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

Wash. Rev. Code § 11.20.040 (2026)

Proof where one or more witnesses are unable or incompetent to testify, or absent from state

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The subsequent incompetency from whatever cause of one or more of the subscribing witnesses, or their inability to testify in open court or pursuant to commission, or their absence from the state, shall not prevent the probate of the will. In such cases the court shall admit the will to probate upon satisfactory testimony that the handwriting of the testator and of an incompetent or absent subscribing witness is genuine or the court may consider such other facts and circumstances, if any, as would tend to prove such will.
[ 1967 c 168 s 5; 1965 c 145 s 11.20.040. Prior: 1945 c 39 s 1; 1943 c 219 s 1; 1917 c 156 s 12; Rem. Supp. 1945 s 1382; prior: Code 1881 s 1353; 1863 p 213 ss 89, 90; 1860 p 175 ss 56, 57.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1953–2004 · 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 4× “020; RCW 11.20.040. Thus, proof of a lost will's execution under former RCW 11.”
Carlton v. Black, 153 Wash. 2d 152 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 3× “If a witness is unable or incompetent to testify, or is absent from the state, RCW 11.20.040 may apply. However, here no witnesses are absent, incompetent, or unable to testify.”
In Re the Est. of Peters, 264 P.2d 1109 (Wash. 1953). “, § 1380; RCW 11.20.040 [cf. Rem. Supp. 1945, § 1382].”
In Re the Est. of Becklund, 497 P.2d 1327 (Wash. Ct. App. 1972). “It was held *16 that statutes similar to RCW 11.20.040 which authorize partial revocation by cancellation with intent to revoke leave the remainder unaffected if the remainder, standing alone, is an understandable testamentary expression.”
In Re the Est. of Neubert, 369 P.2d 838 (Wash. 1962). “, § 1380; RCW 11.20.040. [c;f. Rem. Supp. 1945, § 1382].”
In Re Gardner's Est., 417 P.2d 948 (Wash. 1966). “RCW 11.20.040.... [5] In the case at bar, no one doubted that respondent destroyed the will.”
Tyer v. Miller, 417 P.2d 948 (Wash. 1966). “RCW 11.20.040 .... In the case at bar, no one doubted that respondent destroyed the will.”
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.