In re Estate of Dand

In 1941, Janet Dand executed a will that generally treated her four daughters equally. In 1942 and 1943, one of Dand’s daughters, Mabel Haw (defendant), made false statements to Dand about two other daughters, Jennie Meiners and Myrtle Klein (plaintiffs). Haw also forced Klein out of Dand’s house and physically attacked Klein at least once. Haw then convinced Dand to fire her attorney, who had drafted the will. Haw took Dand to another attorney, and Dand executed a new will under Haw’s supervision. From that point until Dand’s death in 1950, the new will was kept secret from Meiners and Klein. The 1950 will was admitted to probate. Meiners and Klein contested the will based on a claim of fraud in the inducement and undue influence. Haw; Dand’s fourth daughter, Marion Smith; Dand’s son John; Dand’s granddaughter Janet Jarvis; and the executor of the 1950 will, Seattle Trust and Savings Bank (the bank) (defendants) objected to the challenge. The trial court found that Dand’s creation of the 1950 will was due to Haw’s false statements and undue influence. Haw, Smith, John, Jarvis, and the bank appealed. Smith, John, Jarvis, and the bank (collectively, the other beneficiaries) argued that even if the 1950 will was the result of fraud or undue influence, the court should simply disinherit Haw and maintain the rest of that will.