In Re Estate of Campbell
942 P.2d 1008, 87 Wash. App. 506 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An estate granted in clear and decisive terms in one part of a will cannot be taken away or diminished by subsequent doubtful or inferential language; it can only be limited by a positive provision as clear and decisive as the one that created the estate. A testator may validly require the remaindermen to pay all expenses of a life estate property, and this obligation becomes enforceable against them upon their acceptance of the remainder interest.
Facts:
- In September 1994, George Campbell executed a will.
- The will granted his wife, Wilma J. Campbell, a life estate in their family home and property.
- The remainder interest in the property was left to George Campbell's six children from a previous marriage.
- The will stated, 'I wish my wife to have undisturbed possession... so long as she wishes to live there.'
- The will also gave Wilma an option, if she did not desire to remain on the property, to require the children to pay her one-third of the house's value.
- A separate provision in the will required the children to pay all property expenses for the home, including maintenance, taxes, and insurance.
- George Campbell died in October 1994.
Procedural Posture:
- George Campbell's will was admitted to probate in November 1994.
- The children filed a petition in the trial court seeking a judicial determination of their rights and obligations under the will.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court construed the will in favor of Wilma Campbell.
- The trial court ruled that Wilma's life estate continues for her entire life, even if she moves out, and that the provision requiring the children to pay property expenses was valid and enforceable.
- The children, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the intermediate court of appeals.
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 will provision granting a life estate in a residence terminate if the life tenant vacates the property when the will lacks explicit termination language, and is a separate provision requiring the remaindermen to pay all property expenses legally enforceable against them?
Opinions:
Majority - Kennedy, A.C.J.
No, the life estate does not terminate upon the life tenant vacating the property, and yes, the provision requiring remaindermen to pay expenses is legally enforceable. A life estate granted in clear terms will not be cut down by subsequent, ambiguous language; any limitation must be as clear as the grant itself. The phrase 'so long as she wishes to live there' is not a sufficiently clear and decisive limitation to terminate the life estate in the real property. Instead, the court interpreted this language as limiting Wilma's life estate in George's personal property (tools, furniture), thus giving effect to every part of the will. Furthermore, a testator's intent controls who bears the costs of a life estate. A will can validly place the duty of paying taxes, insurance, and maintenance on the remaindermen. This obligation attaches to the inheritance, and by not rejecting their remainder interest, the children are liable for these costs to the extent of the value of their inheritance.
Analysis:
This decision establishes an important precedent in Washington State by confirming that testators have broad power to structure estate plans in ways that deviate from common law norms. It solidifies the principle that a clearly granted estate is strongly protected against termination by implication, requiring any limiting conditions to be unambiguous. More significantly, it affirms for the first time in Washington that the financial burdens of a life estate, traditionally borne by the life tenant, can be legally shifted to the remaindermen via an explicit will provision. This gives estate planners greater flexibility to provide for a surviving spouse or other life tenant without saddling them with the property's expenses.
