82 Wn.2d 693, In the Matter of the Estate of RALPH W. LYMAN, Deceased. WAYNE E. LYMAN, Petitioner, v. JANNIE M. LYMAN, Respondent.

[No. 42676. En Banc.      Supreme Court      August 9, 1973.]

In the Matter of the Estate of RALPH W. LYMAN, Deceased.
                WAYNE E. LYMAN, Petitioner, v. JANNIE M. LYMAN,                                              Respondent.

[1] Wills - Community Property - Community Properly Agreement -Later Executed Will - Effect. The terms of a later executed will of one party to a community property agreement, which has not been mutually rescinded, although otherwise valid can be given effect only to the extent that they are consistent with the agreement.

Review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, December 4, 1972, 7 Wn. App. 945. Affirmed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. E-204425, Solie M. Ringold, J., entered June 4, 1971. Appellant (plaintiff) petitioned the Supreme Court for review.

Probate proceedings. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals from a dismissal of the probate proceedings.

John L. Vogel, for petitioner.

Bruce E. Durocher, for respondent.

STAFFORD, J. -

This appeal is concerned with the validity of a community property agreement executed pursuant to RCW 26.16.120. The agreement provided for distribution of the community property in a manner contrary to the provisions of a will subsequently executed by one of the parties to the agreement.

[1] The Court of Appeals, in In re Estate of Lyman, 7 Wn. App. 945, 503 P.2d 1127 (1972), held that the previously executed community property agreement had not been mutually rescinded by the parties. Thus, although the subsequent will was valid, its terms could be given effect only to the extent that they were consistent with the agreement.

We have heard the argument of counsel, have considered the record, and have thoroughly reviewed the opinion of

[See Ann. 120 A.L.R. 264; 15 Am. Jur. 2d, Community Property 63.]

 694    IN RE ESTATE OF LYMAN          [Aug. 1973 
                    82 Wn.2d 693, 512 P.2d 1093

the Court of Appeals. We approve of the disposition and rationale of that opinion and adopt it as the opinion of this court.

HALE, C.J., FINLEY, ROSELLINI, HUNTER, HAMILTON, WRIGHT, UTTER, and BRACHTENBACH, JJ., concur.