Appeals court hears dispute over whether proposed divorce papers waived surviving spouse's intestacy rights

Kristen Fisher, attorney for appellant Cindy Wren (formerly Cindy Scallow), told the court the case "involves a fairly straightforward application of Washington's intestacy law," arguing that Wren remained Matthew Scallow's surviving spouse and therefore inheritable under "RCW eleven-four-fifteen." Fisher said the trial court erred by treating unfiled proposed dissolution documents and a procedural notice of settlement as a waiver of intestacy rights.

Respondents' counsel Valerie Bellison, representing heirs Anthony and Bridal Skillo and personal representative Dean Heuer, countered that the signed findings, proposed decree and notice of settlement "show the parties agreed to settle all claims" and that precedent interpreting such language—including the Estate of Patel line of cases—supports finding an express waiver of intestate succession rights. Bellison argued a binding agreement between parties is enforceable after death and that the record shows the parties intended to dissolve the marriage and divide rights.

The central dispute at argument was legal and factual: whether the court should treat the unfiled proposed orders and a notice resolving "all claims" as an integrated agreement that waived Wren's intestacy rights, or whether those papers were merely proposed, subject to judicial approval, and insufficient to show an intent to waive post-death inheritance. Fisher emphasized that, beyond the documents, the only testimonial evidence in the record was Wren's statement that the papers were proposed orders requiring court approval, and that there is no testimony showing she knowingly waived intestacy rights. She also argued that a quitclaim deed delivered to an attorney is not necessarily a present unconditional transfer.

A court questioner pressed both sides on the legal test for whether an agreement exists—whether the subject matter was identified, there was an intent to be bound, and whether all material terms were included—and on how Patel had been applied when documents mentioned death or otherwise gave constructive notice of waiver. Bellison conceded Patel referred to language that helped show constructive knowledge but argued that a resolution of all claims alone can be sufficient to show waiver under that precedent.

Counsel and the court also discussed hypothetical variations (for example, if the surviving or decedent spouse had been different) and whether any evidence of reconciliation or communications distinguishing Patel exists in the record; respondents' counsel said there was none. Both sides acknowledged the summary-judgment posture limits the record to the submitted documents and declarations.

The matter was submitted after argument and the court recessed without issuing an immediate ruling. The court did not announce a decision at the hearing; any ruling will turn on whether the justices treat the unfiled, proposed documents and signed notice as an enforceable waiver of intestacy rights under the cited authorities.