Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 11.12.095 (2026)
Omitted spouse or omitted domestic partner
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) If a will fails to name or provide for a spouse or domestic partner of the decedent whom the decedent marries or enters into a domestic partnership after the will's execution and who survives the decedent, referred to in this section as an "omitted spouse" or "omitted domestic partner," the spouse or domestic partner must receive a portion of the decedent's estate as provided in subsection (3) of this section, unless it appears either from the will or from other clear and convincing evidence that the failure was intentional.
(2) In determining whether an omitted spouse or omitted domestic partner has been named or provided for, the following rules apply:
(a) A spouse or domestic partner identified in a will by name is considered named whether identified as a spouse or domestic partner or in any other manner.
(b) A reference in a will to the decedent's future spouse or spouses or future domestic partner or partners, or words of similar import, constitutes a naming of a spouse or domestic partner whom the decedent later marries or with whom the decedent enters into a domestic partnership. A reference to another class such as the decedent's heirs or family does not constitute a naming of a spouse or domestic partner who falls within the class.
(c) A nominal interest in an estate does not constitute a provision for a spouse or domestic partner receiving the interest.
(3) The omitted spouse or omitted domestic partner must receive an amount equal in value to that which the spouse or domestic partner would have received under RCW 11.04.015 if the decedent had died intestate, unless the court determines on the basis of clear and convincing evidence that a smaller share, including no share at all, is more in keeping with the decedent's intent. In making the determination the court may consider, among other things, the spouse's or domestic partner's property interests under applicable community property or quasi-community property laws, the various elements of the decedent's dispositive scheme, and a marriage settlement or settlement in a domestic partnership or other provision and provisions for the omitted spouse or omitted domestic partner outside the decedent's will.
(4) In satisfying a share provided by this section, the bequests made by the will abate as provided in chapter 11.10 RCW.
Notes:
Effective dates—1994 c 221: See note following RCW 11.100.035.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2024 · leading case: Nelson v. Jusenius, 151 P.3d 995 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
Nelson v. Jusenius, 151 P.3d 995 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “Nelson appeals a superior court decision finding that he was not entitled to an intestate share of his deceased wife’s estate because he was not an “omitted spouse” under RCW 11.12.095. We affirm. Penoyar, J. FACTS I.”
Nguyen v. State Health Med. Quality Assur., 29 P.3d 689 (Wash. 2001). “015 if the decedent had died intestate, unless the court determines on the basis of clear and convincing evidence that a smaller share, including no share at all, is more in keeping with the decedent's intent.”
Nguyen v. Dep't of Health, 144 Wash. 2d 516 (Wash. 2001). “015 if the decedent had died intestate, unless the court determines on the basis of clear and convincing evidence that a smaller share, including no share at all, is more in keeping with the decedent’s intent.”
Matter of Est. of Lint, 957 P.2d 755 (Wash. 1998). “RCW 11.12.095. It is incumbent on us, therefore, to resolve the other major issue in this case: did the trial court err in concluding that Christian and Estelle's marriage was (1) voidable due to Estelle's incompetence at the time of its alleged occurrence, and (2) void ab…”
Murphy v. Lint, 957 P.2d 755 (Wash. 1998). “RCW 11.12.095. It is incumbent on us, therefore, to resolve the other major issue in this case: did the trial court err in concluding that Christian and Estelle’s marriage was (1) voidable due to Estelle’s incompetence at the time of its alleged occurrence, and (2) void ab…”
Becker v. White, 298 P.3d 720 (Wash. 2013). “015(1); RCW 11.12.095. Thus, Nancy has a very substantial interest in the estate if the will contest were to be successful.”
Bay v. Est. of Bay, 105 P.3d 434 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 11.12.095. The legislation enacting the current omitted spouse statute repealed the predecessor statute, former RCW 11.”
Bay v. Est. of Bay, 125 Wash. App. 468 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 11.12.095. ¶11 The legislation enacting the current omitted spouse statute repealed the predecessor statute, former RCW 11.”
Matter of Est. of Deoneseus, 886 P.2d 1155 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “The new statute, RCW 11.12.095, took effect January 1, 1995.”
In Re Est. of Miller, 143 P.3d 315 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 11.12.095. ¶ 4 Mr. Miller's mother, Ms.”
In Re Est. of Deoneseus, 906 P.2d 922 (Wash. 1995). “We decline to construe the newer statute, RCW 11.12.095, which is not before the Court.”
In re the Est. of Miller, 134 Wash. App. 885 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 11.12.095. ¶4 Mr. Miller’s mother, Ms.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.12.095(1) — 3 cases
Nelson v. Jusenius, 151 P.3d 995 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “Nelson appeals a superior court decision finding that he was not entitled to an intestate share of his deceased wife’s estate because he was not an “omitted spouse” under RCW 11.12.095. We affirm. Penoyar, J. FACTS I.”
In Re Est. of Moi, 151 P.3d 995 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
Est. Of Carole Stevenson Christian (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.12.095(2) — 2 cases
Nelson v. Jusenius, 151 P.3d 995 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “Nelson appeals a superior court decision finding that he was not entitled to an intestate share of his deceased wife’s estate because he was not an “omitted spouse” under RCW 11.12.095. We affirm. Penoyar, J. FACTS I.”
In Re Est. of Moi, 151 P.3d 995 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.12.095(2)(a) — 3 cases
Nelson v. Jusenius, 151 P.3d 995 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “Nelson appeals a superior court decision finding that he was not entitled to an intestate share of his deceased wife’s estate because he was not an “omitted spouse” under RCW 11.12.095. We affirm. Penoyar, J. FACTS I.”
Matter of Est. of Deoneseus, 886 P.2d 1155 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “The new statute, RCW 11.12.095, took effect January 1, 1995.”
In Re Est. of Moi, 151 P.3d 995 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.12.095(2)(c) — 2 cases
Matter of Est. of Deoneseus, 886 P.2d 1155 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “The new statute, RCW 11.12.095, took effect January 1, 1995.”
In Re Est. of Moi, 151 P.3d 995 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.12.095(3) — 6 cases
Nguyen v. State Health Med. Quality Assur., 29 P.3d 689 (Wash. 2001). “015 if the decedent had died intestate, unless the court determines on the basis of clear and convincing evidence that a smaller share, including no share at all, is more in keeping with the decedent's intent.”
Nguyen v. Dep't of Health, 144 Wash. 2d 516 (Wash. 2001). “015 if the decedent had died intestate, unless the court determines on the basis of clear and convincing evidence that a smaller share, including no share at all, is more in keeping with the decedent’s intent.”
Bay v. Est. of Bay, 105 P.3d 434 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 11.12.095. The legislation enacting the current omitted spouse statute repealed the predecessor statute, former RCW 11.”
Bay v. Est. of Bay, 125 Wash. App. 468 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 11.12.095. ¶11 The legislation enacting the current omitted spouse statute repealed the predecessor statute, former RCW 11.”
Moe v. Hansen, 910 P.2d 1281 (Wash. 1996).
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.