McCarton v. Estate of Watson
Washington Court of Appeals
693 P.2d 192, 39 Wash. App. 358 (1984)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
At the end of her life, Olga V. Watson lived in an apartment building managed by Edward P. McCarton (plaintiff). McCarton assisted Watson with her daily affairs, and she eventually moved in with McCarton. Watson gave McCarton power of attorney. Two days before her death, Watson told McCarton’s friend, MarJean, that she wanted her affairs in order before she died. Watson asked McCarton to write down the disposition of her assets. Watson directed that McCarton receive her stocks and bonds (valued at $235,600), Watson’s sister, Berta, receive a Washington Mutual bank account (valued at $108,000), and the children of McCarton’s nephew receive the remainder of Watson’s accounts in a trust with McCarton as trustee. Watson was physically unable to sign the document. The stock certificates and bank books were nearby, but no one got them at the time. Following Watson’s death, Watson’s will was discovered. Watson’s will provided that one-half of her estate went to her sister, Berta, and the other half went to Berta’s nephew. The estate refused to honor the gifts to McCarton and his nephew’s children. McCarton, on behalf of himself personally and as a trustee, filed a complaint against the estate asserting that before her death Watson had given the items as a gift causa mortis. The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that Watson had not completed delivery of the items, noting that the gift items could have been physically delivered to McCarton and, therefore, the gift causa mortis had not occurred. McCarton appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Coleman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.