In Re the Estate of Campbell
280 P.2d 686, 46 Wash. 2d 292, 1955 Wash. LEXIS 475 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An order by a probate court admitting a valid later will to probate automatically revokes and nullifies a prior order admitting an earlier will, thereby giving effect to the testator's final wishes.
Facts:
- James A. Campbell executed a will on October 31, 1951, naming John W. Day as executor.
- Campbell later executed a second will on January 15, 1953, which explicitly revoked all prior wills and named Lurline Tate Maguire as executrix.
- James A. Campbell died on July 28, 1953.
- Two days after Campbell's death, on July 30, 1953, the 1951 will was presented to the probate court and admitted to probate, and Day was appointed executor.
- The following day, July 31, 1953, the 1953 will was presented to the same probate court and also admitted to probate, and Maguire was appointed executrix.
- The admission of both wills created confusion and apparent dual control over the estate by two different executors.
Procedural Posture:
- On July 30, 1953, the probate court admitted James Campbell's 1951 will to probate and appointed John W. Day as executor.
- On July 31, 1953, the same probate court admitted Campbell's 1953 will to probate and appointed Lurline Tate Maguire as executrix.
- Maguire subsequently filed a petition to revoke Day's letters testamentary, which the probate court denied on October 20, 1953.
- On March 29, 1954, Maguire filed a new petition asking the probate court for clarification regarding the dual administration of the estate.
- On May 11, 1954, the probate court entered an order of clarification which revoked Day's letters testamentary and established the 1953 will as the decedent's last will.
- John W. Day (appellant) appealed the order of clarification 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 a probate court's order admitting a later will automatically revoke a prior order admitting an earlier, inconsistent will of the same testator?
Opinions:
Majority - Ott, J.
Yes, the order admitting the later will automatically revoked the prior order admitting the earlier will. A probate court's primary duty is to give effect to the true intent of the testator. The testator's 1953 will was unambiguous in revoking all prior wills, including the one from 1951. When the court admitted the 1953 will to probate, its order was conclusive as against the world, establishing it as the final expression of the testator's wishes. This action automatically nullified the earlier will and the authority of the executor appointed under it, without the need for a formal will contest. A probate court has inherent authority to clarify its orders and correct errors while the estate remains open, especially when the initial orders were rendered ex parte.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the legal status of sequentially probated wills, establishing that the probate of a later, valid will supersedes any previously probated will automatically. It reinforces the principle that the testator's final intent is paramount in probate proceedings. The ruling streamlines the process by avoiding the need for a formal will contest to invalidate the earlier will, confirming that a probate court has inherent power to correct its own records to reflect the testator's true last will and testament. This provides a clear, efficient mechanism for resolving conflicts when a more recent will is discovered after an older one has already been admitted.
