What Happens When Family Members Disagree About What a Will or Trust Means?

By Peter Dolan, Chair of ELM’s Trust and Estate Litigation Practice —

How Washington Courts Resolve Ambiguous Wills, Trust Interpretation Disputes, and Beneficiary Questions

Sometimes there is nothing wrong with a Will or trust itself.

Nobody claims it was forged. Nobody claims the person who signed it lacked capacity. And nobody is asking a court to invalidate it.

Instead, the problem is this:

Family members, beneficiaries, or trustees cannot agree about what the estate plan means.

Perhaps a trust uses an important term but never defines it. Maybe it leaves property to someone’s “descendants,” but family members disagree about who qualifies. A Will may leave a family business to certain beneficiaries, but the business was later reorganized and no one agrees about what the provision now covers.

Or a trust may give a trustee broad authority to manage assets and reduce taxes without clearly saying whether a particular transaction is permitted.

These are not academic disagreements. The meaning of a few words can determine who receives valuable real estate, a family business, substantial trust assets, or a significant inheritance.

Washington law provides procedures for resolving these disputes, commonly referred to as Will or trust construction proceedings.

Does Any of This Sound Familiar?

Family members disagree about what an important provision in a trust means.
The Will or trust uses an important term without defining it.
It is unclear whether someone qualifies as a beneficiary.
A beneficiary died before a later distribution, and the document does not clearly say who receives that person’s share in that situation.
A Will leaves a business “or its successor” to certain beneficiaries, but nobody agrees about what qualifies as the successor.
A family business was reorganized, renamed, dissolved, or replaced after the estate plan was signed.
Property described in an older estate plan no longer exists in the same form.
Two provisions of the same document appear to point toward different results.
A trustee believes the trust authorizes a transaction, while beneficiaries disagree.
The competing interpretations could change who receives significant real estate, business interests, trust assets, or other substantial property.
Everyone agrees the estate plan is valid, but nobody agrees about what it requires.

These problems can arise even with carefully prepared estate plans. Families change. Beneficiaries die. Businesses reorganize. Assets change form. Circumstances that seemed straightforward when an estate plan was signed may look very different years later.

Washington Courts Focus on Testamentary Intent

Washington law places great importance on the intent of the person who created the estate plan. RCW 11.12.230 requires courts to give due regard to the directions in a Will and the testator’s “true intent and meaning.”

The Washington Supreme Court has similarly explained that the primary duty of a court interpreting a Will is to determine the testator’s intent. Matter of Estate of Niehenke, 117 Wn.2d 631, 639, 818 P.2d 1324 (1991).

The Court of Appeals has likewise stated that, “[i]n construing a will or trust, testamentary intent controls.” Eisenbach v. Schneider, 140 Wn. App. 641, 651, 166 P.3d 858 (2007).

That does not give a court authority to rewrite an estate plan simply because one result seems fairer than another. The words still matter. But when the language genuinely requires interpretation, the central question is what the person who created the estate plan intended those words to accomplish.

When the language is genuinely ambiguous, the circumstances surrounding creation of the estate plan may help explain its intended meaning.

Relevant evidence may include estate-planning records, business documents, ownership records, transaction documents, correspondence, earlier estate plans, and other evidence concerning the circumstances in which the document was signed.

A Will or Trust Must Be Read as a Whole

Another common mistake is focusing on a single sentence while ignoring the remainder of the estate plan.

A provision identifying who receives property may depend upon another section establishing when the distribution occurs. A definition elsewhere in the document may change the meaning of a disputed provision. A survivorship clause may determine whether property passes to a child, grandchildren, a spouse, or another beneficiary.

This becomes particularly important in sophisticated estate plans involving:

Marital or family trusts.
Separate trusts for descendants.
Powers of appointment.
Family businesses.
Specific gifts followed by residuary provisions.
Different distribution rules depending on who survives whom.

A beneficiary’s death can create additional uncertainty. One provision may appear to give the beneficiary an interest at an earlier date, while another suggests that beneficiaries are determined only when a later distribution occurs.

Inheritance rights usually cannot be determined reliably by pulling one paragraph out of a lengthy Will or trust.

Who Is Actually a Beneficiary?

Sometimes interpretation determines something even more fundamental: who is legally entitled to inherit?

Terms such as “descendants,” “issue,” “surviving beneficiaries,” and “descendants of a deceased child” can have significant consequences.

For example, one side may contend that a beneficiary’s interest arose at an earlier date and therefore passes through that beneficiary’s estate. Another may argue that the beneficiaries are determined only at a later distribution date, meaning the deceased beneficiary’s descendants receive the share instead.

That is not simply a disagreement over percentages. It can determine whether someone is a beneficiary at all.

Washington’s Trust and Estate Dispute Resolution Act, commonly known as TEDRA, allows courts to resolve questions arising in trust and estate administration, including disputes involving beneficiary interests. In re Estate of Kordon, 157 Wn.2d 206, 211, 137 P.3d 16 (2006).

What If the Trustee’s Authority Is Unclear?

Not every construction dispute concerns who inherits. Sometimes the question is what the trustee is legally allowed to do.

A trust may give the trustee authority to:

Invest assets.
Sell property.
Manage a family business.
Allocate receipts and expenses.
Make distributions.
Take appropriate tax-planning actions.

But does broad authority permit a transaction the trust never specifically mentions? That question becomes particularly important when the trustee would personally benefit from the transaction.

For example, a trust might broadly authorize a trustee to minimize taxes without expressly granting a general power to make gifts. The parties may disagree about whether the broader tax-planning language permits a substantial transfer that otherwise resembles a gift.

Washington law provides trustees with broad statutory powers under RCW 11.98.070, but the governing instrument remains central to determining trustee authority. See RCW 11.97.010.

Broad trustee authority is not necessarily unlimited trustee authority. When substantial assets or potential fiduciary liability are involved, a trustee should not have to guess about what the trust permits.

Why Waiting Can Make a Trust Interpretation Dispute More Expensive

An unresolved construction issue can prevent a trustee or personal representative from:

Making distributions.
Selling or refinancing property.
Completing administration.
Determining who is entitled to income.
Addressing tax issues.
Managing a family business.
Resolving related accounting questions.

When significant assets are involved, delay can create additional legal expense, tax uncertainty, lost business opportunities, and deeper conflict among beneficiaries.

A trustee who acts despite genuine uncertainty may also face allegations that the trustee exceeded the authority granted by the trust. Early legal analysis can help determine whether the issue can be resolved through interpretation and negotiation or requires a definitive court ruling.

How Does TEDRA Resolve Will and Trust Interpretation Disputes?

TEDRA gives Washington superior courts broad authority over trust and estate matters. RCW 11.96A.020 grants courts “full and ample power and authority” to administer and settle matters covered by the statute.

Depending on the dispute, an interested party may ask the court to:

Interpret ambiguous Will or trust language.
Define an undefined term.
Determine beneficiary status.
Determine ownership of disputed property.
Decide whether a trustee has authority to act.
Provide instructions necessary for administration.
Approve appropriate corrective action.

Sometimes resolving one threshold interpretation question can substantially narrow the remaining dispute. For example, determining who owns a family-business interest may need to occur before the parties can resolve related questions concerning income, distributions, accountings, or taxes.

Does Every Trust Construction Dispute Require a Trial?

No. Sometimes careful legal analysis resolves the disagreement. In other situations, beneficiaries and fiduciaries may be able to reach a binding resolution using Washington’s TEDRA procedures. In some situations, the interested parties may be able to resolve the dispute through a binding agreement under TEDRA, with court involvement available when appropriate. See RCW 11.96A.210-.240.

Court interpretation may still be necessary when:

The parties have genuinely competing financial interests.
A trustee needs protection before acting.
Significant property rights are at stake.
Minor or incapacitated beneficiaries require appropriate representation.
The competing interpretations cannot be reconciled.

The appropriate approach depends on the language of the estate plan, the parties involved, the assets at stake, and the level of conflict.

Why Will and Trust Construction Disputes Matter

A disagreement over a few words can determine:

Who inherits.
Whether children or grandchildren receive a deceased beneficiary’s share.
Who receives valuable real estate.
Who owns a family business.
Whether a reorganized company falls within a gift to another company’s “successor.”
Whether property passes outright or remains in trust.
Whether a trustee has authority to transfer substantial assets.

The real question is rarely just:

“What does this sentence mean?”

It is:

What does the estate plan, read as a whole and under Washington law, require when applied to the family, businesses, assets, and circumstances that actually exist today?

When the Meaning of a Few Words Controls a Significant Inheritance

Most clients do not call a lawyer saying: “I need a trust construction proceeding.”

They say: “My brother says Dad’s trust means one thing, and I think it means something else.”

Or: “The Will refers to a company that has changed.”

Or: “The trustee says the trust gives her this power, but I don’t see it.”

Those may all be construction disputes.

Will and trust construction cases can be difficult precisely because both sides may sincerely believe the document supports their interpretation. When the disagreement affects valuable real estate, a family business, substantial trust assets, or who qualifies as a beneficiary, careful analysis of the entire estate plan can help determine whether the dispute can be resolved through agreement or requires court intervention.

Talk to a Washington Trust and Estate Litigation Attorney

Ellis, Li & McKinstry represents beneficiaries, trustees, personal representatives, and other interested parties in complex Washington trust and estate litigation.

Our work includes disputes involving ambiguous Will and trusts, undefined terms, beneficiary status, family-business interests, changing asset structures, trustee authority, and TEDRA proceedings.

If the meaning of a Will or trust could materially affect your inheritance or your duties as a fiduciary, contact our trust and estate litigation team for a confidential consultation. We can evaluate the disputed language, the entire estate plan, the assets at stake, and whether negotiation, a TEDRA agreement, or judicial construction offers the best path toward a definitive resolution.

Key Washington Law

Matter of Estate of Niehenke, 117 Wn.2d 631 (1991); Eisenbach v. Schneider, 140 Wn. App. 641 (2007); and In re Estate of Kordon, 157 Wn.2d 206 (2006).

Disclaimer

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. The meaning of a particular Will or trust, the available remedies, and any applicable deadlines depend on the specific language and circumstances involved.