dependent relative revocation doctrine (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

dependent relative revocation doctrine in Washington

9 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1947–2006 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
In Re Kerckhof's Estategreen
wash · 1942 · cited in 8 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1947–2006
2 sentences

2006Under the doctrine of dependent relative revocation, courts presume that the testator would have preferred the revoked will over “the intestacy brought about by the unforeseen thwarting of the attempted later alternative disposition.” In re Estate of Kerckhof, 13 Wn.2d 469, 473 , 125 P.2d 284 (1942). “[A]nd there can be no real intent to revoke when the act of destruction or cancellation is induced and motivated by a mental misconception of the effect of the act on account of ignorance, or mistake, or some other error.” Id. ¶23 Here, clear, cogent and convincing evidence establishes Alice did

2006Under the doctrine of dependent relative revocation, courts presume that the testator would have preferred the revoked will over “the intestacy brought about by the unforeseen thwarting of the attempted later alternative disposition.” In re Estate of Kerckhof, 13 Wn.2d 469, 473 , 125 P.2d 284 (1942). “[A]nd there can be no real intent to revoke when the act of destruction or cancellation is induced and motivated by a mental misconception of the effect of the act on account of ignorance, or mistake, or some other error.” Id. ¶23 Here, clear, cogent and convincing evidence establishes Alice did

38
In Re the Estate of Hallgreen
washctapp · 1972 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
2 sentences

2006App. 341, 343 , 499 P.2d 912 (1972) (“In will contests intent of the testator is the controlling factor.”). ¶22 For the doctrine of dependent relative revocation to apply, a party must show an “immediate intent to make a new testamentary disposition and [a] conditional [revocation] of the original will.” Hall, 7 Wn.

2006App. 341, 343 , 499 P.2d 912 (1972) (“In will contests intent of the testator is the controlling factor.”). ¶22 For the doctrine of dependent relative revocation to apply, a party must show an “immediate intent to make a new testamentary disposition and [a] conditional [revocation] of the original will.” Hall, 7 Wn.

22
In Re Bank's Estategreen
wash · 1960 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
2 sentences

2006See In re Estate of Banks, 56 Wn.2d 139, 142 , 351 P.2d 531 (1960) (holding the trial court properly applied the doctrine of dependent relative revocation after recognizing there was no evidence that the decedent intended to die intestate); In re Estate of Becklund, 7 Wn.

2006See In re Estate of Banks, 56 Wn.2d 139, 142 , 351 P.2d 531 (1960) (holding the trial court properly applied the doctrine of dependent relative revocation after recognizing there was no evidence that the decedent intended to die intestate); In re Estate of Becklund, 7 Wn.

22
In Re the Estate of Becklundgreen
washctapp · 1972 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
2 sentences

2006See In re Estate of Banks, 56 Wn.2d 139, 142 , 351 P.2d 531 (1960) (holding the trial court properly applied the doctrine of dependent relative revocation after recognizing there was no evidence that the decedent intended to die intestate); In re Estate of Becklund, 7 Wn.

2006See Becklund, 7 Wn.

22

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
In Re Estate of Appleton green
wash · 1931
2 sentences

1960In re Appleton’s Estate, 163 Wash. 632 , 2 P. (2d) 71 (1931).

1960In re Appleton’s Estate, 163 Wash. 632 , 2 P. (2d) 71 (1931).

21960–1960
Matter of Estate of Eastman neutral
washctapp · 1991
1 sentence

1996Eastman, 61 Wn.

11996–1996

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 11.20.020 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 11.20.070 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 11.12.040 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 15 (1945–1997) FL 10 (1956–2018) WA 9 (1947–2006) PA 7 (1932–1972) NY 4 (1949–2008) MD 3 (1998–2006) GA 3 (1996–2015) MI 3 (1945–1959) NH 2 (1978–1997) OK 2 (1991–1996) VA 2 (1982–1992) OH 2 (1980–1986) MT 2 (1980–2011) MS 2 (1973–2010) MO 2 (1974–1987) WI 2 (1963–1970)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check