Wash. Rev. Code » Title 11 · Chapter 11.11
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 11.11.020 (2026)

Disposition of nonprobate assets under will

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Subject to community property rights, upon the death of an owner the owner's interest in any nonprobate asset specifically referred to in the owner's will belongs to the testamentary beneficiary named to receive the nonprobate asset, notwithstanding the rights of any beneficiary designated before the date of the will.
(2) A general residuary gift in an owner's will, or a will making general disposition of all of the owner's property, does not entitle the devisees or legatees to receive nonprobate assets of the owner.
(3) A disposition in a will of the owner's interest in "all nonprobate assets" or of all of a category of nonprobate asset under RCW 11.11.010(7), such as "all of my payable on death bank accounts" or similar language, is deemed to be a disposition of all the nonprobate assets the beneficiaries of which are designated before the date of the will.
(4) If the owner designates a beneficiary for a nonprobate asset after the date of the will, the specific provisions in the will that attempt to control the disposition of that asset do not govern the disposition of that nonprobate asset, even if the subsequent beneficiary designation is later revoked. If the owner revokes the later beneficiary designation, and there is no other provision controlling the disposition of the asset, the asset shall be treated as any other general asset of the owner's estate, subject to disposition under the other applicable provisions of the will. A beneficiary designation with respect to an asset that renews without the signature of the owner is deemed to have been made on the date on which the account was first opened.
[ 2006 c 203 s 1; 1998 c 292 s 105.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2023 · leading case: Manary v. Anderson, 292 P.3d 96 (Wash. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Manary v. Anderson, 292 P.3d 96 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 12× “According to the trial court, the property remained Trust property and Homer had no interest in it to convey to Anderson. The trial court quieted all title interests in the Trust and dismissed Anderson’s counterclaims with prejudice.”
In Re Est. of Burks, 100 P.3d 328 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 11× “The death beneficiaries argue that the decedent failed to comply with RCW 11.11.020, which allows a person to change the beneficiaries of payable-on-death accounts by specifically referring to the accounts and specifically naming the new beneficiaries.”
In re the Est. of Burks, 124 Wash. App. 327 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 11× “The death beneficiaries argue that the decedent failed to comply with RCW 11.11.020, which allows a person to change the beneficiaries of payable-on-death accounts by specifically referring to the accounts and specifically naming the new beneficiaries.”
In Re Est. of Cordero, 113 P.3d 16 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 7× “3d 328 (2004) ("RCW 11.11.020 specifically refers to nonprobate assets and allowed Burks to change the death beneficiary of each account.”
Sunderland v. Whitcomb, 55 P.3d 664 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “We note also that since 1998, RCW 11.11.020 directs the manner of changing the beneficiaries of a nonprobate asset by an express revocatory act in a later will.”
Est. Of Carol Collister, 382 P.3d 37 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 11.11.020(1). This plain language authorizes disposition of nonprobate assets via will.”
Dahle v. Nadolski, 127 Wash. App. 783 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 7× “3d 328 (2004) (“RCW 11.11.020 specifically refers to nonprobate assets and allowed Burks to change the death beneficiary of each account.”
Manary v. Anderson, 164 Wash. App. 569 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 7× “[ 19 ] ¶30 Nothing in the statute requires Homer’s will to mention the trust in order for RCW 11.11.020 to be effective. Moreover, there is nothing in the statute that requires a testator or testatrix to acknowledge a previously created trust in the will.”
MANARY v. Anderson, 265 P.3d 163 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 8× “[19] ¶ 30 Nothing in the statute requires Homer's will to mention the trust in order for RCW 11.11.020 to be effective. Moreover, there is nothing in the statute that requires a testator or testatrix to acknowledge a previously created trust in the will.”
In Re The Est. Of Carol L. Wood (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “While RCW 11.11.020 allows individuals to dispose of certain types of nonprobate assets through a will, IRAs are specifically excluded from this class.”
Wilcac Life Ins. Co. v. Thueringer (D. Or. 2023). · cites it 2× “Instead, under RCW 11.11.020, the payable-on-death provision of the policy did not pass through the Will and must be awarded to the policy’s lawful beneficiaries.”
Sarah Johnson, P.r. Of Est Of Cunningham, App/cross-resp V City Of Tacoma, Resp/cross-app (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 11.11.020. Johnson makes no argument that Cunningham's will specifically referred to his TERS account or to his nonprobate assets generally.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.11.020(1) — 8 cases
Manary v. Anderson, 292 P.3d 96 (Wash. 2013). “According to the trial court, the property remained Trust property and Homer had no interest in it to convey to Anderson. The trial court quieted all title interests in the Trust and dismissed Anderson’s counterclaims with prejudice.”
In Re Est. of Burks, 100 P.3d 328 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “The death beneficiaries argue that the decedent failed to comply with RCW 11.11.020, which allows a person to change the beneficiaries of payable-on-death accounts by specifically referring to the accounts and specifically naming the new beneficiaries.”
In re the Est. of Burks, 124 Wash. App. 327 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “The death beneficiaries argue that the decedent failed to comply with RCW 11.11.020, which allows a person to change the beneficiaries of payable-on-death accounts by specifically referring to the accounts and specifically naming the new beneficiaries.”
In Re Est. of Cordero, 113 P.3d 16 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “3d 328 (2004) ("RCW 11.11.020 specifically refers to nonprobate assets and allowed Burks to change the death beneficiary of each account.”
Est. Of Carol Collister, 382 P.3d 37 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 11.11.020(1). This plain language authorizes disposition of nonprobate assets via will.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.11.020(2) — 8 cases
Manary v. Anderson, 292 P.3d 96 (Wash. 2013). “According to the trial court, the property remained Trust property and Homer had no interest in it to convey to Anderson. The trial court quieted all title interests in the Trust and dismissed Anderson’s counterclaims with prejudice.”
In Re Est. of Burks, 100 P.3d 328 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “The death beneficiaries argue that the decedent failed to comply with RCW 11.11.020, which allows a person to change the beneficiaries of payable-on-death accounts by specifically referring to the accounts and specifically naming the new beneficiaries.”
Sunderland v. Whitcomb, 55 P.3d 664 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “We note also that since 1998, RCW 11.11.020 directs the manner of changing the beneficiaries of a nonprobate asset by an express revocatory act in a later will.”
In re the Est. of Burks, 124 Wash. App. 327 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “The death beneficiaries argue that the decedent failed to comply with RCW 11.11.020, which allows a person to change the beneficiaries of payable-on-death accounts by specifically referring to the accounts and specifically naming the new beneficiaries.”
Manary v. Anderson, 164 Wash. App. 569 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “[ 19 ] ¶30 Nothing in the statute requires Homer’s will to mention the trust in order for RCW 11.11.020 to be effective. Moreover, there is nothing in the statute that requires a testator or testatrix to acknowledge a previously created trust in the will.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.11.020(3) — 3 cases
In Re Est. of Burks, 100 P.3d 328 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “The death beneficiaries argue that the decedent failed to comply with RCW 11.11.020, which allows a person to change the beneficiaries of payable-on-death accounts by specifically referring to the accounts and specifically naming the new beneficiaries.”
In re the Est. of Burks, 124 Wash. App. 327 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “The death beneficiaries argue that the decedent failed to comply with RCW 11.11.020, which allows a person to change the beneficiaries of payable-on-death accounts by specifically referring to the accounts and specifically naming the new beneficiaries.”
Manary v. Anderson, 292 P.3d 96 (Wash. 2013). “According to the trial court, the property remained Trust property and Homer had no interest in it to convey to Anderson. The trial court quieted all title interests in the Trust and dismissed Anderson’s counterclaims with prejudice.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.11.020(4) — 2 cases
In Re Est. of Cordero, 113 P.3d 16 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “3d 328 (2004) ("RCW 11.11.020 specifically refers to nonprobate assets and allowed Burks to change the death beneficiary of each account.”
Dahle v. Nadolski, 127 Wash. App. 783 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “3d 328 (2004) (“RCW 11.11.020 specifically refers to nonprobate assets and allowed Burks to change the death beneficiary of each account.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.