In Re The Matter Of The Estate Of Edward William Coaker
74873-4
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 19, 2016Background
- Decedent Ed died Nov 28, 2013; two wills (July 24, 2013 and Aug 26, 2013) were later submitted; the Aug 26 will was admitted to probate Feb 13, 2015.
- Michael (son) was appointed personal representative (PR); PR published notice to creditors but could not find Bill's address and did not mail him notice initially.
- Bill (other son), who has documented cognitive/reading limitations and proceeded pro se at first, filed a creditor’s claim on June 11, 2015 and later filed TEDRA/will-contest pleadings; personal service on the PR occurred Dec 2, 2015.
- RCW 11.24.010 requires a will contest petition to be filed within four months after probate and the petitioner to personally serve the PR within 90 days after filing, or the contest is not deemed commenced for tolling the statute.
- The trial court granted PR’s summary-judgment motion dismissing Bill’s will contest as untimely for failure to personally serve the PR within 90 days; Bill appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bill) | Defendant's Argument (Michael/PR) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bill timely commenced a will contest under RCW 11.24.010 | Bill argues he substantially complied by filing claims and mailing notices to PR's counsel before the 4‑month deadline | PR argues strict personal service on the PR within 90 days of filing is required and was not done | Court: Dismissal affirmed — strict personal service required; Bill did not personally serve PR within 90 days so contest not commenced for tolling |
| Whether PR’s failure to provide notice of probate tolled the will‑contest limitations | Bill contends PR’s deficient notice tolled the period so his June filing was timely | PR contends any notice defect doesn’t excuse Bill’s failure to personally serve within 90 days after filing | Court: Although lack of notice can toll the limitations for filing, Bill still failed to perfect service within 90 days after filing; tolling did not save his claim |
| Whether Bill’s disability tolled the will‑contest limitations (ADA, state law, or RCW 4.16.190) | Bill argues disability/incapacity prevented timely action and entitles him to tolling or accommodation | PR argues will‑contest limitations are governed by RCW 11.24 and do not allow tolling for disability; legislature rejected such tolling historically | Court: Rejected — will contest statute does not permit tolling for disability and courts will not read such an accommodation into the statute |
| Whether PR waived the statute‑of‑limitations defense by responding or through counsel | Bill claims personal jurisdiction via service and waiver by PR failing to timely raise the defense | PR argues statutory commencement requirements are distinct from personal‑jurisdiction defenses and cannot be waived by responding | Court: Rejected — compliance with RCW 11.24.010 is mandatory and not waived by PR responses |
Key Cases Cited
- Miles v. Jepsen, 184 Wn.2d 376 (2015) (Washington enforces strictly the statutory personal‑service/commencement requirements for will contests)
- In re Estate of Toth, 138 Wn.2d 650 (1999) (statute of limitations for will contests tied to probate date regardless of actual notice)
- Hesthagen v. Harby, 78 Wn.2d 934 (1971) (PR must exercise due diligence to identify and notify heirs)
- In re Estate of Walker, 10 Wn. App. 925 (1974) (defective notice may be cured and tolling principles explained)
- Ruff v. County of King, 125 Wn.2d 697 (1995) (summary‑judgment standard reviewed de novo)