Wash. Rev. Code » Title 11 · Chapter 11.20
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 11.20.020 (2026)

Application for probate—Hearing—Order—Proof—Record of testimony—Affidavits of attesting witnesses

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Applications for the probate of a will and for letters testamentary, or either, may be made to the judge of the court having jurisdiction and the court may immediately hear the proofs and either probate or reject such will as the testimony may justify. Upon such hearing the court shall make and cause to be entered a formal order, either establishing and probating such will, or refusing to establish and probate the same, and such order shall be conclusive except in the event of a contest of such will as hereinafter provided. All testimony in support of the will shall be reduced to writing, signed by the witnesses, and certified by the judge of the court. If the application for probate of a will does not request the appointment of a personal representative and the court enters an adjudication of testacy establishing such will no further administration shall be required except as commenced pursuant to RCW 11.28.330 or 11.28.340.
(2) In addition to the foregoing procedure for the proof of wills, any or all of the attesting witnesses to a will may, at the request of the testator or, after his or her decease, at the request of the executor or any person interested under it, make an affidavit before any person authorized to administer oaths, stating such facts as they would be required to testify to in court to prove such will, which affidavit may be written on the will or may be affixed or logically associated with the will or a photographic copy of the will or an electronic will. The sworn statement of any witness so taken shall be accepted by the court as if it had been taken before the court.
(3) An electronic will, the custody of which has not been maintained by a qualified custodian, must be treated as a lost or destroyed will under RCW 11.20.070.
[ 2021 c 140 s 1015; 2010 c 8 s 2016; 1977 ex.s. c 234 s 2; 1974 ex.s. c 117 s 27; 1969 ex.s. c 126 s 1; 1965 c 145 s 11.20.020. Prior: 1917 c 156 s 10; RRS s 1380; prior: 1863 p 212 ss 85, 86; 1860 p 175 ss 52, 53.]

Notes:

Effective date—2021 c 140 ss 1001-1016: See note following RCW 11.12.400.
Severability—1977 ex.s. c 234: "If any provisions of this 1977 amendatory act, or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1977 ex.s. c 234 s 30.]
Effective date—Application—1977 ex.s. c 234: "This 1977 amendatory act shall take effect on October 1, 1977 and shall apply to all proceedings in probate with respect to decedents whose deaths occurred after the effective date." [ 1977 ex.s. c 234 s 31.]
Application, construction—Severability—Effective date—1974 ex.s. c 117: See RCW 11.02.080 and notes following.
Will contests: Chapter 11.24 RCW.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1952–2024 · leading case: In Re Est. of Black, 102 P.3d 796 (Wash. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Est. of Black, 102 P.3d 796 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 9× “Although RCW 11.20.020 explains how a party may petition a court to admit a will to probate in an ex parte proceeding, here the 1993 will is a lost will; therefore, the specific lost will statute, RCW 11.”
Carlton v. Black, 153 Wash. 2d 152 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 8× “2d 393 § 4 (1955) (noting that “[t]he judicial consensus as to the quantum of proof which a proponent of a lost will must bring forth to prove that an alleged lost will was duly executed would appear to be that evidence of due execution must be clear and satisfactory”).”
City of Sumner v. First Baptist Church of Sumner, 639 P.2d 1358 (Wash. 1982). · cites it 16× “There is no dispute that a "church" use of the property in question has existed continuously since before the zoning ordinance was adopted, and the continued use of the property as a "church" is permissible under section 11.20.020, even without a special use permit.”
In Re The Est. Of: Donald C. Muller, 389 P.3d 604 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “RCW 11.20.020(1). Once probated, any party with an interest in the will may contest its validity within four months.”
Carlton v. Black, 116 Wash. App. 476 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “RCW 11.20.020(1); Gordon, 49 Wn.2d at 732 .”
In Re Est. of Black, 66 P.3d 670 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “RCW 11.20.020(1); Gordon, 49 Wash.2d at 732 , 306 P.”
Matter of Est. of Price, 871 P.2d 1079 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “and shall be attested by two or more competent witnesses, by subscribing their names to the will, or by signing an affidavit that complies with RCW 11.20.020(2), while in the presence of the testator and at the testator’s direction or request!.”
In re the Est. of Haviland, 301 P.3d 31 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 2× “901 (application of the chapter to any will of an owner who dies while a state resident on or after July 1, 1999, regardless of the date of execution or republishing and regardless of when the beneficiary was designated); see also RCW 11.20.020 (“Effective date - Application -…”
In Re Est. of Bowers, 131 P.3d 916 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “¶ 10 On February 18, 2005, the Museum of Flight (Museum) filed a "Petition for Order Admitting Lost Will to Probate RCW 11.20.020,.20.070, .28.185." The Museum asked the court to admit a copy of the 1991 Will to probate as provided in the probate statute and under the lost or…”
Est. of: I. Wilner Appeal of: Baker, L., 142 A.3d 796 (Pa. 2016). “Code § 8220(a), or, if no *290 subscribing witness is available, by proof of the handwriting of the testator and the handwriting of any one subscribing witness.”
In Re The Matter Of The Est. Of: Bert W. Hook, 374 P.3d 215 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “(1) Every will shall be in writing signed by the testator or by some other person under *867 the testator’s direction in the testator’s presence, and shall be attested by two or more competent witnesses, by subscribing their names to the will, or by signing an affidavit that…”
Trimm v. Davis, 977 P.2d 591 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “RCW 11.20.020(2) permits any or all of the attesting witnesses to make an affidavit “stating such facts as they would be required to testify to in court to prove such will.”
Show all 42 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.20.020(1) — 5 cases
Carlton v. Black, 116 Wash. App. 476 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “RCW 11.20.020(1); Gordon, 49 Wn.2d at 732 .”
In Re Est. of Black, 66 P.3d 670 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “RCW 11.20.020(1); Gordon, 49 Wash.2d at 732 , 306 P.”
In Re The Est. Of: Donald C. Muller, 389 P.3d 604 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 11.20.020(1). Once probated, any party with an interest in the will may contest its validity within four months.”
In Re the Est. of Young, 598 P.2d 7 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979).
In Re The Est. Of: Donald C. Muller (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.20.020(2) — 23 cases
Carlton v. Black, 153 Wash. 2d 152 (Wash. 2004). “2d 393 § 4 (1955) (noting that “[t]he judicial consensus as to the quantum of proof which a proponent of a lost will must bring forth to prove that an alleged lost will was duly executed would appear to be that evidence of due execution must be clear and satisfactory”).”
In Re Est. of Black, 102 P.3d 796 (Wash. 2004). “Although RCW 11.20.020 explains how a party may petition a court to admit a will to probate in an ex parte proceeding, here the 1993 will is a lost will; therefore, the specific lost will statute, RCW 11.”
In Re The Est. Of: Donald C. Muller, 389 P.3d 604 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 11.20.020(1). Once probated, any party with an interest in the will may contest its validity within four months.”
Matter of Est. of Price, 871 P.2d 1079 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “and shall be attested by two or more competent witnesses, by subscribing their names to the will, or by signing an affidavit that complies with RCW 11.20.020(2), while in the presence of the testator and at the testator’s direction or request!.”
Carlton v. Black, 116 Wash. App. 476 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “RCW 11.20.020(1); Gordon, 49 Wn.2d at 732 .”
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.