Andrews v. Andrews

199 P. 981 (1921)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Joshua Andrews (H) and Harriot (W) were the father and mother of P. H and W lived in Seattle, while P and his family lived in West Seattle. This was in 1903. H and W owned certain lots in the city of Seattle, on which they lived. W was afflicted with cancer. For many months, P and his wife went to W's home and nursed her and took care of her wants. After some months, it was agreed between the two families that H and W should move to West Seattle and live in P's. W continued to reside in the home of her son until her death, and H lived there much longer. W was approaching death, and she desired to make disposition of her property. W made a will giving all of her property to H, but in the will expressed the desire that, at the death of H, the property should go to P. At the same time W made her will, H and W made a deed to P covering the property then owned by them, and immediately thereafter P executed a quitclaim deed of the same property to H. W died within a month or two after making her will. P alleges that, at the time W, made her will, and at the time of the execution of the deeds above mentioned, it was orally agreed between H and P that the former should continue to live with the latter and receive his care and attention for such length of time as H should desire to live with him, in consideration of which H orally agreed that, at the time of his death, he would will all of his property to P. This alleged oral agreement was made, if at all, on the 2d of January 1904. In 1905, P went to Nome, Alaska, with a view to remaining there for at least several years. P's wife continued to reside in the West Seattle home until July 1906, when she and her family moved to Nome. P solicited H to go with them and agreed to give him a home there. H refused but continued to live at the P's home in West Seattle, but took care of himself and paid his own living expenses, until 1908, when he was married to W2. H and W2 took up their residence in the city of Seattle, where they continued to reside until H's death several years after. H undertook to make his will but it was void. Almost all of the estate went to P. After being married to W2, H attached a codicil to the previous will, modifying it to the extent of giving W2 $500 in cash, the household furniture, and the use of the homestead for a period of five years. The codicil was also illegal because it had but one witness. H died and P sued to establish that he was entitled to all of H's estate under a valid, fully performed oral contract. P's wife’s testimony regarding the existence of the agreement was excluded by the trial court on account of her status as an interested party. The trial court subsequently dismissed the matter. P appealed.