Trust & Estate Litigation Practice Wins in Court of Appeals

Related Practices: Estate Planning & Administration and Trust & Estate Litigation

The Stokes Lawrence Trust & Estate Litigation practice helped win a favorable ruling in the Washington Court of Appeals on behalf of its client, the J. Thomas Bernard Revocable Trust.

This is an important ruling for trustees and personal representatives responsible for upholding a decedent’s wishes.

In re Estate of J. Thomas Bernard involved a will and trust contest where petitioners argued that modifications made to a will and trust in which they were named beneficiaries were void.

J. Thomas Bernard had a will and revocable trust agreement that provided his estate would pass to his son James upon his death. The trust further added that if James predeceased Tom and left no children, the estate would pass to Tom’s niece and nephews.   Upon signing the will and trust, Tom also signed an agreement under the Trust and Estate Dispute Resolution Act (“TEDRA”), providing he would (1) file a petition with the court, (2) notify his son James, and (3) get court approval, before he made any revisions to his estate plan.

Tom later signed a codicil and amendment to the trust, which maintained James as the primary beneficiary but if James predeceased Tom would reduce the amount of the estate that would pass to the niece and nephews, and give the balance of his estate to different beneficiaries.  He and James signed a second TEDRA Agreement agreeing to the revisions.

James predeceased Tom, leaving no children, and Tom died four months later.

Tom’s niece and nephews contested the revised and amended documents, arguing that Tom failed to follow the three-step process he initially agreed to in the first TEDRA Agreement, namely to (1) file a petition, (2) notify James, and (3) receive court approval prior to revising his estate plan.  The beneficiaries of the revised estate plan, as well as the co-trustees represented by Stokes Lawrence, and personal representative of the estate all disputed these claims.

The trial court ruled in favor of the niece and nephews, stating the modifications to the will and trust were null and void because Tom did not follow the three steps outlined in the first TEDRA agreement.

After the niece and nephew prevailed at the trial level, they also objected to the personal representative and co-trustees' efforts to defend the revised documents.  The personal representative and co-trustees petitioned the court for instructions on whether they could appeal the ruling and a different trial court held they could not.  The issue of whether they could appeal then also went to the Court of Appeals for review.

The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling that the modifications were null and void, stating that TEDRA permits modification of estate planning documents by agreement and that Tom substantially complied with the steps necessary to properly modify the trust.

The Court of Appeals also agreed that the co-trustees have a fiduciary responsibility to carry out the wishes of the decedent, and in doing so must have the right to appeal and defend the decedent’s revised estate plan.

“When construing a testamentary instrument, our paramount duty is to give effect to the maker's intent,” the Court noted in its opinion.  It found the testator’s last stated intent was as expressed in his revised documents.  It then remanded to the trial level so the parties can litigate petitioners’ other claims, which include allegations of undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity.

“This is a significant ruling for two primary reasons: first, it confirms that encompassed within trustee’s and personal representative’s duties is the duty to defend a decedent’s last stated intent; and second it confirms that parties can use TEDRA to modify earlier agreements and estate planning documents, specifically including wills and trusts,” explained Stokes Lawrence Shareholder Karolyn Hicks, who represented the trust.