Bay v. Estate of Bay
105 P.3d 434 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The statutory presumption that an omitted spouse is entitled to an intestate share of a decedent's estate may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that a smaller share, or no share, is more in keeping with the decedent's intent, which can be demonstrated by provisions made for the spouse outside of the will.
Facts:
- In 1983, John Bay executed a will leaving his entire estate to his then-wife, Cathy, and subsequently in trust for their children, emphasizing his desire to fund their post-secondary education.
- John and Cathy had two children, Kelly and Eric, before divorcing in 1986.
- By operation of law, the divorce revoked the will's provisions for Cathy, making Kelly and Eric the sole beneficiaries.
- John Bay married Laura Bay in November 1999.
- After marrying Laura, John changed the beneficiary designation on his 401(k) retirement plan, naming Laura as the 80% beneficiary and his two children as 10% beneficiaries each.
- John did not make any changes to his 1983 will after marrying Laura.
- John Bay died in October 2000, leaving a probate estate of approximately $108,000 and the 401(k) plan, from which Laura received approximately $290,000.
Procedural Posture:
- The personal representative of John Bay's estate proposed to distribute the entire net probate estate of $108,000 to John's two children, Kelly and Eric.
- Laura Bay, the surviving spouse, protested this distribution in Washington superior court, claiming she was an omitted spouse entitled to her intestate share (one-half) of the probate estate.
- The superior court (trial court) rejected Laura's claim and entered a final order confirming the distribution of the entire probate estate to the children.
- Laura Bay (Appellant) appealed the superior court's order to the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does clear and convincing evidence that a decedent provided for his new spouse with a significant non-probate asset and consistently expressed an intent for his probate estate to benefit his children from a prior marriage rebut the statutory presumption that the omitted spouse is entitled to an intestate share of the probate estate?
Opinions:
Majority - Becker, J.
Yes. The statutory presumption that an omitted spouse is entitled to an intestate share is rebutted where there is clear and convincing evidence that a smaller share, including no share, is more in keeping with the decedent's intent. The court found substantial evidence to support rebutting the presumption, focusing on Washington's omitted spouse statute, RCW 11.12.095(3). This statute allows a court to consider extrinsic evidence, including the decedent's dispositive scheme and provisions made for the spouse outside the will. Here, John Bay's long-standing and documented intent was for his probate estate to fund his children's education, as stated in his will and reinforced in his divorce settlement. Furthermore, John made a substantial provision for Laura outside the will by designating her the primary beneficiary of his 401(k), his largest single asset. The court concluded that this combination of a consistent dispositive scheme for his children and a significant non-probate provision for his new spouse constituted clear and convincing evidence that John intended for Laura to receive no share of his probate estate.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of Washington's modern omitted spouse statute, emphasizing the flexibility courts have to consider extrinsic evidence to determine a decedent's true intent. It establishes that a substantial non-probate transfer to a new spouse can serve as powerful evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of an intestate share from the probate estate. The case signals that courts will look at the decedent's entire dispositive plan, including non-probate assets, rather than mechanically applying the statute, thereby preventing a potential windfall for an omitted spouse who has already been provided for through other means. This approach gives greater effect to the decedent's overall intentions, even when they have failed to update their formal will.
