[WSBAPT] Estranged Heirs Question

[Sarah McCarthy]

This is very interesting! (And timely! Today I'm mailing notice under RCW
11.28.237(1) to two first cousins of the decedent, intestate "heirs," who will
get nothing under the Will, in order to get them within the 4-month will
contest period.)

If I read Eric's response correctly, it sounds like Eric (whose erudite,
well-reasoned, and well-cited input is ALWAYS reliable!!) thinks that when
we have a Will, we do NOT need to send out any notice of appointment to the
people who would have been the intestate "heirs" but who were not included
in the Will?

Eric, did I read this right?

Do folks NOT read RCW 11.28.237(1) as requiring notice of appointment to
the people who would have been the intestate "heirs," even if they are not
beneficiaries under the Will?  That's always been my reading of that notice
statute, and I always send notice to "heirs" even if they aren't included
in the Will.  Thus I agree with this comment from Jim:

Over the years, when petitioning for probate, I have named and provided
notice to beneficiaries and heirs, assuming the heirs can be located, even
when heirs are not named as beneficiaries in Decedent’s Will.  . . .  My
theory has always been that, even if not named as beneficiaries, heirs
should receive notice, with the thought that an heir might want to
challenge a will.


I agree with Jim - My concern would be that we don't ever have finality
concerning the 4-month will contest period if the disinherited intestate
"heirs" were not provided notice.

I don't have a case ready to hand that clearly says this, but it just makes
sense -- I assume that the people who would have been the intestate "heirs"
would certainly be considered "interested parties" for purposes of the will
contest statute, even if they aren't included in the Will.

This rule also seems to underlie *In Re Estate of Toth*, 138 Wn.2d 650, 981
P.2d 439, 443 fn.2 (1999), even though the opinion doesn't specifically say
that.  Toth says this in Footnote 2: "*When an interested party is not
served with notice of the will's admission to probate, the statute of
limitation for will contests is tolled*. Hesthagen v. Harby, 78 Wash. 2d 934
<https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/1971/39916-1.html>, 481
P.2d 438
<https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/1971/39916-1.html>
(1971);
In re Estate of Walker, 10 Wash. App. 925, 521 P.2d 43 (1974)." (emphasis
added) Though - neither of the cases that Toth cites are clearly on point
with my premise --   Hesthegan was an intestate estate where heirs who were
fully entitled to receive assets were never given notice -- obviously
egregiously incorrect -- and Walker was a testate, and involved 16 devisees
of specific bequests in the Will who weren't given the notice -- also,
obviously incorrect.

In Toth, there was a Will, and the 20-day notice WAS mailed to the
decedent's "relatives" :  "In accordance with RCW 11.28.237, Cooke mailed
notice of his appointment as personal representative of the estate to
Toth's *relatives*, Julia Webb, Bobbi Szabo, and Ilona Webb (the Webbs)."
(emphasis added).  Fortunately the court of appeals opinion in Toth clarif
ied that these "relatives" were NOT included in the Will. Thus, they were never
any more than disinherited intestate "heirs."

If sending the notices to these "heirs" who were not included in the Will
had been totally unnecessary, I would assume that the court in Toth would
have at least mentioned that, in dicta, or in a footnote.... Thus, I read
Toth as supporting my practice of sending the notice to disinherited heirs,
so as to trigger application of the 4-month will contest period to them,
and so as to establish total finality as to the Will once the 4 months
pass.

Would love to hear if others disagree, or have other authority on this!

Thanks!


*Sarah O’Farrell McCarthy*


*(Pronouns: she / her)*Attorney, Partner | Kelly, Arndt & Walker, Attorneys
at Law, PLLP
P.O. Box 290 | 6443 Harding Avenue | Clinton, WA  98236

(Located on Whidbey Island, Island County, Washington)
Phone: (360) 341-1515 | Fax: (360) 341-3272
sarah at kawlawyers.com | www.kawlawyers.com

*IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR DELIVERIES TO THIS OFFICE: *

*For delivery by USPS, please send to PO Box 290, Clinton, WA 98236.*

*For delivery by UPS or FedEX, please send to 6443 Harding Ave, Clinton WA
98236.*

This electronic message transmission contains information from the law firm
of Kelly, Arndt & Walker, PLLP which may be confidential or privileged.
This information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity
named above,  If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any
further review, disclosure, printing, copying, distribution, or use of the
contents of this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this
electronic message transmission in error, please notify us immediately by
reply e-mail and delete the original message.  Thank you.

We do not accept service of any kind by e-mail unless expressly authorized
in writing by the attorney of record.  This e-mail is NOT a contract and is
not binding upon the author pursuant to CR 2A. This e-mail is, at most, a
negotiation under ER 408.


On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 4:24 PM Eric Nelsen <eric at sayrelawoffices.com>
wrote:

> That is a great question and not one I have dealt with before. I agree
> with your reading of the statute; the “or” in RCW 11.62.005(2) appears to
> be disjunctive, meaning you give notice to beneficiaries under a Will, or
> to heirs if there is no Will, but do not have to notify both if there is a
> Will—even if the Will has not been formally entered for probate. This
> interpretation is reinforced by the use of “and/or” in two other locations
> of that section, which contrasts with the “or.” The difference must be
> meaningful, so I think the only interpretation is the “or” is disjunctive.
>
>
>
> Personally, I think the best route is to give the client two options and
> compare the risks and benefits, and let the client choose the route.
>
>
>
>    1. *Small Estate Affidavit, file the Will for permanent record, don’t
>    give notice to heirs at law, get the funds relatively quickly*. The
>    risk here is that an estranged child comes and files to have the Will
>    rejected as invalid. If the Will were eventually found to be invalid, the
>    client could be sued to disgorge the funds. If the Will is solid and
>    there’s no realistic possibility of a challenge actually succeeding, this
>    is probably a very small risk.
>
>
>
>    2. *Petition for Order of Adjudication of Testacy without appointment
>    of PR, per RCW 11.20.020(1), and give notice to the intestate heirs per RCW
>    11.28.330 and RCW 11.28.340, wait four months for Will contest period to
>    end, then get the funds*. The burden here is mainly the time and
>    expense in doing the longer process, in order to eliminate the small risk
>    under option #1.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> Eric C. Nelsen
>
> Sayre Law Offices, PLLC
>
> 1417 31st Ave South
>
> Seattle WA 98144-3909
>
> 206-625-0092
>
> eric at sayrelawoffices.com
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <
> wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> *On Behalf Of *James Dolan
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 20, 2025 3:48 PM
> *To:* 'WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv' <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> *Subject:* [WSBAPT] Estranged Heirs Question
>
>
>
> Colleagues:
>
>
>
> When petitioning to probate a Will, or when using a Small Estate
> Affidavit, do you need to name heirs at law, or just beneficiaries?
>
>
>
> Over the years, when petitioning for probate, I have named and provided
> notice to beneficiaries and heirs, assuming the heirs can be located, even
> when heirs are not named as beneficiaries in Decedent’s Will.  Unless I am
> missing something, I don’t see anything in RCW 11 that specifies who must
> be named in the petition or who receives notice.  I have had disagreements
> with other attorneys about this.  My theory has always been that, even if
> not named as beneficiaries, heirs should receive notice, with the thought
> that an heir might want to challenge a will.  (For example, if a
> ne’er-do-well unduly influences a Testator to bequeath everything to the
> ne’er-do-well, notice should go out to heirs even if they aren’t named
> beneficiaries in case they want to challenge.)
>
>
>
> When submitting a Small Estate Affidavit, RCW 11.62 requires prior notice
> to “That person or those persons who are entitled to the claimed property
> pursuant to the terms and provisions of the last will and testament of the
> decedent *or* by virtue of the laws of intestate succession.” Emphasis
> added.
>
>
>
> The reason for this question is I am dealing with the very modest ($28,000
> in the bank) estate of a decedent who left his estate to his wife of 11
> months, per his Will.  The Will is legit, and it makes sense that
> everything goes to his wife.  (When we were drafting his estate planning
> documents, he was either unable or unwilling to name his wife as the TOD or
> POD beneficiary on his bank account, as I suggested, or maybe he just
> forgot.)  He was also the father of four very estranged children who had no
> contact with him for decades.  I planned to use the Small Estate Affidavit,
> but no one has any idea where these estranged children might be, and it
> doesn’t make sense to hire an heir hunter.  This might be a stupid question
> but do I need to name the children in the Small Estate Affidavit , or just
> name the sole beneficiary, the spouse?  Same question if we were to go the
> probate route.
>
>
>
> Asking for a friend. 😊
>
>
>
> Jim Dolan
>
>
>
> =========================
>
>
>
> Jones Butler Dolan, PS
>
> P.O. Box 458
>
> 10027 SR 532
>
> Stanwood, WA 98292
>
> (tel) 360-336-2939
>
> (fax) 360-336-2949
>
>
> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not
> restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing
> attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and
> others.***
> _______________________________________________
> WSBAPT mailing list
> WSBAPT at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbapt
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20250221/ebb6fd43/attachment.html>