[WSBARP] Denial of probate petition under RCW 11.28.110
Dalynne Singleton
dalynne at glgmail.com
Fri Aug 7 09:27:34 PDT 2026
I had this happen 3X now. In the last one, the probate was being opened to bring wrongful death claims for this decedent and his family. The mother of the decedent & all other siblings signed consents for client to be Admin. as one of the sisters of decedent. Father was deceased. They all waived notice of hearing, consented to her serving w/o bond and with non-intervention powers. We submitted all ex parte via the clerk. Order denied. Then, we filed a declaration of the proposed Administrator providing the statutory information the Court said it needed line by line of the statute. Declined.
So, I prepared an Amended Verified Petition and filed ex parte with new proposed Order. I sent ex parte with a copy of the denials as instructed by the Court (Sarah Moen, Commish). That worked and we received the Order and Letters. Sarah Moen declined the first 2 submissions and then signed the new Order on Amended Petition once we filed the amended petition citing each statute line by line.
If you want to get these documents, the Estate of Kassa is filed in King County S. Court under Cause No.
26-4-05336-4 SEA. We had a statute of limitations issue in this one on 8/20/26 so I added TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE to the Amended Petition.
Dalynne Singleton
Gourley Law Group
Snohomish Escrow/The Exchange Connection
1002 10th Street / PO Box 1091
Snohomish, WA 98291
360.568.5065
360.568.8092 fax
dalynne at glgmail.com<mailto:dalynne at glgmail.com> Website: www.glglawgroup.com<http://www.glglawgroup.com/>
Attorney/client meetings will be handled virtually whenever possible. If you would like to set a consultation, please call/email one my paralegals Valerie valerie at glgmail.com<mailto:valerie at glgmail.com>, Erica erica at glgmail.com<mailto:erica at glgmail.com>, Bill bill at glgmail.com<mailto:bill at glgmail.com> or part time paralegal Theresa theresa at glgmail.com<mailto:theresa at glgmail.com>. Co-counsels at GLG are Attorney Carrie Ulrich (carrie at glgmail.com<mailto:carrie at glgmail.com> ), Spencer Clower (spencer at glgmail.com<mailto:spencer at glgmail.com>) and Candace Wilkerson (candace at glgmail.com<mailto:candace at glgmail.com>). Litigation paralegal is Daina Gray (daina at glgmail.com<mailto:daina at glgmail.com>).
LICENSED IN WASHINGTON. IMPORTANT/CONFIDENTIAL: This e-mail message (and any attachments accompanying it) may contain confidential information, including information protected by attorney-client privilege. The information is intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s). Delivery of this message to anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended to waive any privilege or otherwise detract from the confidentiality of the message. If you are not the intended recipient, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, do not read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this transmission, rather, please promptly notify the sender by reply e-mail, and then destroy all copies of the message and its attachments, if any.
[cid:65d5f944-ef61-4213-b5f0-c95d6160c660] [cid:0ecdd372-9b5f-481a-9e06-caa42aa51a10] [cid:07661ba0-72fe-4c67-8de1-1d9187879276] [cid:43f6c6f4-b429-4e86-9eaa-0641f009494e]
________________________________
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> on behalf of Diane Kiepe <diane at kiepelaw.com>
Sent: Friday, August 7, 2026 7:59 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Denial of probate petition under RCW 11.18.110
I am so sorry. I'm not sure but maybe a reconsideration process?
Diane Kiepe
Kiepe Estate and Probate, PLLC
diane at kiepelaw.com<mailto:diane at kiepelaw.com>
200 N. Mullan Rd., Suite 203
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
509-808-2087
Confidentiality Notice: This page and any accompanying documents contain information that is confidential, privileged, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. This information is private and protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information in any manner is strictly prohibited.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2026 at 8:36 PM Yuping Wang <yupwang at outlook.com<mailto:yupwang at outlook.com>> wrote:
Dear Listmates,
We received a denial of the probate petition due to "the petition does not address all of the provisions of RCW 11.28.110(1)(a)-(e) and (2)."
We checked line by line and see that every requirement of RCW 11.28.110(1)(a)-(e) and (2) is explained in the petition. This is an intestacy case, single, not married, no child; the brother is the petitioner with the parents' consent. We included a long list of assets (bank accounts, institutions, balances, etc.) in the petition. The estate does not have real property.
Does anyone know how to handle this? Is there any formality the petition must follow under the amended RCW 11.28.110?
Thank you!
Yuping Wang
WYP Law PLLC
Seattle WA
Tel: 206 383 2826 (cell)
Tel: 206 496 5642 (office)
Email: yuping at wyp-law.com<mailto:yuping at wyp-law.com>
Website: www.wyp-law.com<https://url.usb.m.mimecastprotect.com/s/5lHgCB1G7ZiPNKlY0f6oAf2?domain=wyp-law.com>
________________________________
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> on behalf of wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2026 12:00 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: WSBARP Digest, Vol 143, Issue 3
Send WSBARP mailing list submissions to
wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com>
You can reach the person managing the list at
wsbarp-owner at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-owner at lists.wsbarppt.com>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of WSBARP digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Claims Relating to Utility Service Fees (Samuel Meyler)
2. King County "Emergency" calendar vs Motion for Order
Shortening Time (Eric Nelsen)
3. Re: King County "Emergency" calendar vs Motion for Order
Shortening Time (Mike Zeno)
4. Re: King County "Emergency" calendar vs Motion for Order
Shortening Time (Eric Nelsen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2026 19:24:30 +0000
From: Samuel Meyler <smeyler at reedlongyearlaw.com<mailto:smeyler at reedlongyearlaw.com>>
To: "realprop at googlegroups.com<mailto:realprop at googlegroups.com>" <realprop at googlegroups.com<mailto:realprop at googlegroups.com>>, WSBA Real
Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBARP] Claims Relating to Utility Service Fees
Message-ID:
<PH0PR05MB8511992A37CAAFA655563534A5D32 at PH0PR05MB8511.namprd05.prod.outlook.com<mailto:PH0PR05MB8511992A37CAAFA655563534A5D32 at PH0PR05MB8511.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Listmates,
Potential clients have been unknowingly paying their neighbor?s power bill for over a decade and estimate the total overage to be in excess of $40,000. Utility service provider acknowledged that they have been billing the homeowner for two meters.
I understand that there is an administrative claim process for something like this through the Utilities and Transportation Commission, but this is outside of my wheelhouse. Who has experience with this sort of thing?
Sam
Samuel M. Meyler
Attorney at Law
[cid:image001.png at 01DD24D5.5C5A5200]
Reed Longyear Corwin Burnett & Calogero, PLLC
801 Second Ave, Suite 1415
Seattle, WA 98104
Office: (206) 624?6271
Direct: (206) 408-5079
Fax: (206) 624?6672
smeyler at reedlongyearlaw.com<mailto:smeyler at reedlongyearlaw.com><mailto:smeyler at reedlongyearlaw.com<mailto:smeyler at reedlongyearlaw.com>>
[http://www.reedlongyearlaw.com<http://www.reedlongyearlaw.com/>]www.reedlongyearlaw.com<http://www.reedlongyearlaw.com><http://www.reedlongyearlaw.com/>
The information in this email message may be privileged and confidential. It is intended only for the use of the recipient named above (or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient). If you received this in error, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20260805/c76aaa2b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8278 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20260805/c76aaa2b/image001-0001.png>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2026 22:41:33 +0000
From: Eric Nelsen <eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com>>
To: "WSBA Real Property Listserv (wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>)"
<wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBARP] King County "Emergency" calendar vs Motion for Order
Shortening Time
Message-ID:
<SA1PR05MB7888EA77BCE8D90F155DC375DDD32 at SA1PR05MB7888.namprd05.prod.outlook.com<mailto:SA1PR05MB7888EA77BCE8D90F155DC375DDD32 at SA1PR05MB7888.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
This is deep in the weeds in King County procedure. I'm trying to figure out why if you set a hearing on the 1:30 Ex Parte "emergency motion" calendar, and you give short notice to the defendant, means that you don't have to file a separate Motion for Order Shortening Time.
I am seeking a preliminary injunction in a civil case. I needed a temporary restraining order entered asap, but I was able to give the defendant about four calendar days' notice of the hearing. To set this up, I filed:
Motion for Preliminary Injunction and set it for hearing in front of the assigned judge-in September, which was first available date on the judge's calendar. (Preliminary injunction would last until resolution at trial.)
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and set it for hearing on the 1:30 "emergency" motions calendar in Ex Parte, with about four days' notice to the defendant. (TRO fills the gap between now and when motion for preliminary injunction is resolved.)
Motion for Order Shortening Time (to hear the Motion for TRO) and set it for hearing at the same time as the Motion for TRO.
LCR 65(b) says set the Motion for TRO in Ex Parte, not the assigned judge. But before requesting it, you have to get a hearing date on the preliminary injunction set before the assigned judge. Fine-I did that.
LCR 7(b)(10) says Motion for Order Shortening Time will be granted for "good cause," but you must give as much notice as you can, minimum two judicial days "except in emergency situations."
I had my hearing on the TRO today, and commissioner signed the TRO. I asked about the Order Shortening Time, and the commissioner said, "why would I sign that-this is the emergency calendar."
Is there some rule I'm missing, that completely exempts motions set on the "emergency" calendar from the 9-court-day notice rule? For the emergency calendar, are you to give as much advance notice as you can, whether it's none or an hour or six days, and you can just go for it and ignore LCR 7 and not have to specifically have a finding of "good cause" to hear the motion on short notice?
If that's true, then when is there ever a circumstance where a Motion for Order Shortening Time is necessary?
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><mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20260805/73007a1a/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2026 22:52:47 +0000
From: "Mike Zeno" <mikez at zenolawfirm.com<mailto:mikez at zenolawfirm.com>>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] King County "Emergency" calendar vs Motion for
Order Shortening Time
Message-ID:
<MW5PR18MB5149D88B28538F5FC2DD4CF2B1D32 at MW5PR18MB5149.namprd18.prod.outlook.com<mailto:MW5PR18MB5149D88B28538F5FC2DD4CF2B1D32 at MW5PR18MB5149.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi Eric--I think TROs are recognized as a unique exception to the general motion timelines. I'm not sure if this is just by custom or inferable from the rules...Mike
The Law Office of G. Michael Zeno, Jr., P.S.
T: (425) 947-8050 F: (425) 947-8052
135 Lake Street S., Suite 257
Kirkland, WA 98033
Confidential/Privileged Communication: This email and any attachments are confidential, privileged and intended only for the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this email is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify me immediately so we can arrange for the message and documents to be returned and deleted. Thank you.
IRS Circular 230 Disclaimer: Any tax advice provided in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by the recipient or any other taxpayer (i) for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the recipient or any other taxpayer, or (ii) in promoting, marketing or recommending to another party a partnership or other entity, investment plan, arrangement or other transaction. You should seek advice based on your particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> On Behalf Of Eric Nelsen
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2026 3:42 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv (wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>) <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBARP] King County "Emergency" calendar vs Motion for Order Shortening Time
This is deep in the weeds in King County procedure. I'm trying to figure out why if you set a hearing on the 1:30 Ex Parte "emergency motion" calendar, and you give short notice to the defendant, means that you don't have to file a separate Motion for Order Shortening Time.
I am seeking a preliminary injunction in a civil case. I needed a temporary restraining order entered asap, but I was able to give the defendant about four calendar days' notice of the hearing. To set this up, I filed:
Motion for Preliminary Injunction and set it for hearing in front of the assigned judge-in September, which was first available date on the judge's calendar. (Preliminary injunction would last until resolution at trial.)
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and set it for hearing on the 1:30 "emergency" motions calendar in Ex Parte, with about four days' notice to the defendant. (TRO fills the gap between now and when motion for preliminary injunction is resolved.)
Motion for Order Shortening Time (to hear the Motion for TRO) and set it for hearing at the same time as the Motion for TRO.
LCR 65(b) says set the Motion for TRO in Ex Parte, not the assigned judge. But before requesting it, you have to get a hearing date on the preliminary injunction set before the assigned judge. Fine-I did that.
LCR 7(b)(10) says Motion for Order Shortening Time will be granted for "good cause," but you must give as much notice as you can, minimum two judicial days "except in emergency situations."
I had my hearing on the TRO today, and commissioner signed the TRO. I asked about the Order Shortening Time, and the commissioner said, "why would I sign that-this is the emergency calendar."
Is there some rule I'm missing, that completely exempts motions set on the "emergency" calendar from the 9-court-day notice rule? For the emergency calendar, are you to give as much advance notice as you can, whether it's none or an hour or six days, and you can just go for it and ignore LCR 7 and not have to specifically have a finding of "good cause" to hear the motion on short notice?
If that's true, then when is there ever a circumstance where a Motion for Order Shortening Time is necessary?
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><mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20260805/6bea7f6c/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2026 23:06:06 +0000
From: Eric Nelsen <eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com>>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] King County "Emergency" calendar vs Motion for
Order Shortening Time
Message-ID:
<SA1PR05MB7888FEFC455523B6403B62FCDDD32 at SA1PR05MB7888.namprd05.prod.outlook.com<mailto:SA1PR05MB7888FEFC455523B6403B62FCDDD32 at SA1PR05MB7888.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I wish I had known about the custom before I tried to figure it out from the rules! I went around and around trying to determine if a Motion for Order Shortening Time was required, and I ultimately concluded that it was necessary since I didn't see a specific exception. The only express rule is when a TRO is sought with no notice at all-and directs the plaintiff to use best efforts to provide some kind of notice.
Maybe you're right that the "exception" is custom: Set something on the Ex Parte emergency calendar and the commissioner will quiz you on how much notice you managed to give, and then either hear the motion or continue it depending on whether they're satisfied with the notice and/or the effort to give notice.
But now I can't figure out when a Motion for Order Shortening Time would ever be needed. If it's not emergency, why not give full 9-day notice? If it's an emergency, no MOST is needed?
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><mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com>>
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> On Behalf Of Mike Zeno
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2026 3:53 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] King County "Emergency" calendar vs Motion for Order Shortening Time
Hi Eric--I think TROs are recognized as a unique exception to the general motion timelines. I'm not sure if this is just by custom or inferable from the rules...Mike
The Law Office of G. Michael Zeno, Jr., P.S.
T: (425) 947-8050 F: (425) 947-8052
135 Lake Street S., Suite 257
Kirkland, WA 98033
Confidential/Privileged Communication: This email and any attachments are confidential, privileged and intended only for the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this email is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify me immediately so we can arrange for the message and documents to be returned and deleted. Thank you.
IRS Circular 230 Disclaimer: Any tax advice provided in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by the recipient or any other taxpayer (i) for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the recipient or any other taxpayer, or (ii) in promoting, marketing or recommending to another party a partnership or other entity, investment plan, arrangement or other transaction. You should seek advice based on your particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com><mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com><mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>>> On Behalf Of Eric Nelsen
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2026 3:42 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv (wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com><mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>) <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com><mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>>
Subject: [WSBARP] King County "Emergency" calendar vs Motion for Order Shortening Time
This is deep in the weeds in King County procedure. I'm trying to figure out why if you set a hearing on the 1:30 Ex Parte "emergency motion" calendar, and you give short notice to the defendant, means that you don't have to file a separate Motion for Order Shortening Time.
I am seeking a preliminary injunction in a civil case. I needed a temporary restraining order entered asap, but I was able to give the defendant about four calendar days' notice of the hearing. To set this up, I filed:
Motion for Preliminary Injunction and set it for hearing in front of the assigned judge-in September, which was first available date on the judge's calendar. (Preliminary injunction would last until resolution at trial.)
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and set it for hearing on the 1:30 "emergency" motions calendar in Ex Parte, with about four days' notice to the defendant. (TRO fills the gap between now and when motion for preliminary injunction is resolved.)
Motion for Order Shortening Time (to hear the Motion for TRO) and set it for hearing at the same time as the Motion for TRO.
LCR 65(b) says set the Motion for TRO in Ex Parte, not the assigned judge. But before requesting it, you have to get a hearing date on the preliminary injunction set before the assigned judge. Fine-I did that.
LCR 7(b)(10) says Motion for Order Shortening Time will be granted for "good cause," but you must give as much notice as you can, minimum two judicial days "except in emergency situations."
I had my hearing on the TRO today, and commissioner signed the TRO. I asked about the Order Shortening Time, and the commissioner said, "why would I sign that-this is the emergency calendar."
Is there some rule I'm missing, that completely exempts motions set on the "emergency" calendar from the 9-court-day notice rule? For the emergency calendar, are you to give as much advance notice as you can, whether it's none or an hour or six days, and you can just go for it and ignore LCR 7 and not have to specifically have a finding of "good cause" to hear the motion on short notice?
If that's true, then when is there ever a circumstance where a Motion for Order Shortening Time is necessary?
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><mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20260805/711432c3/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.***
_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com>
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
End of WSBARP Digest, Vol 143, Issue 3
**************************************
***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.***
_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com>
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20260807/977120ee/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/gif
Size: 3474 bytes
Desc: image.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20260807/977120ee/image.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5410 bytes
Desc: image.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20260807/977120ee/image-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8037 bytes
Desc: image.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20260807/977120ee/image-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 18528 bytes
Desc: image.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20260807/977120ee/image-0003.png>
More information about the WSBARP
mailing list