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

Wed Oct 7 12:01:44 PDT 2026

On a notarized will, is the notary seal/stamp required to make it truly notarized or will Notary signature, name and date commission expire suffice?

Thanks,
Jordan 

> On 10/05/2026 8:10 PM PDT Joshua McKarcher <josh at mckarcherlaw.com> wrote:
>  
>  
> Mark,
>  
> Thank you for such a gracious email. Absolutely no disrespect taken for my part, and, besides, if anyone was riled up, it was me! 
>  
> I love all the give and take on this chain.
>  
> One thing bears follow up: I read the statute to require AT MINIMUM the printed name, city and state/country of signing, AND signature of any person signing an unsworn declaration. 
>  
> I have any witnesses that are not my own staff (with my office address printed below their names) HANDWRITE THEIR NAMES, CITY and STATE/COUNTRY of signing, in addition to signing.
>  
> Indeed, I'm not sure an unsworn declaration can be presumed valid without those elements if you look at the statute. I sure don't read printed name vs signature and city/state/country as mere surplusage or suggestion. Indeed, I think of them as additional elements that demonstrate legitimacy and that could be tested if needed (such as with handwriting samples).
>  
> Lastly, I admit that Heather's email intrigues me. If a state refuses to recognize another state's valid unsworn declaration as sufficient proof in its courts, that is unlikely to be a failure of giving full faith and credit. The Will would have to be accepted, probably, if validly executed and witnessed under the other state's law. But the PROVING of the witnesses' affidavits of facts is a procedural matter left to states' laws and -- I'm fairly certain -- not subject to the FFC clause. I do not know, but I could imagine Maryland could indeed succeed at declining to accept an unsworn declaration under another jurisdiction's law as proof. Wild!
>  
> So THAT could be an excellent reason to stick to the good old fashioned sworn statement under oath before a notary public authorized to take oaths in the jurisdiction.
>  
> These are the moments I figure, "No wonder Americans hate lawyers!" Ha! Alas. We keep matters from being resolved by fights in streets. That's sufficient to hold our heads high. 
>  
> Best, Josh 
>  
> Joshua McKarcher
> Attorney, Owner
> McKarcher Law PLLC
> o: (509) 758-3345
> josh at mckarcherlaw.com mailto:josh at mckarcherlaw.com
> [signatureImage]
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> on behalf of Mark McClure <mark at mcclurelawgroup.com>
> Sent: Monday, 05 October 2026 06:06:48
> To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] Notarized Will required to admit to probate vs valid > Will
>  
> 
> 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 mailto: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 mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com mailto: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 mailto: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 mailto: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 mailto:josh at mckarcherlaw.com
> [signatureImage]
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> on behalf of Eva Luchini <eva at luchinilaw.com mailto:eva at luchinilaw.com>
> Sent: Friday, 02 October 2026 09:20:39
> To: wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com mailto:wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com mailto: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 mailto: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
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>   	  	 
>  
>  
>  
> 
>  
> 
> ***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
> 

(Ms.) Jordan D. Kostelyk, Esq.

Tel: 425-244-5196
Email: jordan at everlastinglegalsolutions.com mailto:jordankostelykatlaw at gmail.com
Website: https://everlastinglegalsolutions.com/ 

This communication is confidential and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or is protected by the work product doctrine. It is intended only for the individual(s) designated herein and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521.  If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20261007/72fb49bb/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Image.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 28285 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20261007/72fb49bb/Image.jpeg>
-------------- 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/20261007/72fb49bb/image002.jpg>