[WSBARP] Denial of probate petition under RCW 11.18.110
Cliff Coulter
cliff at cliffcoulter.com
Fri Aug 7 12:25:01 PDT 2026
The judge may have denied it because of the statutory amendments under Engrossed House Bill 2445 (commonly known as the "Ending Probates for Profit" law).
I went to the mid-year conference and they said that someone would be including their templates for this new bill in the list serve. Has anyone seen those?
Sincerely,
Cliff Coulter / Attorney-At-Law
cliff at cliffcoulter.com
Cliff Coulter Law Firm, PLLC
2005 SE 192nd Ave Suite 200
Camas, WA 98607
P: 360-836-4329
http://www.cliffcoulter.com/
From: Yuping Wang <yupwang at outlook.com>
To: "wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com"<wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2026 20:35:53 -0700
Subject: [WSBARP] Denial of probate petition under RCW 11.18.110
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: mailto:yuping at wyp-law.com
Website: https://url.usb.m.mimecastprotect.com/s/5lHgCB1G7ZiPNKlY0f6oAf2?domain=wyp-law.com
From: mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com < mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com > on behalf of mailto:wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com < mailto:wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com >
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2026 12:00 PM
To: mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com < mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com >
Subject: WSBARP Digest, Vol 143, Issue 3
Send WSBARP mailing list submissions to
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
mailto:wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
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 < mailto:smeyler at reedlongyearlaw.com >
To: " mailto:realprop at googlegroups.com " < mailto:realprop at googlegroups.com >, WSBA Real
Property Listserv < mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com >
Subject: [WSBARP] Claims Relating to Utility Service Fees
Message-ID:
<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
mailto:smeyler at reedlongyearlaw.com <mailto: mailto:smeyler at reedlongyearlaw.com >
[ http://www.reedlongyearlaw.com < http://www.reedlongyearlaw.com/ >]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 < mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com >
To: "WSBA Real Property Listserv ( mailto: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>
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
mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com <mailto: 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" < mailto:mikez at zenolawfirm.com >
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv < 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>
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: 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 ( 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
mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com <mailto: 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 < mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com >
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv < 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>
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
mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com <mailto: mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com >
From: mailto: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 < 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: mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto: mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com > < mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto: 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 ( mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto: mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com >) < mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto: 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
mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com <mailto: 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
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
mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
NOTICE: This email and any attachments are confidential and may contain privileged information intended solely for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply email and delete all copies of the original message. Thank you.
Should you receive an incomplete transmission, please call (360) 836-4329.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20260807/e7e6a9b0/attachment.html>
More information about the WSBARP
mailing list