Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

trialprobatetrustwill
appealtrustwill

Related Cases

Estate of Hilton, 44 Cal.App.4th 890, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 491, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2835, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4720
View Case »
Welch v. Crow, 206 P.3d 599, 2009 OK 20
View Case »
In re Estate of Creech, 989 A.2d 185
View Case »
Smith v. Ashford, 298 Ga. 390, 782 S.E.2d 251
View Case »
In re Estate of Williams, 771 So.2d 7, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D2262
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Matter of Estate of Malloy, 134 Wash.2d 316, 949 P.2d 804

Facts

Claire A. Malloy executed her will in April 1992, which included specific bequests to her daughter, Mary S. Malloy. In April 1993, Claire made changes to her will by striking out certain provisions in pencil, which were not formally executed. After her death in June 1993, the personal representative sought a declaration that these changes were ineffective. The trial court ruled that the changes constituted alterations that required formal execution, which was not observed.

On April 13, 1992, Claire A. Malloy executed her will. Article IV of the will makes provisions for the disposition of Claire Malloy's estate. In paragraph “A” of that article, the will provides for specific bequests based on percentages of existing cash, cash from the sale of Claire Malloy's home, and other liquid assets. Thirty percent of these assets were to go, in trust, to Claire Malloy's only child, Mary S. Malloy. In April 1993, Claire changed her will. The changes were made in pencil by striking out certain words and were not formally executed and attested.

Issue

Was the testator's cancellation of the trust provision and of the specific bequest of her residence effective as a 'partial revocation,' or was it an alteration or modification of the will which was subject to the formalities required for execution of wills?

In this appeal we are asked to determine whether a testator's penciled-in cancellation of a trust provision and of a specific bequest is effective as a “partial revocation” of her will or is an alteration or modification of the will and, therefore, subject to the formalities required for the execution of wills.

Rule

An attempted revocation which significantly alters the design or result of a will creates a new will which must be executed and attested to according to the requirements of RCW 11.12.020.

We hold that an attempted revocation which significantly alters the design or result of a will creates a new will which must be executed and attested to according to the requirements of RCW 11.12.020.

Analysis

The court determined that Claire Malloy's changes to her will were not mere revocations but rather alterations that significantly changed the nature and value of the bequests. The attempted revocation enhanced the bequest to Mary Malloy, which constituted a new testamentary scheme. Since the changes were not executed according to the formal requirements for wills, they were deemed invalid.

Applying these factors to the case before us, it appears that Claire Malloy's sole purpose in canceling the specific bequest and the trust provision was to increase the amount and the form of Mary Malloy's share of the estate. The attempted partial revocation changed the nature or character of the bequest from one in trust to a direct monetary gift. It also changed the specific bequests by removing the direction to sell the house and by giving it outright to Mary, substantially increasing her bequest and substantially decreasing the specific bequests.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the strike-outs were invalid and ineffective, and the will should be probated as originally executed in April 1992.

The strike-outs resulted not in a revocation but in an alteration of Claire Malloy's will. Because they were accomplished without the formalities required for the proper execution of wills, the strike-outs are invalid and ineffective.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the estate of Claire A. Malloy, as the court upheld the original will without the alterations.

The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that “[b]y deleting the residence from the specific bequests, [Claire Malloy] so vitally enhanced Mary's gift under the residuary clause as to constitute a new scheme requiring the observation of the formalities for execution of a will.”

You must be