## Facts

- John George Patton married Mildred M. Patton in 1937; he had two children (Ronald G. Patton and Eileen Patton Clark) from a prior marriage.
- Patton died in 1969 leaving a will with (1) a clause giving Mildred “all items of property which bear both my name and my wife’s name” (listing examples such as stock, bonds, accounts, insurance, and home interests), conditioned on her surviving him by four months, and (2) a clause giving the children “all other property.”
- During the marriage, the couple accumulated stock certificates that were presumptively community property; some were titled only in Patton’s name rather than jointly.
- The probate court construed the will to protect Mildred’s vested community-property rights and upheld, as against the children, her entitlement to the community interest in the disputed stock.
- The children appealed, arguing the “all other property” clause gave them stock not held in joint title.

## Issues

1. Whether Washington community property law bars a spouse from devising the whole interest in a specific item of community property, even if the surviving spouse would receive at least one-half of the community estate when viewed in the aggregate.
2. Whether the will’s phrase “all other property” should be construed to include only the decedent’s one-half community interest (and any separate property), rather than the entire community asset.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the probate court’s construction of the will.
- Washington community property law prohibits a spouse from devising the entire interest in a specific community asset if doing so would invade the surviving spouse’s vested one-half interest, regardless of the overall aggregate division.
- The phrase “all other property” was construed to pass only the decedent’s one-half interest in community property plus any separate property, not the surviving spouse’s half of community assets.
- Accordingly, the children could not take Mildred’s one-half community interest in the disputed stock.

## Legal Principles

- Each spouse owns a vested, undivided one-half interest in community property; a decedent may devise only the decedent’s one-half community interest (and separate property).
- Community-property limits apply asset-by-asset; a testamentary plan cannot “offset” a surviving spouse’s loss of a particular community asset by giving value elsewhere.
- In will construction, courts apply a presumption that a testator intends to dispose only of the testator’s own property interests absent clear, legally effective contrary intent.
- Ambiguous residuary language is construed consistently with community-property law and to avoid treating the will as an attempt to devise the surviving spouse’s vested property.

## Conclusion

The court held that a spouse in Washington cannot devise the entire interest in a specific community asset in a way that defeats the surviving spouse’s vested one-half interest, and it construed “all other property” to transfer only the decedent’s one-half community interest and any separate property to the children.


In re Estate of Patton, 494 P.2d 238 (Wash. Ct. App. 1972)