[WSBAPT] Notarized Will required to admit to probate vs valid > Will

Mon Oct 5 06:06:48 PDT 2026

To everyone on this list serve, I mean no disrespect to you at all.  I
learn all the time from your thoughts and experiences.  Thank you.

*Mark C. McClure* *| *
*Managing Attorney *Law Office of Mark McClure, PS

*"Why Retire With Debt?"*1103 West Meeker Street, #101
Kent, WA 98032

Office:  253.631.6484 (Leave Msg - Will be returned within 24 hours)
Email: Mark at McClureLawGroup.com
Web: www.McClureLawGroup.com <http://www.mcclurelawgroup.com/>

*Notice of Unavailability:*  *TBD*

***NOTE** All visits must be scheduled in advance for access to the
building.  Call *253-631-6484 * to schedule.*

*CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:* This email contains legal stuff. If you are not
the intended recipient you could get into a lot of trouble if you read it,
and even more trouble if you tell someone else about it. So, the best thing
to do is ignore it and forget you ever saw it. Thank you.

*From:* wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
*On Behalf Of *Joshua McKarcher
*Sent:* Sunday, October 4, 2026 9:04 PM
*To:* WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
*Subject:* Re: [WSBAPT] Notarized Will required to admit to probate vs
valid > Will

I second Eric that this is nothing to be crushed about but to be proud of.

I also suggest -- because I'm provocative and blunt and presently grumpy
with my two children and the general state of the world -- that given the
concrete admissibility of the unsworn statement requiring only two humans
and barely any technically precise language beyond maybe "under Washington
law" and "under penalty of perjury" (or legally equivalent words), I
gallingly think it (*may* be) imprudent to add to a highly scrutinized
process a *third* fallible human *AND* all the individual pieces of data,
precise jurat language, the correct state, correct county, a stamp, ink
smearing, overlooked expiration of a notary's commission, inadvertent
signature mismatch (recall our earlier exchange about signature names
matching stamp names as filed with the Notary Overseers at DOL), etc.

I think it is objectively fair to argue that adding that third human and
their "formalities baggage" INTO THE PROCESS OF PROVING A WILL is a
("preventably") unnecessary, risky, overkill mental self-deception (of the
kind to which we lawyers are susceptible). A deception that one has
accorded a document more legitimacy, provability, cachet, familiarity, or
"something" than one actually has.

Especially given that as of a few years ago it requires the poor notary
public to journal the blasted event unless the notary is a lawyer . . .
whose signature is 100% as useful in unsworn statement form as it is in the
form that requires an ink stamp!

I would of course not go so far as suggesting it's malpractice to continue
using three humans for a two-human process.

But whenever we can remove one human and the inevitability of human errors
and fallibility from *any* process, I will usually insist, "*Yes*, correct!
It is time to rethink our decades-old practices."

Just as it is necessary to redraft decades-old documents into plain English
wherever we have opportunity to do so.

Every time we do *anything* we do, it should be the best *current* version
available for doing that thing. It can't and won't always be -- that's
humanly impossible. But we can try.

Thus this listserv and marvelous humans like Eric and Brent and Heather and
Diane and Amy and so many others who constantly contribute to our
collective betterment, grumpy or otherwise. "Bravo everyone!!!"

And I'm afraid I think the same way about MOST court-based tech I hear
about in our state -- other than the perfectly useful downloading of
Odyssey TIFs that are easily converted to PDFs en masse. It may be humorous
and absurd that they're TIFs, but I can select all of them after
downloading, right click, and convert them all to *separate* PDFs at once,
voila!

Thus -- and here I apologize in advance for my grouchy reply to "my good
friend on the other side of the Odyssey-fax aisle," Mr. McClure -- I am
amused that one would find it undesirable to be able to avoid all idiotic
and disparate tech found outside of Asotin County when one can fax (or
deliver, if fax headers are too painful for our beautiful probate)
pleadings to the clerk directly from any email-based fax system and then
download the court-stamped and sequentially numbered (charmingly in
handwriting, with initials) copies soon thereafter via Odyssey "lawyer
access" that costs all of $110/year.

Surely nobody is using actual fax machines anymore. I pay all of $4/month
to Faxage, one of the million options out there that lets one "fax" by
emailing 1 or more PDFs already saved to one's computer that one MUST
already have saved to one's computer whether filing by fax, "proprietary
county system" online upload, postal mail, FedEx, hand delivery, or courier
pigeon.

Emailing PDFs to 1509243xxxx at faxage.com (saved as a contact in my email
program) is the picture of technical simplicity if not beauty.

Simplicity in all things, except my email messages. (And I'm told AI may
save you all eventually from the latter . . . )

Happy week ahead, fearless lawyers of Washington!!

(And to any San Diego Padres fans out there STILL reading, well, you have
my sincere sympathies for today's playoff gut punch in Wisconsin. I mean,
I'm not *completely* heartless and irascible. I'm just *frequently* so
these days; see above re state of the world, etc.)

*Joshua McKarcher*

*Attorney, Owner*
McKarcher Law PLLC
o: (509) 758-3345
josh at mckarcherlaw.com

[image: signatureImage]
------------------------------

*From:* wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
on behalf of Eva Luchini <eva at luchinilaw.com>
*Sent:* Friday, 02 October 2026 09:20:39
*To:* wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
*Subject:* [WSBAPT] Notarized Will required to admit to probate vs valid >
Will

You don't often get email from eva at luchinilaw.com. Learn why this is
important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>

I do not notarize my Wills.  I do a declaration of witnesses of which I am
one and my assistant is the other and it should be  *SELF PROVING PURSUANT
TO RCW 5.50.030, 11.20.020*

Here’s what it looks like, below.

Feel free to crush my soul and tell me I’ve been doing it wrong.

*DECLARATION OF WITNESSES*

*(SELF PROVING PURSUANT TO RCW 5.50.030, 11.20.020)*

Each of the undersigned declares that, on the date written below and, in
our presence, [CLIENT] declared this document to be their Will and signed
it as the Testator. At the Testator’s request and in the presence of the
Testator and each other, we are signing as attesting witnesses. The
Testator appears to be over 18 years old, of sound and disposing mind and
memory, competent in every respect to make a Will, and not under any
restraint, duress, or undue influence. Each of us is over 18 years old and
competent to be an attesting witness. This declaration is made at the
request of [CLIENT] for the purpose of proving the foregoing Will.

Each of us further declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
State of Washington that the foregoing declaration is true and correct.

Signed at __, Washington, on____________, 2026.

Witness Signature

Witness Signature

Witness Printed Name

Witness Printed Name

Camas, WA 98607

Camas, WA 98607

Witness Address

Witness Address
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20261005/7bf75fce/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3012 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20261005/7bf75fce/image002.jpg>