Law of Wills, 2016A

VI.
I give, devise and bequeath my interest in the Cessna 310 123DE airplane and six (6) parcels of
real estate owned by me in Snohomish County, Washington to my son, Calvin H. Evans Jr....
VII.
I give, devise and bequeath all of the remaining real estate owned by me in two(2) equal portions
to Vicki Ann Sansing and Kenneth Lee Evans.
VIII.
All of the rest, residue and remainder of my estate including bank accounts, securities or annuities,
I give in trust with Frontier Bank with directions that on the first anniversary of my death and on
each year after, the Trustee disburse $10,000 to each of three(3) of my children, Vicky Ann
Sansing, Calvin H. Evans, Jr., and Kenneth Lee Evans and $5,000 to each of my grandchildren. If
any beneficiary should die during the administration of the trust and before the trust is exhausted,
their bequest shall be disbursed to their heirs.
Cal Sr. did not condition inheritance on the survival of Cal Jr. or the survival of any other
beneficiaries. Rather, the final sentence of Section VIII suggests that Cal Sr. wanted the antilapse
statute to apply. If any beneficiaries died before the trust was exhausted, he wanted their bequest to
pass to their heirs. Given this language, applying the antilapse statute gives effect to Cal Sr.’s intent
to provide for his heirs and their descendants. Eaden is correct that Cal Jr.’s children would not be
completely disinherited if the antilapse statute did not apply. However, they have failed to show any
intent by Cal Sr. to preclude operation of the antilapse statute. We therefore hold that the trial court
properly applied the antilapse statute here.
**************************************************
We affirm.
15.3.2 Testator’s Contrary Intent
An antilapse statute does not apply if the testator’s will indicates a contrary intent. Therefore,
the court has to determine whether or not the testator would have wanted the statute to apply. The
court presumes that the testator knew about the existence and operation of the antilapse statute and
drafted his or her will in accordance with that understanding. The testator can express a contrary
intent in one of three ways: (1) specifically stating that the statute should not apply; (2) making an
alternative disposition of the property left to the devisee who predeceases the testator; and/or (3)
including language in his will indicating that the testator wants the devisee to survive in order to
inherit. There is no bright line rule as to what constitutes a contrary intent on the part of the
testator. Thus, courts explore this issue on a case by case basis. Courts often issue conflicting
decisions.
650