Washington Supreme Court, 1973

In re Estate of Lyman

Washington Supreme Court · Decided August 9, 1973 · Stafford

512 P.2d 1093; 82 Wash. 2d 693; 1973 Wash. LEXIS 713 (Pacific Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

19 later published cases cite this decision.

In re the Estate of Ford (Wash. Ct. App. 1982)
In re Estate of Catto (Wash. Ct. App. 1997)
Stranberg v. Lasz (Wash. Ct. App. 2003)
Stranberg v. Lasz (Wash. Ct. App. 2003)
City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of City of Tacoma (Wash. 1987)
Norris v. Norris (Wash. 1980)
In re the Estate of: Ronald David Larson (Wash. Ct. App. 2025)
In re Estate of Bachmeier (Wash. 2002)
Avemco Insurance Co. v. Northern Colorado Air Charter, Inc. (Colo. 2002)
Johnson v. Bachmeier (Wash. 2002)
In re Bachmeier (Wash. Ct. App. 2001)
State v. Roper (N.M. Ct. App. 1996)
Higgins v. Stafford (Wash. 1994)
Schoneman v. Wilson (Wash. Ct. App. 1990)
Standard Insurance v. Schwalbe (Wash. Ct. App. 1987)
In re the Marriage of Pilant (Wash. Ct. App. 1985)
Modern Builders, Inc. v. Manke (Wash. Ct. App. 1980)
Wippman v. Rowe (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975)
Johnson v. Bachmeier (Wash. Ct. App. 2001)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Stafford, J.

This appeal is concerned with the validity of a community property agreement executed pursuant to RCW 26.16.120. The agreement provided for distribution of the community property in a manner contrary to the provisions of a will subsequently executed by one of the parties to the agreement.

The Court of Appeals, in In re Estate of Lyman, 7 Wn. App. 945, 503 P.2d 1127 (1972), held that the previously executed community property agreement had not been mutually rescinded by the parties. Thus, although the subsequent will was valid, its terms could be given effect only to the extent that they were consistent with the agreement.

We have heard the argument of counsel, have considered the record, and have thoroughly reviewed the opinion of *694 the Court of Appeals. We approve of the disposition and rationale of that opinion and adopt it as the opinion of this court.

Hale, C.J., Finley, Rosellini, Hunter, Hamilton, Wright, Utter, and Brachtenbach, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.