Chapter D. Mistake

• Jurisdiction: Washington

D. MISTAKE

D.1. In General

Although there are no Washington cases directly addressing the question of mistake as a ground for overturning a will, subject to the application of RCW 11.96A.125, discussed in §D.5 below, the conformity of Washington law with that of other jurisdictions can be inferred from the pronouncements in related areas. Two types of mistake might be asserted as a basis for a will contest, which parallel the types of fraud discussed earlier³⁷⁷ : mistake in the execution (as to the nature or contents of the document) and mistake in the inducement (as to some extrinsic factors that caused the testator to make the provisions in question). These will be discussed in turn.

D.2. Mistake in the Execution

Generally, mistake in the execution is considered a ground for rejecting a will if the testator didn't realize that what he or she was signing was a will or was ignorant of the entire contents of the instrument signed.³⁷⁸ Similarly, if a testator intended to sign a will, but by mistake executed another document (usually a spouse's mutual will prepared and executed at the same time), the general rule is that neither the wrongly executed document (which lacks testamentary intent) nor the intended document (which lacks the testator's signature) can be probated.³⁷⁹

The Washington cases in which a will written in English was executed by a testator who did not speak or understand that language are usually discussed in the context of fraud or undue influence,³⁸⁰ but the principle that such a will should be rejected if

[Page 117]

the testator was ignorant of its entire contents would seem to apply equally to innocent mistake or misunderstanding, assuming such can be proved.³⁸¹

D.3. Mistake in the Inducement

Unlike mistake in the execution, mistake in the inducement generally does not warrant rejection of a will. This is illustrated by the many cases of insane delusions, which are really just mistakes or misapprehensions as to the facts induced by mental derangement. As discussed elsewhere,³⁸² an insane delusion as a basis for overturning a will must consist of a false (or mistaken) belief that a person of sound mind in similar circumstances would not hold and from which the testator cannot be dissuaded by evidence or argument.³⁸³ As long as the court can understand how a sane person could have believed what the testator did, or as long as the testator had actual (although unfounded) grounds for the belief, there is no insane delusion and the will is valid.³⁸⁴ It follows, therefore, that if the testator made a rational mistake that a sane person could have made, as to the value of his or her property, the needs of his or her family, or other states of affairs that induced the testator to make the provisions in question, those provisions will stand.³⁸⁵

Of course...