<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
Ack! That is what I get for trying to be helpful — and glib! ;) </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
Of course you are correct that the new statute does not shift the burden — <b>especially</b> to a pro se party! — of complying with an intervening statute when the relevant notice they received was prepared under the old statute. </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
The section I quoted just means that notices sent after July 25 should comply with the new statute, whether the probate case is 10 days or 10 years old.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
So, thank goodness others gave actually useful advice on this one!</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
Best, Josh </div>
</div>
<div id="ms-outlook-mobile-signature">
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">Joshua D. McKarcher</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">McKarcher Law PLLC</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">537 6th Street</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">Clarkston, WA 99403</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">(509) 758-3345</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">(509) 758-3314 (fax)</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">josh@mckarcherlaw.com</div>
<div style="direction: ltr; text-align: left;" dir="auto"><a href="http://www.mckarcherlaw.com">www.mckarcherlaw.com</a><span style="caret-color: rgb(33, 33, 33); font-family: -apple-system, HelveticaNeue; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); display: inline !important"></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com> on behalf of Eric Nelsen <eric@sayrelawoffices.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, August 13, 2021 3:52:00 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBAPT] Pro Se Litigant & Questionable Objection to Declaration of Completion of Probate</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math"}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
p.x_MsoNormal, li.x_MsoNormal, div.x_MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif}
a:link, span.x_MsoHyperlink
{color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline}
span.x_EmailStyle20
{font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext}
.x_MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt}
@page WordSection1
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in}
div.x_WordSection1
{}
-->
</style>
<div lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="x_WordSection1">
<p class="x_MsoNormal">I am not sure it’s that simple; this is the dilemma during any transition period between two versions of a law. That conclusion of the effect of Sec. 4027 would mean that all 30-day Notice of Filing of Declaration of Completion processes
that were initiated but not fully completed by July 25 are invalid and must be re-initiated. As a matter of due process you can’t send out a notice that says one thing about how to object to closure, and then change the law midstream to require something different.
It seems unlikely the legislature intended to literally cancel all Declarations of Completion that were filed/served within 30 days of July 25.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Sincerely,</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Eric</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Eric C. Nelsen</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Sayre Law Offices, PLLC</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">1417 31st Ave South</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Seattle WA 98144-3909</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">206-625-0092</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:eric@sayrelawoffices.com"><span style="color:#0563C1">eric@sayrelawoffices.com</span></a></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><b><span style="background:aqua">Covid-19 Update - </span>
</b>All attorneys are working remotely during regular business hours and are available via email and by phone. Videoconferencing also is available. Signing of estate planning documents can be completed and will be handled on a case-by-case basis. Please direct
mail and deliveries to the Seattle office.</p>
</div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div style="border:none; border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt; padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Joshua McKarcher<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, August 13, 2021 3:26 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBAPT] Pro Se Litigant & Questionable Objection to Declaration of Completion of Probate</p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">I think the new statute applies no matter what – simple as that – see section 4027 on the very last page:</span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Sec. 4027. (1) Sections 4003 through 4017, 4023, 14 and 4024 of this act apply to all probate estates, regardless of whether the probate action commenced before or after the effective date of this section. (2) Section 4026 of this act
applies to all accounts established under chapter 11.114 RCW, regardless of whether the account was established before or after the effective date of this section.<span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"></span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none; border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt; padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">
wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> <<a href="mailto:wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Eric Nelsen<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, August 13, 2021 3:12 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <<a href="mailto:wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBAPT] Pro Se Litigant & Questionable Objection to Declaration of Completion of Probate</p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">RCW 11.68.110 just changed substantively on July 25 (see section 4014 of
<a href="http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/5132.SL.pdf">
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/5132.SL.pdf</a>), which means you are trapped in the limbo of determining retroactive effect. Before July 25, the law said you can file an objection in the probate matter, and it
strongly implies it’s the PR’s obligation to set it for hearing if such an objection is filed. Now, the objection has to be a separately filed TEDRA petition and it’s not the PR’s job to set it for hearing. (I don’t know the answer re retroactivity, I’m just
being “helpful” by complicating the situation further. Sorry about that.)</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Under the old rules, an objection could demand an “accounting” of the Estate. The pro se objection referring to “misused the inheritance” could be construed by the court to be an inartful demand for accounting.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">I would throw the dilemma into the client’s lap. Explain the two options and the costs/risks involved with each, and let the client decide. My kneejerk inclination is to close and defend later if need be, but I don’t know the personalities
involved here so it’s difficult to assess the risk. In all events I’d want the client’s buy-in to that option: the client has to understand that if they need to defend themselves afterward, they’ll be paying for their defense out of their own pocket; whereas
if they do the accounting etc. to get court approval and discharge, the estate would pay for all that because it’s clearly the PR doing work in discharge of their duties.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Sincerely,</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Eric</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Eric C. Nelsen</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Sayre Law Offices, PLLC</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">1417 31st Ave South</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Seattle WA 98144-3909</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">206-625-0092</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:eric@sayrelawoffices.com">eric@sayrelawoffices.com</a></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><b><span style="background:aqua">Covid-19 Update - </span>
</b>All attorneys are working remotely during regular business hours and are available via email and by phone. Videoconferencing also is available. Signing of estate planning documents can be completed and will be handled on a case-by-case basis. Please direct
mail and deliveries to the Seattle office.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<div style="border:none; border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt; padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">
wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> <<a href="mailto:wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>David Faber<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, August 13, 2021 2:40 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <<a href="mailto:wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [WSBAPT] Pro Se Litigant & Questionable Objection to Declaration of Completion of Probate</p>
</div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Good afternoon,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I'm working a probate estate and just about ready to close the estate. I filed a Declaration of Completion and served it on the beneficiaries of the estate with notice under RCW 11.68.110(3). With a few
days left in the 30 day period to file a petition seeking an accounting, two of the beneficiaries (representing themselves) filed a pleading they titled "Notice of Objection" which says, in full, "We object to the lack of communication and the manner in which
the personal representative disposed of all the our mothers, family personal belongings and misused the inheritance left for all of us." [sic]</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">RCW 11.68.110(2) expressly states "unless an heir. . . petitions the court [for one of two potential orders]. . . within 30 days of filing a declaration of completion of probate, the personal representative
will be automatically discharged without further order of the court. . ."</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">The beneficiaries have clearly failed to meet the express written requirements of RCW 11.68.110(2) because they did not petition the court for either potential order, instead just noting their objection.
Because they are <i>pro se</i>, however, I'm always worried that the court might look negatively on me ignoring them based upon their technical ignorance/defects. That said, if I were to note this up for a hearing, I think I'd be breaching my ethical obligations
to my client and probably committing malpractice by waiving our defense to their clearly defective pleading.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I'm writing the list to ask whether anyone has any advice for the proper way to proceed/address such an issue? I do not want to open the door for the beneficiaries to get a bite at the apple that they wouldn't
otherwise have, but I also don't want to direct my client to make final disbursement of the estate assets once the 30 day clock has run only to then have my client (and me) smacked by the court for not being conciliatory to
<i>pro se </i>litigants. My gut is that I should do the latter: ignore, direct disbursement, and defend my client on the basis that no petition was filed if ever I have to defend them, but I just want to suss out whether anyone thinks differently or has other
ideas.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Any thoughts?</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Best,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">David J. Faber</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Faber Feinson PLLC</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">800 Polk Street, Suite B</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Port Townsend, WA 98368<br>
(360) 379-4110</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">*** NOTICE: ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION - PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL. This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended
recipient, or believe that you have received this communication in error, please do not print, copy, retransmit, disseminate, or otherwise use the information. Also, please indicate to the sender that you have received this communication in error, and destroy
the copy you received.***</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>