In Re The Estate Of: Donald C. Muller
197 Wash. App. 477
Wash. Ct. App.2016Background
- Muller died in 2013 after illness; Petersens were caregivers and controlled finances and healthcare decisions.
- Petersens helped Muller execute a 2012 will leaving them all assets after debts, with witnesses unfamiliar to Muller and no attorney involvement.
- Petersens held durable POA and health care POA, facilitating financial transactions with Muller’s assets.
- December 2013: Muller expressed comfort-care wishes; he died December 23, 2013.
- January 2014: Petersens offered the 2012 will for probate; Kriss Muller contested undue influence; trial court invalidated the will.
- Petersens did not move for CR 60 reconsideration and appealed the order after voluntarily waiving detailed objections at the hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly adjudicated testacy and probate against a self-proving will | Petersen: improper procedural adjudication; self-proving status should affect proceedings | Petersens: self-proving form permits immediate probate/proving; still open to contest | Proper adjudication of testacy and probate. |
| Whether exclusion under the dead man statute was error | Petersens: testimony about transactions with Muller should be admissible | Muller’s interest barred testimony under RCW 5.60.030; invited error and no adverse ruling on some topics | No reversible error; issues invited or not proven on record. |
| Whether the trial court’s findings of fact were adequately supported | Petersens: multiple findings unsupported or misinterpreted the evidence | No review of witness credibility; substantial evidence supports findings | Finding 64 supported; others unchallenged or waived. |
| Whether Petersens waived objections by not pursuing detailed challenges or reconsideration | Petersens: trial court failed to address individual objections | They waived by agreement not to argue objections in detail and by not moving for reconsideration | Waived challenge to trial court’s handling of objections. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parks v. Fink, 173 Wn. App. 366 (WA Ct. App. 2013) (dead man statute purpose; prohibits self-serving testimony about decedent)
- Endicott v. Saul, 142 Wn. App. 899 (WA Ct. App. 2008) (review of findings of fact on appeal; credibility of witnesses not reweighed)
- River House Dev. Inc. v. Integrus Architecture, P.S., 167 Wn. App. 221 (WA Ct. App. 2012) (invited error doctrine and review limits for objections not ruled on in trial court)
- Angelo Prop. Co. v. Hafiz, 167 Wn. App. 789 (WA Ct. App. 2012) (invited error doctrine; cannot assign error arising from party’s own actions)
- In re Estate of Barnes, 185 Wn.2d 1 (WA) (clear, cogent, and convincing standard; burden on will contest)