Estate Of Ray Merle Burton
N/A (Published Opinion, but specific reporter citation not provided) (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Washington's statute governing will formalities, the requirement that a will be attested by two witnesses is not satisfied when two different testamentary documents are each signed by only one, different witness. To be valid, the witnesses must attest to the same will, or at least to identical counterpart documents.
Facts:
- Ray Burton was a successful businessman with substantial assets who was allegedly estranged from his living relatives.
- Beginning in 2011, Victor White began assisting the elderly Burton and later became his full-time caretaker.
- Burton allegedly began preparing White to take over his business affairs after his death.
- Shortly before he died, Burton handwrote and signed a document, witnessed by nurse Lisa Erickson, which purportedly left all his property to White; this document was subsequently lost.
- The day before his death, Burton handwrote a second statement on a preprinted healthcare directive form, again stating his wish for all his worldly possessions to go to Victor White.
- Burton signed this second document, and it was witnessed and signed by a different nurse, Shirley Outson.
- No other witness signed the second document.
Procedural Posture:
- After Ray Burton's death, Victor White petitioned the trial court to recognize a handwritten statement as Burton's valid will.
- Richard Didricksen, Burton's cousin and legal heir, moved the trial court for an order declaring that Burton died intestate (without a valid will).
- The trial court granted Didricksen's motion, finding that Burton had not executed a valid will.
- White filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied.
- White (Appellant) appealed the trial court's order to the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington, Division II, with Didricksen as the Appellee.
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 a testator's estate plan, consisting of two different testamentary documents each signed by only one different witness, satisfy the two-witness attestation requirement for a valid will under RCW 11.12.020(1)?
Opinions:
Majority - Maxa, P.J.
No. The testamentary documents do not constitute a valid will because they do not comply with the statutory requirement that a will be attested by two witnesses. The plain language of RCW 11.12.020(1) requires a will to be attested by 'two or more competent witnesses.' The only document in the record, the healthcare directive, was signed by only one witness, Outson. The argument that the two separate documents were 'counterparts' fails because there is no evidence they were identical duplicates; one witness signing one document and another witness signing a different document does not satisfy the statute. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the substantial compliance doctrine could apply to will formalities in Washington, it would not be satisfied here. The deficiency is not merely technical; the 'fundamental problem' is that one witness saw and signed one document, while the other witness saw and signed a different document. Allowing probate under these circumstances would undermine the statutory purposes of preventing fraud, perjury, and mistake, as the risk of error would be unacceptably high.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces Washington's strict adherence to statutory will formalities, particularly the two-witness requirement. It clarifies that the attestation cannot be achieved constructively by combining witnesses from separate, non-identical documents. The court's refusal to find substantial compliance signals that Washington courts will likely continue to demand strict conformity with will execution statutes to ensure certainty and prevent fraud in the probate process. The case serves as a strong caution against informal or do-it-yourself estate planning, highlighting the critical importance of following statutory requirements precisely to ensure a testator's intent is honored.
