Estate of Maria G. Primiani
34200-0
| Wash. Ct. App. | May 2, 2017Background
- Maria Primiani executed a will in 2008 naming daughter Anna as personal representative (nonintervention) and son Frank as successor; will contained a no-contest clause reducing any contestant to $1.
- Maria died Dec. 2014; will admitted Jan. 29, 2015; parties agreed to extend the 4‑month will‑contest/creditor deadline to Aug. 20, 2015.
- On Aug. 19, 2015 Frank filed a TEDRA petition under the probate cause number asserting undue influence, exploitation, partition, removal of the personal representative, and other claims; he mailed the petition to Anna’s attorney but did not personally serve Anna.
- Later Frank issued subpoenas for Providence medical records and a social worker deposition after the estate objected; Frank’s counsel retrieved the records despite the estate’s objection and before court ruled, prompting a protective order that quashed the subpoenas, ordered return/destruction of records, and found bad faith discovery conduct.
- The trial court dismissed Frank’s will contest for failure to personally serve the personal representative within the statutory tolling period, enforced the no‑contest clause against Frank, and awarded attorney fees for discovery abuse; the Court of Appeals affirmed in part but remanded for findings on enforcement of the no‑contest clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Frank) | Defendant's Argument (Estate) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service rules required personal service to toll RCW 11.24.010 | TEDRA notice provisions supersede or modify personal service requirement; personal service not required | Personal service on the personal representative is statutorily required and not superseded by TEDRA | Personal service required; petition not timely served so will contest dismissed |
| Whether service on attorney constituted substantial compliance | Service on personal representative’s counsel constituted substantial compliance | Substantial compliance insufficient given strict statutory requirement | Substantial compliance rejected; Jepsen controls |
| Whether Frank had standing to bring abuse/exploitation and slayer claims for the estate | Frank could seek removal of personal representative and thus pursue those claims | Only the personal representative may maintain/prosecute estate claims; Frank lacked authority | Frank lacked standing; issue moot as personal representative died; successor will decide |
| Enforceability of the no‑contest clause | Frank contested in good faith with probable cause (letters and allegations) so clause should not be enforced | Clause enforceable; trial court enforced it | Trial court enforced clause but failed to make findings on good faith/probable cause; remand for findings |
| Validity of protective order and sanctions for obtaining medical records | Records relevant to undue influence; no bad faith; records not privileged or were waived | Records privileged under UHCIA/HIPAA; counsel obtained them in bad faith after estate objected | Protective order and sanctions affirmed; trial court’s bad‑faith finding has substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Jepsen, 184 Wn.2d 376 (holding statutory personal service requirement for will contests is unambiguous and strictly enforced)
- In re Estate of Kordon, 157 Wn.2d 206 (TEDRA does not supersede other statutory probate requirements)
- In re Estate of Kubick, 9 Wn. App. 413 (no‑contest clause enforceable; proviso protects contests made in good faith and with probable cause)
- In re Chappell's Estate, 127 Wash. 638 (distinguishes contests based on public policy grounds—those may avoid forfeiture if made in good faith and with probable cause)
- In re Estate of Mumby, 97 Wn. App. 385 (recognizes enforceability of no‑contest clauses but discusses good‑faith/probable‑cause exception)