In re the Estate of Baird
131 Wash.2d 514 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Washington's disclaimer statute, RCW 11.86, a person cannot execute a valid disclaimer of an expected inheritance from an intestate estate while the person they expect to inherit from is still alive, as a legally cognizable 'interest' has not yet been created.
Facts:
- Phyllis Baird was mentally incapacitated due to Alzheimer's disease, and her daughter-in-law, Susan K. Baird, was her court-appointed guardian.
- PhyllIS's son, James Baird, was married to Susan Baird.
- On February 9, 1993, James Baird brutally assaulted Susan Baird, causing her permanent disfigurement and cognitive defects.
- Susan Baird subsequently filed a personal injury action against James Baird.
- On March 8, 1994, the same day he was convicted of first-degree assault, James Baird executed a document purporting to disclaim any future interest in his living mother's estate.
- On October 19, 1994, Susan Baird was awarded a $2.75 million judgment against James Baird in her personal injury case.
- One week later, on October 26, 1994, James Baird filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
- Phyllis Baird died intestate (without a will) on December 29, 1994, leaving an estate valued in excess of $500,000.
Procedural Posture:
- Susan Baird filed a personal injury action against James Baird in Whatcom County Superior Court, a trial court.
- The trial court awarded a $2.75 million judgment to Susan Baird.
- James Baird filed a petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in federal bankruptcy court.
- Following Phyllis Baird's death, James Baird's children petitioned the probate court for an order declaring his pre-death disclaimer valid.
- The bankruptcy trustee opposed the petition, and the bankruptcy court abstained from ruling pending the probate court's decision.
- The probate court granted Susan Baird's motion to intervene and subsequently entered an order declaring James Baird's disclaimer invalid.
- Jayme and Hunter Baird (appellants) appealed the probate court's order directly to the Washington Supreme Court.
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 Washington's disclaimer statute, RCW 11.86, permit an individual to execute an anticipatory disclaimer of an expectancy interest in a living person's intestate estate?
Opinions:
Majority - Johnson, J.
No. The plain language of RCW 11.86 does not authorize an anticipatory disclaimer of an expectancy interest created by intestacy. The court reasoned that the statute permits a 'beneficiary' to disclaim an 'interest.' An interest created by intestate succession only comes into existence upon the death of the intestate person; before death, a potential heir has a mere 'expectancy,' not a disclaimable interest. Furthermore, a person is only a 'beneficiary' under the statute if they are 'entitled... to take an interest.' James Baird was not entitled to take any interest in his mother's estate prior to her death. Because James Baird was not a 'beneficiary' and did not have an 'interest' at the time he executed the disclaimer, the instrument is invalid under the statute.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the temporal requirements for a valid disclaimer under Washington law, establishing a bright-line rule that an expectancy interest is not a disclaimable 'interest.' The ruling prevents individuals from using anticipatory disclaimers to shield future inheritances from current or anticipated creditors. By refusing to apply the legal fiction of 'relation back' to harm a third-party creditor, the court reinforces the principle that equitable doctrines will not be used to produce an unjust result. This case significantly impacts estate planning and asset protection strategies, ensuring that an inheritance vesting within 180 days of a bankruptcy filing becomes part of the bankruptcy estate, regardless of a debtor's prior attempts to disclaim it.
Unlock the full brief for In re the Estate of Baird