Washington Law Review
Abstract
D was appointed administratrix of the estate of her husband who died intestate in 1943. Notice of the probate proceedings was given by publication as provided in RCW 11.76.040 [RRS § 1532; PPC § 192-17]. P, a daughter of deceased by a former marriage, was not given personal notice of the probate proceedings, or of the final decree. However, she learned of the death within a few hours, and of the decree of distribution a few months after it was entered. The final decree was entered in 1944, awarding the entire estate to D as sole heir at law. This action was brought in 1948 as a collateral attack upon the probate decree, P alleging that D was guilty of extrinsic fraud. There was conflicting testimony as to whether D knew that P was a daughter of deceased. The trial court found that D did not know that P was a daughter of deceased and ruled for D. Held: Reversed. The Supreme Court found extrinsic fraud in obtaining the probate degee because D knew of P's claim, and by failing to give personal notice of the proceedings she prevented P from presenting such claim in court. D was declared constructive trustee for P of one-half of the estate. Francon v. Cox, 38 Wn. 2d 530, 231 P. 2d 265 (1951).
First Page
167
Recommended Citation
William L. Williams,
Recent Cases,
Probate Decrees—Extrinsic Fraud—Personal Notice of Proceedings,
27 Wash. L. Rev. & St. B.J.
167
(1952).
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol27/iss2/13