A-22-0920, In re Estate of Mayberry
Robert D. Mayberry (Appellant) v. Mary Jo Mayberry (Appellee)
County Court of Thurston County, Judge Douglas L. Luebe
Attorney for Appellant: Matthew M. Munderloh (Johnson & Mock, P.C., L.L.O.)
Attorney for Appellee: Richard J. Thramer (Law Office of Richard J. Thramer)
Civil: Probate Action
Action Taken by Trial Court: During informal probate proceedings of the deceased’s will, Appellant, as personal representative of the estate, filed an application for an order seeking approval of several deeds which, if approved, would result in a distribution of the deceased’s real estate that varied from the distribution as provided in the deceased’s will. Appellee opposed the application. After a hearing, the county court denied Appellant’s application in its entirety.
Assignments of Error on Appeal: On appeal, Appellant has assigned five errors. First, Appellant asserts that the county court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to cancel the joint tenancy warranty deed attached to his application. Second, Appellant asserts that even if the court did have subject matter jurisdiction over the joint tenancy warranty deed, it erred in considering evidence of undue influence, as Appellee failed to sufficiently plead that claim. Third, Appellant asserts that even if the court had jurisdiction and Appellee had sufficiently pled undue influence, it erred in concluding that the joint tenancy warranty deed was a product of undue influence. Fourth, Appellant assigns that the court erred in concluding that there was not an enforceable agreement governing the disposition of the deceased’s estate. Fifth, Appellant assigns that the court erred in concluding that his application did not sufficiently put Appellee on notice of the issues to be tried.