425 P.3d 978
Wyo.2018Background
- Patricia Britain executed a will (2011) with an in terrorem clause and a codicil (2013) altering disposition of certain stock; Patricia died in 2016 and the will was admitted to probate.
- Robert Britain was appointed personal representative and sought a declaratory judgment that the 2013 codicil was invalid for lack of testamentary capacity and because Kelly exerted undue influence.
- Cindy (sister) filed a statutory will-contest petition alleging incapacity and undue influence; district court dismissed Cindy for lack of standing as the codicil did not affect her devise.
- Robert then filed a UDJA declaratory action; Kelly intervened and moved to dismiss, arguing the will-contest statutory scheme is the exclusive remedy for challenges based on incapacity/undue influence.
- The district court dismissed Robert’s UDJA claim; the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed, holding that statutory will-contest procedures (and their deadlines) are exclusive for challenges alleging incompetence or undue influence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a personal representative may use the UDJA to challenge a will/codicil for lack of testamentary capacity | Robert: UDJA allows persons interested (including fiduciaries) to seek declarations about validity; UDJA relief should be available during probate and not barred by will-contest deadlines | Kelly: The probate code provides a specific, time-limited will-contest procedure for incapacity/undue influence; UDJA cannot be used to evade those statutory limits | Held: No — a timely will contest under the probate statutes is the exclusive means to challenge a will on incapacity/undue influence grounds |
| Whether UDJA §1-37-105 (questions arising in administration) permits declaring a will invalid | Robert: §1-37-105 grants fiduciaries declaratory relief for questions in estate administration, so PR can seek invalidation | Kelly: Administration questions do not include revoking probate or litigating fundamental testamentary validity; statutes show legislature intended exclusivity | Held: Held against Robert — administration-related declarations allowed, but not challenges to testamentary validity that must follow will-contest statute |
| Whether allowing UDJA claims would nullify statutory deadlines and probate policy | Robert: UDJA challenges before final distribution are timely and do not undermine probate timelines | Kelly: Allowing UDJA would render the three-month contest deadline and conclusiveness provision meaningless and frustrate expedited estate administration | Held: Held for Kelly — permitting UDJA would undermine statutory time limits and the policy of prompt estate settlement |
| Whether the in terrorem clause and testator intent affect availability of UDJA relief | Robert: The will’s Article Seventh contemplated declaratory actions and should permit PR to seek UDJA relief without penalty | Kelly: A testator cannot override statutory remedies; UDJA use here would undermine the in terrorem clause’s purpose | Held: Court: Testator cannot expand statutory remedies; decision aligns with testator’s intent to discourage contests while preserving proper declaratory uses (interpretation/administration questions only) |
Key Cases Cited
- Rock v. Lankford, 301 P.3d 1075 (Wyo. 2013) (UDJA cannot supplant a specific statutory contest remedy)
- Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Ass'n v. State, 645 P.2d 1163 (Wyo. 1982) (UDJA relief not available to substitute for statutory administrative remedies)
- Davidson v. Brate, 337 N.E.2d 642 (Ohio Ct. App. 1974) (will-contest statute is the exclusive means to challenge undue influence; declaratory judgment reserved for will construction)
- Kausch v. First Wichita Nat'l Bank, 470 F.2d 1068 (5th Cir. 1972) (UDJA-like language does not permit independent inquiry into testamentary capacity or undue influence)
- Estate of Rhoades, 502 S.W.3d 406 (Tex. Ct. App. 2016) (UDJA appropriate to interpret wills or resolve administration disputes, not to litigate testamentary validity)
- Accelerated Receivable Solutions v. Hauf, 350 P.3d 731 (Wyo. 2015) (probate time-limits promote prompt settlement of estates)