[WSBAPT] Estranged Heirs Question

[Sarah McCarthy]

Ryan,
My reading of RCW 11.68.110(4) is that NO, we don't ALSO need to send them
the notice of filing of Decl of Completion, OR get signed waivers of
notice, because after they've been given the initial 20-day notice, AND
they have failed to file a will contest within the 4 months, there is no
reasonable conclusion that these people might possibly qualify under (4)(b)
as a person who "has not received the full amount of the distribution to
which the party is entitled or has a property right that might be affected
adversely by the discharge of the personal representative under this section"
- and those are the only people who need to get the notice mailed to them.

RCW 11.68.110 <http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=11.68.110>
. . .

(4) Within five days of the date of the filing of the declaration of
completion, the personal representative or the personal representative's
lawyer shall mail a copy of the declaration of completion to each party as
defined in RCW 11.96A.030
<http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=11.96A.030>, who: (a) Has not
waived notice of the filing, in writing, filed in the cause; and (b)*
either has not received the full amount of the distribution to which the
party is entitled or has a property right that might be affected adversely
by the discharge* of the personal representative under this section,
together with a notice which shall be substantially as follows: . . .
 (emphasis added).

But I'd love to hear if others disagree.


*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 Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 8:24 AM Ryan Castle <ryan at ryancastlelawfirm.com>
wrote:

> Assuming we have to give to notice of will admitted to probate and
> appointment of PR to all "heirs" despite them not being listed in the will
> as a beneficiary (which is how I interpret the statute and case law), do we
> then also have to get Receipts and Waivers of Notice of Declaration of
> Completion of Probate per RCW 11.68.110(3) from these same heirs in order
> to close probate without a hearing? My thought is that if they are not
> listed as beneficiary and the will is valid, it is not necessary to get
> Receipts and Waivers from these non-beneficiary heirs. Would make closing
> quicker and cheaper. Any thoughts?
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 8:12 AM Sarah McCarthy <sarah at kawlawyers.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> clarified 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
>>>
>> ***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
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ryan Castle (he/him)
> Castle Law Firm, PLLC
> Managing Attorney
> T: 360-592-3504
> 1313 E. Maple St., Suite 790
> Bellingham, WA 98225
> https://ryancastlelawfirm.com/
>
>
> ***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/20250221/4b580153/attachment.html>