## Facts

- Janet Dand executed a will on December 29, 1941, that generally treated her four daughters substantially equally, consistent with her long-standing plan (aside from a contemplated devise of Canadian land to a granddaughter).
- In 1942 and early 1943, Dand’s daughter Mabel Haw made false statements to Dand about two other daughters, Jennie Meiners and Myrtle Klein, including accusations that Jennie had taken control of property and mishandled or failed to account for income.
- During the same period, Haw engaged in hostile conduct toward Klein, including forcing Klein out of Dand’s house and physically attacking her at least once.
- Haw induced Dand to terminate her relationship with the attorney who had drafted the 1941 will and took Dand to another attorney.
- Under Haw’s supervision, Dand executed a new will dated March 19, 1943, that materially departed from Dand’s earlier testamentary pattern and favored Haw.
- After Dand’s death in 1950, the March 19, 1943 will was admitted to probate.
- Meiners and Klein filed a statutory will contest, alleging that the 1943 will was the product of fraud in the inducement and undue influence by Haw.
- Haw, other beneficiaries under the 1943 will (including family members), and the executor (Seattle Trust and Savings Bank) opposed the contest.
- After an extended trial with sharply conflicting evidence, the superior court found that Haw’s false statements and undue influence caused execution of the 1943 will, declared it invalid, revoked its probate, and admitted the December 29, 1941 will as Dand’s last valid will.
- Haw and the other proponents of the 1943 will appealed, arguing both that the evidence did not support the findings and that, even if Haw’s conduct tainted the will, only Haw’s benefits should be eliminated while leaving the remainder of the 1943 will effective.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings that the March 19, 1943 will was procured by Mabel Haw’s fraud and undue influence.
2. If the 1943 will was procured by fraud or undue influence, whether the court could preserve the will by excluding only Haw’s beneficial provisions, or instead properly set aside the 1943 will and probate the earlier 1941 will.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed.
- The court held the record contained substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s findings that Haw made material false statements about Meiners and Klein and exerted undue influence over Dand in connection with the change in attorneys and the execution of the 1943 will.
- The court stressed that the evidence was extensive and frequently conflicting, and that credibility and the weight of testimony were for the trial judge, who heard the witnesses.
- The court upheld the decree declaring the March 19, 1943 will invalid, annulling and revoking its probate, and admitting the December 29, 1941 will as the last valid will and testament.
- The court rejected the request by the other beneficiaries to salvage the 1943 will by disinheriting only Haw; the invalidity finding supported setting aside the will that was procured through the wrongful conduct.

## Legal Principles

- A will may be denied probate if it is the product of fraud in the inducement or undue influence that overcomes the testator’s free will and causes a disposition that does not reflect the testator’s independent intent.
- In will contests with sharply disputed testimony, an appellate court does not reweigh evidence or reassess credibility when the trial court’s findings are supported by substantial evidence.
- When a later will is invalidated for fraud or undue influence in its procurement, the court may revoke its probate and admit the prior duly executed will as the testator’s last valid will.
- A court need not preserve a later will by removing only the wrongdoer’s benefits where the proof supports the conclusion that the later will itself resulted from fraud or undue influence.

## Conclusion

The Washington Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s determination that Janet Dand’s March 19, 1943 will was procured through Mabel Haw’s false accusations and undue influence, and it affirmed revocation of that will’s probate and admission of Dand’s December 29, 1941 will as her last valid testament, rejecting arguments that the later will could be saved by disinheriting only Haw.


In re Estate of Dand, 247 P.2d 1016 (1952)