order — Proof — Record of testimony — Affidavits of attesting witnesses.
Presents to a Judge the original of the Will and a copy of the Petition for Probate and requests the Judge to admit the Will to probate and appoint the named Executor as the Personal Representative of the Decedent’s estate. Estate of Campbell, 47 Wn.2d 612 (1955).
This occurs ex parte, meaning that the Executor may take all these actions without having to give notice to anyone.
Exception: Within the first forty days of Decedent’s death if the Decedent left a surviving spouse who is not the named Executor or has not consented to the named Executor’s appointment. RCW 11.28.030 Therefore, it is highly unlikely that anyone interested in a Decedent’s estate will learn about the Will’s admission until after it has been admitted and those persons interested in the estate have received Notice of Probate.
When two or more Wills have been submitted for admission to probate, such that the Court’s rejection of the later Will would allow the earlier Will to be admitted. Estate of Godfrey, 164 Wash. 269 (1931).
When the Court’s authority to open a probate for the Decedent has been questioned, for example, because the Decedent has been alleged not to have died a resident of and left property subject to probate in Washington. State ex rel. Brisbin v. Frater, 1 Wn.2d 13 (1939).
And despite the disfavor of a pre-admission challenge, a Court may exercise its discretion to hear the challenge if it believes the issues presented should be determined. Estate of Campbell, 47 Wn.2d 610 (1955); State ex rel. Perry v. Jordan, 50 Wn.2d 93 (1957); Estate of Black, 153 Wn.2d 152 (2004).
Caution: See Res Judicata, below.
Petition to Probate a Later-Dated Will: Estate of Elliott, 22 Wn.2d 334 (1945); Estate of Campbell, 46 Wn.2d 292 (1955); Estate of Stein, 78 Wn. App. 251 (1995), rev, denied 128 Wn.2d 1014 (1996). Offering a later-dated Will does not challenge the prior Will — it just renders it inoperative. The procedure for admitting a later Will for probate is not provided either by stature or case law. Presumably, one would simply file another Petition for Probate and send Notice of its hearing to all parties of record. Furthermore, presumably, its petitioner has no burden to prove any issue regarding the prior Will, as this Petition for Probate is not a Will Contest. But see: Estate of Bowechop, 52 Wn.App. 775 (1988).
Petition to Probate a Lost or Destroyed Will: Estate of Findley, 199 Wash. 669 (1939). Such a Petition is not a Will Contest, as the latter requires a Will to have been admitted and rejected, and, here, the purportedly lost or destroyed Will has been neither.
Asserting the Will Is Revoked by Operation of Law: Examples: Execution of a later Will that expressly revokes a prior Will; destruction of the Will; a later marriage or divorce; an omitted spouse or child; a lapsed (recipient of gift in Will predeceases testator) or adeemed (asset specifically given in Will is sold prior to death) gift. See for example: Estate of Gherra, 44 Wn.2d 277 (1954) — Will revoked as to omitted spouse.
Contract to Make Mutual Wills: Estate of Krause, 173 Wash. 1 (1933).
Contract to Make a Gift in a Will: McCullough v. McCullough, 153 Wash. 625 (1929).
To challenge a Will, the petitioner must have a “direct pecuniary interest” in the Will — he/she must “stand to lose directly in a financial way” if the Will is allowed to stand. Estate of O’Brien, 13 Wn.2d 581, 583 (1942).
An intestate heir who would not take as much under the contested Will.
A beneficiary under a prior Will who would not take as much under the contested Will. But see Estate of West, 729 S.W.2d 676 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987) [If a prior Will is lost, it must first be established before a beneficiary under the prior Will has standing to contest a later Will].
A named Personal Representative in a prior Will if his/her only interest is the loss of receiving compensation for services as Personal Representative. Estate of Romano, 40 Wn.2d 796 (1952).
Admission of the Will: Someone who appeared at the initial hearing to admit the Will and challenged its validity.
Rejection of a Will: The person who offered it for admission. Only a party not at the hearing to admit the Will may contest its rejection; the offering party may only proceed by filing a motion for reconsideration, a motion for revision of Commissioner’s Order (if the initial hearing was held by a Superior Court Commissioner instead of a Judge), or an appeal. Estate of Hall, 34 Wn.2d 830, (1949); Estate of Rynning, 1 Wn. App. 565 (1969).
A Will Contest filed one day after after the four-month period was dismissed. State ex rel. Wood v. Chelan County Superior Court, 76 Wash 27 (1913).
The four-month period is not subject to the three day addition allowed for sending notice by mail under CR6(e). Estate of Young, 23 Wn. App. 761 (1979); Estate of Toth, 138 Wn.2d 650 (1999).
The four-month period cannot be extended due to fraud. Estate of Peterson, 102 Wn. App. 456 (2000), rev. denied 142 Wn.2d 1021 (2001).
Exception: The four-month period does not begin for a “reasonably ascertainable” contestant who fails to be sent Notice of Probate. Hesthagen v. Harby, 78 Wn.2d 934 (1971); Estate of Toth, 138 Wn.2d 650 (1999); Estate of Little, 127 Wn. App. 915 (2005).
In a challenge to a Will, if the Court sustains the Will and finds that the contestant acted without probable cause and good faith, it may assess costs and reasonable attorney’s fees against the contestant. RCW 11.24.050 If the Court invalidates the Will, the Court may assess costs and reasonable attorney’s fees against any party. RCW 11.24.050 & 11.96A.150 Therefore, if the Court finds that a challenger to a Will challenged it, for example, based on spite and without probable cause, the Court can requires the challenger to pay the estate’s attorney’s fee and costs involved in defending the Will.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.