[WSBAPT] Professional Fiduciary
Cindy Wysocki
Cindy at wysockilaw.com
Sat Sep 26 08:45:56 PDT 2026
Hello,
Client has a large family but no one she trusts to name as attorney-in-fact under her DPOA or HCPOA. Any suggestions for corporate fiduciaries who act in this role? She also needs a trustee for her grandchildren's trusts. Estate value is around $1.5 million.
Thanks,
Cindy
[cid:d59c73e7-311b-41a6-89b2-af1fd2ae3ee8]
Cindy Wysocki, Attorney
Principal at Wysocki Law, PLLC
Email: cindy at wysockilaw.com | Office: 206-407-4045
Website: www.wysockilaw.com<http://www.wysockilaw.com>
1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 600
Tacoma, WA 98402
? Family Law
? Estate Planning
THIS IS A CONFIDENTIAL MESSAGE INTENDED FOR ADDRESSEE ALONE. IT IS PROTECTED BY FEDERAL AND LOCAL LAWS. IF YOU RECEIVE THIS IN ERROR, INFORM SENDER AND DELETE MESSAGE IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU.
________________________________
From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> on behalf of wsbapt-request at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt-request at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2026 12:00 PM
To: wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: WSBAPT Digest, Vol 144, Issue 21
Send WSBAPT mailing list submissions to
wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbapt
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wsbapt-request at lists.wsbarppt.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
wsbapt-owner at lists.wsbarppt.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of WSBAPT digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. SOL against PR where PR is never discharged, but then dies,
and then 2 years pass? (Sarah McCarthy)
2. Re: SOL against PR where PR is never discharged, but then
dies, and then 2 years pass? (Eric Nelsen)
3. Re: SOL against PR where PR is never discharged, but then
dies, and then 2 years pass? (Sarah McCarthy)
4. Montana Mineral Rights (Kristi Richards)
5. Re: Montana Mineral Rights (Kate Szurek)
6. Probate, Protection Order, Competency, and Guns (Mark Anderson)
7. Re: Probate, Protection Order, Competency, and Guns
(Andrekita Silva)
8. Re: ER 904 amendment eff. September 1, 2026 (Andrekita Silva)
9. CA trust litigator (Anna Van Pelt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2026 12:14:44 -0700
From: Sarah McCarthy <sarah at kawlawyers.com>
To: "WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv" <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>, Elder
Law Section <elder-law-section at list.wsba.org>
Subject: [WSBAPT] SOL against PR where PR is never discharged, but
then dies, and then 2 years pass?
Message-ID:
<CAFVmgTn7NCkadhcczN9aV=Kt+uePi3XJbhuNvzMC9G-BWx=25w at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Esteemed section members:
I've got a deceased PR who apparently didn't handle things correctly in a
different estate - lots of creditor claims were filed that were apparently
never dealt with, and that other estate, in a different county, is STILL
OPEN -- the court never made a CR 41 motion to close the estate for want of
prosecution, even though the last court file activity was several years
back.
The PR has now died, more than 2 years ago. Now an estate is open for the
PR's own estate. I'm trying to reassure myself that there is no
possibility that the claimants from this PRIOR estate could still have any
ability to make a claim against the PR's own estate.
1) Are an estate's alleged creditor's remedies for payment of debts owed by
the decedent *LIMITED *to the statutory remedies and procedures set forth
in RCW 11.40, *OR*, if the creditor has procedurally complied with RCW
11.40, and then the PR of the estate doesn't properly handle creditor
claims, does the alleged creditor then *ALSO *have the right to assert a
claim against the PR for breach of fiduciary duty - which has a longer
statute of limitations, needing to be filed at any time before the PR is
discharged? (RCW 11.96A.070). (I am hoping that the creditor is limited to
the statutory procedures, and not this longer statute of limitations.)
2) Even if the answer to this is that the creditor DOES have this
additional remedy, making a claim against the PR for breach of fiduciary
duty, would that potential claim against the PR then be subject to the
general 2-year creditor claim period against the PR's own estate, RCW
11.40.020(1)(b)(ii), if the PR has later died, and more than 2 years have
passed? OR, would that potential claim against the PR be a remedy
available at any time prior to the discharge of the PR of the first estate,
according to the SOL for claims against PRs set forth in *RCW 11.96A.070?
(I'm hoping that the 2 years would be a bar.)*
3) If the creditor gets to file their claim against the PR for breach of
fiduciary anytime up to discharge of the PR under *RCW 11.96A.070, does
this claim expire based on the fact that the PR has now died? *By my
reading of RCW 11.68.060, the death of the PR does not serve to
"automatically" discharge the PR - there has to be other action taken to
carry out the "discharge." (I'm hoping that the death of the PR would
have the effect of switching the avenue for bringing a claim against the PR
over into the PR's own separate estate, and thus subject to the 2-year
period on claims.)
If you want more detail:
JANE died 20+ years ago.
Spouse JOE appointed as PR 20+ years ago.
JOE is also 100% beneficiary of JANE's estate.
20+ creditor claims were filed against JANE's estate, all filed 20+ years
ago.
JOE never filed anything with the court to allow or reject any of the
claims.
None of the creditors against JANE's estate ever took action to pursue the
claims further.
Given the 20+ year passage of time, it seems clear that the SOL on all
creditor claims has now passed, since they took no further action to pursue
their claims beyond the initial filings. See In re Estate of Henington, 331
P.3d 112, 115 (Wash. App. 2014).
JOE then died.
JANE's estate is still open with the court.
Nothing was filed with the court in JANE's estate to notify anyone that JOE
has died, nor to appoint a successsor PR of JANE's estate.
JOE's estate has now been opened, in a different county than JANE's estate.
More than 2 years have now passed since JOE's death.
Am I right that the creditors of JANE's estate don't need to be given
further consideration by the PR of JOE's estate, given that a) they didn't
do anything to further pursue their claims in JANE's estate, after JOE
failed to respond to their initial claims, and b) they didn't assert a
creditor claim against JOE's estate within the 2 years?
I *think* that the creditors' only legal remedies are the procedures set
forth in RCW 11.40, and that if they didn't pursue those further, then they
are now out of luck, and the SOLs on their creditor claims have now long
expired given the 20+ year passage of time. See In re Estate of
Henington, 331 P.3d 112, 115 (Wash. App. 2014) (discussing RCW
11.40.051(2): "We hold that the mere filing of a creditor's claim in a
probate case, without any further action by the claimant or the PR, does
not toll the statute of limitations."). So, even if a successor PR
for JANE's estate were to be appointed, those creditors would be out of
luck.
I also *think* that, even if the creditors did have some claim against the
PR JOE for breach of his fiduciary duty in managing JANE's estate, such as
a claim that he didn't correctly deal with JANE's creditors, the fact that
it's now been 2+ years since JOE's death, the creditors have lost their
ability to assert a claim against JOE's own estate. RCW
11.40.020(1)(b)(ii).
Thanks for any insight!
Sarah
*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)
* Licensed to practice in Washington (active) and California (inactive)
Phone: (360) 341-1515 | Fax: (360) 341-3272
sarah at kawlawyers.com | www.kawlawyers.com<http://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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20260924/b6f5a3f5/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2026 19:50:46 +0000
From: Eric Nelsen <eric at sayrelawoffices.com>
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>, Elder
Law Section <elder-law-section at list.wsba.org>
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] SOL against PR where PR is never discharged, but
then dies, and then 2 years pass?
Message-ID:
<SA1PR05MB7888EBEEDBCF6E43231CB329DD812 at SA1PR05MB7888.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I agree with your conclusion. If we?re talking the probate of first spouse to die, and it occurred 20-plus years ago, then I would be inclined to ignore the creditor claims filed in that probate, for several reasons.
* As you say--Creditors remain bound by statute of limitations on their own claims, and must comply with creditor claim process AND pursue the claim to completion before the S/L expires. Creditors are able to force acceptance or rejection of their claims. RCW 11.40.080. So, I?d argue that creditors? failure to follow through is the cause of their loss, not any breach by the PR.
* Twenty years ought to be justification to argue defense of laches, not just statute of limitations. Even if they could blame the PR for missing the S/L, they sat on their hands for 20+ years.
* I?d bet that a lot of those claims were actually paid and the surviving spouse never bothered to get receipts or file proof of payment. I think this happens pretty commonly if the surviving spouse isn?t too interested in crossing the t?s and dotting the i?s.
* You also said that the second spouse died more than two years ago, which means that any possible claim they would have against PR would be against PR?s own estate?and that claim also is barred by RCW 11.40.051. I understand the thought that S/L as to breach of duty in the first estate might not begin to run until the PR dies?but inevitably any such claim is a cause of action that would have to name PR?s Estate as a defendant, and as such requires filing a creditor claim first and is subject to 2-year limit under RCW 11.40.051 as to PR?s own Estate.
I think I wouldn?t worry about it further. Who knows how many probates have been left hanging in the courts over the decades.
Sincerely,
Eric
Eric C. Nelsen
Sayre Law Offices, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA 98144-3909
206-625-0092
eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com>
From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Sarah McCarthy
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2026 12:15 PM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>; Elder Law Section <elder-law-section at list.wsba.org>
Subject: [WSBAPT] SOL against PR where PR is never discharged, but then dies, and then 2 years pass?
Esteemed section members:
I've got a deceased PR who apparently didn't handle things correctly in a different estate - lots of creditor claims were filed that were apparently never dealt with, and that other estate, in a different county, is STILL OPEN -- the court never made a CR 41 motion to close the estate for want of prosecution, even though the last court file activity was several years back.
The PR has now died, more than 2 years ago. Now an estate is open for the PR's own estate. I'm trying to reassure myself that there is no possibility that the claimants from this PRIOR estate could still have any ability to make a claim against the PR's own estate.
1) Are an estate's alleged creditor's remedies for payment of debts owed by the decedent LIMITED to the statutory remedies and procedures set forth in RCW 11.40, OR, if the creditor has procedurally complied with RCW 11.40, and then the PR of the estate doesn't properly handle creditor claims, does the alleged creditor then ALSO have the right to assert a claim against the PR for breach of fiduciary duty - which has a longer statute of limitations, needing to be filed at any time before the PR is discharged? (RCW 11.96A.070). (I am hoping that the creditor is limited to the statutory procedures, and not this longer statute of limitations.)
2) Even if the answer to this is that the creditor DOES have this additional remedy, making a claim against the PR for breach of fiduciary duty, would that potential claim against the PR then be subject to the general 2-year creditor claim period against the PR's own estate, RCW 11.40.020(1)(b)(ii), if the PR has later died, and more than 2 years have passed? OR, would that potential claim against the PR be a remedy available at any time prior to the discharge of the PR of the first estate, according to the SOL for claims against PRs set forth in RCW 11.96A.070? (I'm hoping that the 2 years would be a bar.)
3) If the creditor gets to file their claim against the PR for breach of fiduciary anytime up to discharge of the PR under RCW 11.96A.070, does this claim expire based on the fact that the PR has now died? By my reading of RCW 11.68.060, the death of the PR does not serve to "automatically" discharge the PR - there has to be other action taken to carry out the "discharge." (I'm hoping that the death of the PR would have the effect of switching the avenue for bringing a claim against the PR over into the PR's own separate estate, and thus subject to the 2-year period on claims.)
If you want more detail:
JANE died 20+ years ago.
Spouse JOE appointed as PR 20+ years ago.
JOE is also 100% beneficiary of JANE's estate.
20+ creditor claims were filed against JANE's estate, all filed 20+ years ago.
JOE never filed anything with the court to allow or reject any of the claims.
None of the creditors against JANE's estate ever took action to pursue the claims further.
Given the 20+ year passage of time, it seems clear that the SOL on all creditor claims has now passed, since they took no further action to pursue their claims beyond the initial filings. See In re Estate of Henington, 331 P.3d 112, 115 (Wash. App. 2014).
JOE then died.
JANE's estate is still open with the court.
Nothing was filed with the court in JANE's estate to notify anyone that JOE has died, nor to appoint a successsor PR of JANE's estate.
JOE's estate has now been opened, in a different county than JANE's estate.
More than 2 years have now passed since JOE's death.
Am I right that the creditors of JANE's estate don't need to be given further consideration by the PR of JOE's estate, given that a) they didn't do anything to further pursue their claims in JANE's estate, after JOE failed to respond to their initial claims, and b) they didn't assert a creditor claim against JOE's estate within the 2 years?
I *think* that the creditors' only legal remedies are the procedures set forth in RCW 11.40, and that if they didn't pursue those further, then they are now out of luck, and the SOLs on their creditor claims have now long expired given the 20+ year passage of time. See In re Estate of Henington, 331 P.3d 112, 115 (Wash. App. 2014) (discussing RCW 11.40.051(2): "We hold that the mere filing of a creditor's claim in a probate case, without any further action by the claimant or the PR, does not toll the statute of limitations."). So, even if a successor PR for JANE's estate were to be appointed, those creditors would be out of luck.
I also *think* that, even if the creditors did have some claim against the PR JOE for breach of his fiduciary duty in managing JANE's estate, such as a claim that he didn't correctly deal with JANE's creditors, the fact that it's now been 2+ years since JOE's death, the creditors have lost their ability to assert a claim against JOE's own estate. RCW 11.40.020(1)(b)(ii).
Thanks for any insight!
Sarah
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)
* Licensed to practice in Washington (active) and California (inactive)
Phone: (360) 341-1515<tel:(360)%20341-1515> | Fax: (360) 341-3272<tel:(360)%20341-3272>
sarah at kawlawyers.com<mailto:sarah at kawlawyers.com> | www.kawlawyers.com<http://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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20260924/c3c6967b/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2026 13:11:44 -0700
From: Sarah McCarthy <sarah at kawlawyers.com>
To: "WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv" <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Cc: Elder Law Section <elder-law-section at list.wsba.org>
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] SOL against PR where PR is never discharged, but
then dies, and then 2 years pass?
Message-ID:
<CAFVmgT=s289k+SronJaYNdg_pcanZbBuEdZt9-tFJUbv_uLUag at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Eric,
Thanks for this wise counsel and analysis. Very glad to hear that you agree
we're "in the clear."
But if anybody else has other thoughts, I'll still be glad to hear them!
Sarah
*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)
* Licensed to practice in Washington (active) and California (inactive)
Phone: (360) 341-1515 | Fax: (360) 341-3272
sarah at kawlawyers.com | www.kawlawyers.com<http://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, Sep 24, 2026 at 12:51?PM Eric Nelsen <eric at sayrelawoffices.com>
wrote:
> I agree with your conclusion. If we?re talking the probate of first spouse
> to die, and it occurred 20-plus years ago, then I would be inclined to
> ignore the creditor claims filed in that probate, for several reasons.
>
>
>
> - As you say--Creditors remain bound by statute of limitations on
> their own claims, and must comply with creditor claim process AND pursue
> the claim to completion before the S/L expires. Creditors are able to force
> acceptance or rejection of their claims. RCW 11.40.080. So, I?d argue that
> creditors? failure to follow through is the cause of their loss, not any
> breach by the PR.
> - Twenty years ought to be justification to argue defense of laches,
> not just statute of limitations. Even if they could blame the PR for
> missing the S/L, they sat on their hands for 20+ years.
> - I?d bet that a lot of those claims were actually paid and the
> surviving spouse never bothered to get receipts or file proof of payment. I
> think this happens pretty commonly if the surviving spouse isn?t too
> interested in crossing the t?s and dotting the i?s.
> - You also said that the second spouse died more than two years ago,
> which means that any possible claim they would have against PR would be
> against PR?s own estate?and that claim also is barred by RCW 11.40.051. I
> understand the thought that S/L as to breach of duty in the first estate
> might not begin to run until the PR dies?but inevitably any such claim is a
> cause of action that would have to name PR?s Estate as a defendant, and as
> such requires filing a creditor claim first and is subject to 2-year limit
> under RCW 11.40.051 as to PR?s own Estate.
>
>
>
> I think I wouldn?t worry about it further. Who knows how many probates
> have been left hanging in the courts over the decades.
>
>
>
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1417+31st+Ave+South+%0D%0A+Seattle+WA+98144-3909?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> Eric C. Nelsen
>
> Sayre Law Offices, PLLC
>
> 1417 31st Ave South
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1417+31st+Ave+South+%0D%0A+Seattle+WA+98144-3909?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> Seattle WA 98144-3909
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1417+31st+Ave+South+%0D%0A+Seattle+WA+98144-3909?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> 206-625-0092 <(206)%20625-0092>
>
> eric at sayrelawoffices.com
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <
> wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> *On Behalf Of *Sarah McCarthy
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 24, 2026 12:15 PM
> *To:* WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>; Elder
> Law Section <elder-law-section at list.wsba.org>
> *Subject:* [WSBAPT] SOL against PR where PR is never discharged, but then
> dies, and then 2 years pass?
>
>
>
> Esteemed section members:
>
>
>
> I've got a deceased PR who apparently didn't handle things correctly in a
> different estate - lots of creditor claims were filed that were apparently
> never dealt with, and that other estate, in a different county, is STILL
> OPEN -- the court never made a CR 41 motion to close the estate for want of
> prosecution, even though the last court file activity was several years
> back.
>
>
>
> The PR has now died, more than 2 years ago. Now an estate is open for the
> PR's own estate. I'm trying to reassure myself that there is no
> possibility that the claimants from this PRIOR estate could still have any
> ability to make a claim against the PR's own estate.
>
>
>
> 1) Are an estate's alleged creditor's remedies for payment of debts owed
> by the decedent *LIMITED *to the statutory remedies and procedures set
> forth in RCW 11.40, * OR*, if the creditor has procedurally complied with
> RCW 11.40, and then the PR of the estate doesn't properly handle creditor
> claims, does the alleged creditor then *ALSO *have the right to assert a
> claim against the PR for breach of fiduciary duty - which has a longer
> statute of limitations, needing to be filed at any time before the PR is
> discharged? (RCW 11.96A.070). (I am hoping that the creditor is limited to
> the statutory procedures, and not this longer statute of limitations.)
>
>
>
> 2) Even if the answer to this is that the creditor DOES have this
> additional remedy, making a claim against the PR for breach of fiduciary
> duty, would that potential claim against the PR then be subject to the
> general 2-year creditor claim period against the PR's own estate, RCW
> 11.40.020(1)(b)(ii), if the PR has later died, and more than 2 years have
> passed? OR, would that potential claim against the PR be a remedy
> available at any time prior to the discharge of the PR of the first estate,
> according to the SOL for claims against PRs set forth in *RCW
> 11.96A.070? (I'm hoping that the 2 years would be a bar.)*
>
>
>
> 3) If the creditor gets to file their claim against the PR for breach of
> fiduciary anytime up to discharge of the PR under *RCW 11.96A.070, does
> this claim expire based on the fact that the PR has now died? *By my
> reading of RCW 11.68.060, the death of the PR does not serve to
> "automatically" discharge the PR - there has to be other action taken to
> carry out the "discharge." (I'm hoping that the death of the PR would
> have the effect of switching the avenue for bringing a claim against the PR
> over into the PR's own separate estate, and thus subject to the 2-year
> period on claims.)
>
>
>
> If you want more detail:
>
> JANE died 20+ years ago.
>
> Spouse JOE appointed as PR 20+ years ago.
>
> JOE is also 100% beneficiary of JANE's estate.
>
> 20+ creditor claims were filed against JANE's estate, all filed 20+ years
> ago.
>
> JOE never filed anything with the court to allow or reject any of the
> claims.
>
> None of the creditors against JANE's estate ever took action to pursue the
> claims further.
>
> Given the 20+ year passage of time, it seems clear that the SOL on all
> creditor claims has now passed, since they took no further action to pursue
> their claims beyond the initial filings. See In re Estate of Henington,
> 331 P.3d 112, 115 (Wash. App. 2014).
>
> JOE then died.
>
> JANE's estate is still open with the court.
>
> Nothing was filed with the court in JANE's estate to notify anyone that
> JOE has died, nor to appoint a successsor PR of JANE's estate.
>
> JOE's estate has now been opened, in a different county than JANE's
> estate.
>
> More than 2 years have now passed since JOE's death.
>
>
>
> Am I right that the creditors of JANE's estate don't need to be given
> further consideration by the PR of JOE's estate, given that a) they didn't
> do anything to further pursue their claims in JANE's estate, after JOE
> failed to respond to their initial claims, and b) they didn't assert a
> creditor claim against JOE's estate within the 2 years?
>
>
>
> I *think* that the creditors' only legal remedies are the procedures set
> forth in RCW 11.40, and that if they didn't pursue those further, then they
> are now out of luck, and the SOLs on their creditor claims have now long
> expired given the 20+ year passage of time. See In re Estate of
> Henington, 331 P.3d 112, 115 (Wash. App. 2014) (discussing RCW
> 11.40.051(2): "We hold that the mere filing of a creditor's claim in a
> probate case, without any further action by the claimant or the PR, does
> not toll the statute of limitations."). So, even if a successor PR
> for JANE's estate were to be appointed, those creditors would be out of
> luck.
>
>
>
> I also *think* that, even if the creditors did have some claim against the
> PR JOE for breach of his fiduciary duty in managing JANE's estate, such as
> a claim that he didn't correctly deal with JANE's creditors, the fact that
> it's now been 2+ years since JOE's death, the creditors have lost their
> ability to assert a claim against JOE's own estate. RCW
> 11.40.020(1)(b)(ii).
>
>
>
> Thanks for any insight!
>
>
>
> Sarah
>
>
> *Sarah O?Farrell McCarthy*
>
>
> *(Pronouns: she / her) *Attorney*, Partner | Kelly, Arndt & Walker,
> Attorneys at Law, PLLP
> P.O. Box 290 | 6443 Harding Avenue |
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/6443+Harding+Avenue+%7C+Clinton,+WA+98236?entry=gmail&source=g>
> Clinton, WA
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/6443+Harding+Avenue+%7C+Clinton,+WA+98236?entry=gmail&source=g>
> 98236
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/6443+Harding+Avenue+%7C+Clinton,+WA+98236?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> (Located on Whidbey Island, Island County, Washington)
>
> * Licensed to practice in Washington (active) and California (inactive)
> Phone: (360) 341-1515 | Fax: (360) 341-3272
> sarah at kawlawyers.com | www.kawlawyers.com<http://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
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/6443+Harding+Ave,+Clinton+WA+98236?entry=gmail&source=g>.*
>
> 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.
> ***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/20260924/5cbc9e8c/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2026 20:17:53 +0000
From: Kristi Richards <Kristi at salishelderlaw.com>
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBAPT] Montana Mineral Rights
Message-ID:
<SA1PR19MB5165F8772AAD10A8F192E4DBA7812 at SA1PR19MB5165.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Does anyone have a referral that can assist with transfer of Montana mineral rights - probate open in Washington for a Washington decedent, and the PR needs someone that can assist with the Montana mineral rights owned by the Decedent.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Kristi
[https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/QHGvpnL4PNvBSzAq4WAJelqgQ5__BvvB9gUFK7uRncwmD2pUfI1gytyX94J8-5c5D7Bs-2xK6vqOy7zq9jLFqU5RUK-8NmAXIrtWv-pb7Tdec0siwlYbEiH2YrKRixZYGMP8JEJW5j03Q4N9gw]
Kristi L. Richards, JD, LL.M.
(she, her)
Attorney
51 W Dayton St. Suite 204
Edmonds, WA 98020
Main: (425) 492-7212
https://salishelderlaw.com/
Providing Services in Elder Law and Estate Planning
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20260924/ad8959f1/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2026 20:35:58 +0000
From: Kate Szurek <kate at skagitlaw.com>
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] Montana Mineral Rights
Message-ID:
<LV8PR08MB960444A7C083F27169533CBFD7812 at LV8PR08MB9604.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I am working with Cole Derks on an ancient mineral rights matter in Montana, and have been very impressed with his work:
Cole A. Derks
Karell Kimmet Beddow PLLP
Phone (406) 294-8484
Direct (406) 294-8486
cderks at kkblawmt.com<mailto:cderks at kkblawmt.com>
He will handle an ancillary probate there for us.
Kate
Kate Szurek, J.D., LL.M. (in Taxation)
kate at skagitlaw.com<mailto:kate at skagitlaw.com>
[SkagitLaw_Signature (2)]
Skagit Law Group, PLLC
P.O. Box 336 / 227 Freeway Drive, Suite B
Mount Vernon, WA 98273
360.336.1000
360.336.6690 (fax)
http://www.skagitlaw.com<http://www.skagitlaw.com/>
[Martindale-Hubbell(r) AV Preeminent Rating Badge]
This e-mail message contains information belonging to Skagit Law Group, PLLC, that may be privileged, confidential, and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you think that you have received this message in error, please be so kind as to contact the sender and delete the message. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. Thank you.
From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Kristi Richards
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2026 1:18 PM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBAPT] Montana Mineral Rights
Does anyone have a referral that can assist with transfer of Montana mineral rights - probate open in Washington for a Washington decedent, and the PR needs someone that can assist with the Montana mineral rights owned by the Decedent.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Kristi
[https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/QHGvpnL4PNvBSzAq4WAJelqgQ5__BvvB9gUFK7uRncwmD2pUfI1gytyX94J8-5c5D7Bs-2xK6vqOy7zq9jLFqU5RUK-8NmAXIrtWv-pb7Tdec0siwlYbEiH2YrKRixZYGMP8JEJW5j03Q4N9gw]
Kristi L. Richards, JD, LL.M.
(she, her)
Attorney
51 W Dayton St. Suite 204
Edmonds, WA 98020
Main: (425) 492-7212
https://salishelderlaw.com/
Providing Services in Elder Law and Estate Planning
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20260924/f6494aef/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 8009 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20260924/f6494aef/image001-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8382 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20260924/f6494aef/image002-0001.png>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2026 21:40:13 +0000
From: Mark Anderson <marka at mbaesq.com>
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>, Solo
and Small Practice Section
<solo-and-small-practice-section at list.wsba.org>
Subject: [WSBAPT] Probate, Protection Order, Competency, and Guns
Message-ID:
<CH0PR12MB52846317666167411E1CB341C8812 at CH0PR12MB5284.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dear All:
PC needs prompt help. He wrote to me today and said this:
This thing is just a mess. He is a friend, who I have known since he was 4. He graduated but is a bit slow to comprehend things. His father passed away a month after he graduated high school (in early July), and ever since his only full relative (his grandmother) had him declared in an emergency protection order a potential harm to himself and others. Which the hearing is scheduled to be decided Monday. I will be in Tri-Cities with him during that online appearance which was filed in Chehalis court. So, probate may be contested by the grandmother, and she may have filed probate already. Grandmother had already demanded the guns which were stored at a licensed dealer, and because of a threat, he gave them to her. Her son (Timothy's half Uncle) who is a convicted felon helped carry the guns out. The felon is the one who filed the petition to have the guns removed on behalf of the grandmother.
Frankly, it is a big mess. I think what we really need now is advise which we are certainly willing to pay for.
I don't think this is going into litigation, and we are planning on him filing for probate on Monday when we are in the tri-cities.
Let me know if this is something you are willing to share advice over and we can fill you in on the rest of it.
Who is willing to connect with the PC and help him?
Thanks much.
Mark B. Anderson
ANDERSON LAW FIRM PLLC
821 Dock Street, Suite 209, PMB 4-12
Tacoma, Washington 98402
+1 253-327-1750
+1 253-327-1751 (fax)
marka at mbaesq.com<mailto:marka at mbaesq.com>
www.mbaesq.com<http://www.mbaesq.com/>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This transmission is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the individual named recipient. It may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other confidentiality protection. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, be advised that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender via e-mail or by telephone at (253) 327-1750 that you have received the message in error, and then delete it. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20260924/baf32c5b/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2026 21:26:18 -0700
From: Andrekita Silva <ak at seattle-silvalaw.com>
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Cc: Solo and Small Practice Section
<solo-and-small-practice-section at list.wsba.org>
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] Probate, Protection Order, Competency, and Guns
Message-ID: <694829ecada268ad4e2dbe9a11ac5ce2 at seattle-silvalaw.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Law Office of F. Andrekita Silva
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
September 24, 2026
Mark,
I'm not available for your matter in the Tri-Cities but I'm not really
understanding the issue.
It sounds like Timothy is a young guy (he just graduated from high
school in July.)
When you say that his grandmother had him "declared", do you mean she
got an order saying he in incompetent? Or, are you saying she got an ex
parte Extreme Risk Protection Order against him, as a potential danger
to himself and others due to firearms in his control? And, that the
permanent hearing on that is Monday?
You don't say what the facts are of your situation but it's not clear to
me that even if he is deemed an "extreme risk", that it has nothing to
do with whether or not he can be appointed as the PR of his father's
estate- especially if he is the ONLY heir.
Are grandmother and felon uncle saying Timothy is of unsound mind?
Does Timothy have to be smart to be appointed as PR? I think I once had
a client who was not the smartest be appointed as PR. However, he was
honest and there was no challenge to his appointment. I know a judge
would have some discretion in regards to an appointment. But, I think if
he is of sound mind, there are no acts of dishonesty, and if he has not
been convicted of a felony or crime involving moral turpitude, he should
be good to go?
I know we don't know the facts of the situation, but I have to wonder if
the grandmother and uncle don't have improper or misguided motives.
Keep us posted. I'll be curious how your hearing goes.
Andrekita Silva
Law Office of F. Andrekita Silva
1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 940
Seattle, Washington 98101-2509
206-224-8288
ak at seattle-silvalaw.com
On 2026/09/24 02:40 PM, Mark Anderson wrote:
> Dear All:
>
> PC needs prompt help. He wrote to me today and said this:
>
> This thing is just a mess. He is a friend, who I have known since he
> was 4. He graduated but is a bit slow to comprehend things. His
> father passed away a month after he graduated high school (in early
> July), and ever since his only full relative (his grandmother) had him
> declared in an emergency protection order a potential harm to himself
> and others. Which the hearing is scheduled to be decided Monday. I
> will be in Tri-Cities with him during that online appearance which was
> filed in Chehalis court. So, probate may be contested by the
> grandmother, and she may have filed probate already. Grandmother had
> already demanded the guns which were stored at a licensed dealer, and
> because of a threat, he gave them to her. Her son (Timothy's half
> Uncle) who is a convicted felon helped carry the guns out. The felon
> is the one who filed the petition to have the guns removed on behalf
> of the grandmother.
>
> Frankly, it is a big mess. I think what we really need now is advise
> which we are certainly willing to pay for.
>
> I don't think this is going into litigation, and we are planning on
> him filing for probate on Monday when we are in the tri-cities.
>
> Let me know if this is something you are willing to share advice over
> and we can fill you in on the rest of it.
>
> Who is willing to connect with the PC and help him?
>
> Thanks much.
>
> Mark B. Anderson
> ANDERSON LAW FIRM PLLC
> 821 Dock Street, Suite 209, PMB 4-12
> Tacoma, Washington 98402
> +1 253-327-1750
> +1 253-327-1751 (fax)
> marka at mbaesq.com
> www.mbaesq.com<http://www.mbaesq.com> [1] [1 [2]]
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> This transmission is confidential and is intended solely for the use
> of the individual named recipient. It may be protected by the
> attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other
> confidentiality protection. If you are not the intended recipient, or
> the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, be
> advised that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
> communication is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in
> error, please immediately notify the sender via e-mail or by telephone
> at (253) 327-1750 that you have received the message in error, and
> then delete it. Thank you.
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.mbaesq.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
Links:
------
[1] http://www.mbaesq.com
[2] http://www.mbaesq.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20260924/603ee70c/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2026 21:29:47 -0700
From: Andrekita Silva <ak at seattle-silvalaw.com>
To: Eric Nelsen <eric at sayrelawoffices.com>
Cc: "WSBA Real Property Listserv \(wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com\)"
<wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>, WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv
<wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] ER 904 amendment eff. September 1, 2026
Message-ID: <f402177c682419c1596804103c604de2 at seattle-silvalaw.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Law Office of F. Andrekita Silva
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
September 24, 2026
Thank you Eric.
I think that's what I'll do.
Andrekita Silva
Law Office of F. Andrekita Silva
1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 940
Seattle, Washington 98101-2509
206-224-8288
ak at seattle-silvalaw.com
On 2026/09/18 09:20 AM, Eric Nelsen wrote:
> I remember being surprised some years ago when a lawyer served me an
> ER 904 notice and documents about 4 months before trial. He pointed
> out that 30 days is a minimum notice, not maximum. True enough! So I
> think I would argue that your earlier ER 904 was already effective,
> and if no objection was filed within 14 days then the documents are
> already deemed admissible regardless of the later rule change.
>
> Or that'd be my argument to the judge anyway...
>
> 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 Andrekita Silva
> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2026 8:18 PM
> To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Cc: WSBA Real Property Listserv (wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com)
> <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] ER 904 amendment eff. September 1, 2026
>
> Law Office of F. Andrekita Silva
> ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> September 17, 2026
>
> Eric,
>
> Thanks so much for bringing this to our attention. This is a huge
> bummer. I have a parenting plan trial in Snohomish County that was
> supposed to go out in April, but was continued to August 10 so that
> GAL could conduct a final report.
>
> On August 10, we were inexplicably continued to December 14. I was
> already wondering if my prior ER 904 submittal (submitted for April)
> could simply be updated. So much time has gone by, we now have more
> police reports. Although our prior ER 904 submittal had important text
> messages, it also included various police reports dealing with
> domestic violence. We got some through a Public Disclosure request and
> others by subpoena. Police reports would not be hearsay under 803(6).
>
> But, it looks like now we must go have law enforcement certify the
> records?
>
> I'm wondering if documents submitted under prior ER 904 prior to 9/1
> (and even prior to 30 days before that) would be admissible or if they
> would fall under the new rule?
>
> Andrekita Silva
> Law Office of F. Andrekita Silva
> 1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 940
> Seattle, Washington 98101-2509
> 206-224-8288
> ak at seattle-silvalaw.com
>
> On 2026/09/17 09:51 AM, Eric Nelsen wrote:
>
>> I just started a trial prep for a trial next month and looked at ER
>> 904--discovered it was just amended, effective September 1. The old
>> catch-all provision of ER 904(6) is gone, and now every document has
>> to fit one of the now-twelve enumerated categories.
>>
>> Looks like the statewide judges' association lobbied to get sub (6)
>> eliminated because it was--in their view--being abused by lawyers
>> designating hundreds of documents under sub (6), and it generated so
>> many objections it caused more time and work for the court than it
>> was
>> intended to save.
>>
>> I am bummed. It was nice to be able to get copies of emails and the
>> like easily admitted by that process. The scope of the twelve
>> categories is quite a bit more limited than what was possible under
>> the old sub (6).
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Eric
>>
>> Eric C. Nelsen
>>
>> Sayre Law Offices, PLLC
>>
>> 1417 31st Ave South
>>
>> Seattle WA 98144-3909
>>
>> 206-625-0092
>>
>> eric at sayrelawoffices.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/20260924/6f665cf6/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2026 18:27:05 +0000
From: Anna Van Pelt <anna at vanpeltlegal.com>
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBAPT] CA trust litigator
Message-ID:
<BN8PR04MB566798C9776191CAE6DD51D1A2802 at BN8PR04MB5667.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Good morning!
PC's dad passed away and their sibling is the new trustee. PC wants to know what rights they have because the New Trustee is not sharing information about dad's estate. Trust is based in San Bernadino County. Any referrals welcome!
Thanks,
Anna
Van Pelt Law
(206) 635-7250
www.vanpeltlegal.com<http://www.vanpeltlegal.com/><http://www.vanpeltlegal.com<http://www.vanpeltlegal.com/>>
Pronouns: She/Her
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This communication (including any attachments) is confidential and may contain legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please delete this communication from your computer and do not retransmit, copy, print or otherwise disseminate this communication.
ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP:
This e-mail does not in any way intend to provide legal advice to be relied upon by any recipient and does not create any duty or obligation for legal representation on behalf of the sender Van Pelt Law & Mediation PLLC on behalf of the recipient of this e-mail without a written engagement agreement.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20260925/0fd4e0db/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
***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
End of WSBAPT Digest, Vol 144, Issue 21
***************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20260926/363e96eb/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 10242 bytes
Desc: image.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20260926/363e96eb/image.png>
More information about the WSBAPT
mailing list