## Facts

- Diana Crichton Marks, a retired professor and ordained minister, became deeply involved with a church ministry and was estranged from her brother, Hartwell Marks, after a prolonged cohabitation ended in conflict.
- In 1994, after a cancer diagnosis and before major surgery, Diana decided to execute a will while staying with friends Eldon and Judith Blanford.
- Judith Blanford purchased a commercial will kit, retyped and modified its language, inserted Diana’s intended bequests across multiple drafts, contacted Diana’s investment counselor for asset information, and arranged for witnesses to the signing.
- The will made substantial gifts to the Blanfords and to a religious organization they controlled (including a $100,000 gift) and named Eldon Blanford as personal representative.
- After Diana’s death and probate admission of the will, Hartwell contested, alleging undue influence and challenging the Blanfords’ involvement in the will’s preparation.

## Issues

1. Whether the Blanfords exerted undue influence over Diana such that the will (or its relevant provisions) should be invalidated.
2. Whether the Blanfords’ assistance in preparing and executing the will constituted the unauthorized practice of law, and what remedies were proper if so.
3. Whether the superior court properly awarded attorney’s fees to the Blanfords from the estate and denied Hartwell’s request for fees.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s judgment.
- The court upheld the finding that Hartwell failed to prove undue influence.
- The court upheld the finding that the Blanfords engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in connection with the will’s preparation.
- The court upheld the remedies imposed: the gifts to the Blanfords and their controlled religious organization were voided, and Eldon Blanford was removed as personal representative.
- The court affirmed the fee rulings: the Blanfords received fees from the estate, and Hartwell was denied fees.

## Legal Principles

- A will contestant bears the burden to prove undue influence; beneficiary status and involvement in will preparation, without sufficient proof that the testator’s free agency was overcome, does not establish undue influence.
- Nonlawyers who do more than clerical assistance in will preparation—such as selecting or tailoring dispositive language, integrating asset information, and managing execution logistics—may commit the unauthorized practice of law.
- When substantial beneficiaries participate in unauthorized legal services to procure testamentary benefits, courts may impose equitable remedies, including forfeiture of the resulting gifts and removal from fiduciary roles.
- Attorney’s fee awards in probate-related litigation are discretionary and may be allowed or denied based on the court’s assessment of the litigation’s effect on the estate and the equities.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the will against an undue-influence challenge but enforced strong remedies for nonlawyer will-drafting by voiding the Blanfords’ testamentary gifts, removing Eldon Blanford as personal representative, and leaving the trial court’s discretionary fee allocation intact.


Marks v. Estate of Marks, 957 P.2d 235 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998)