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

Wash. Rev. Code § 11.20.070 (2026)

Proof of lost or destroyed 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) If a will has been lost or destroyed under circumstances such that the loss or destruction does not have the effect of revoking the will, or is an electronic will, custody of which has not been maintained by a qualified custodian, the court may take proof of the execution and validity of the will and establish it, notice to all persons interested having been first given. The proof must be reduced to writing and signed by any witnesses who have testified as to the execution and validity, and must be filed with the clerk of the court.
(2) The provisions of a lost or destroyed will, or an electronic will, custody of which has not been maintained by a qualified custodian, must be proved by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, consisting at least in part of a witness to either its contents or the authenticity of a copy of the will.
(3) When a lost or destroyed will, or an electronic will, custody of which has not been maintained by a qualified custodian, is established under subsections (1) and (2) of this section, its provisions must be distinctly stated in the judgment establishing it, and the judgment must be recorded as wills are required to be recorded. A personal representative may be appointed by the court in the same manner as is herein provided with reference to original wills presented to the court for probate.
[ 2021 c 140 s 1016; 1994 c 221 s 20; 1965 c 145 s 11.20.070. Prior: 1955 c 205 s 1; 1917 c 156 s 20; RRS s 1390; prior: Code 1881 s 1367; 1860 p 177 s 70.]

Notes:

Effective date—2021 c 140 ss 1001-1016: See note following RCW 11.12.400.
Effective dates—1994 c 221: See note following RCW 11.100.035.
Replacement of lost or destroyed probate records: RCW 5.48.060.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · 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 36× “Nelson interpreted an earlier version of the lost will statute, RCW 11.20.070. Nelson, 85 Wash.2d at 605 , 537 P.”
Carlton v. Black, 153 Wash. 2d 152 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 35× “Nelson interpreted an earlier version of the lost will statute, RCW 11.20.070. Nelson, 85 Wn.2d at 605 . Since Nelson, the legislature has amended the statute and deleted the requirement that the will must be in existence at the time of the testator’s death.”
In Re Est. of Bowers, 131 P.3d 916 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 28× “¶ 2 Alison challenges the superior court decision to admit the 1991 Will to probate under RCW 11.20.070 and the sufficiency of the Museum of Flight's Petition to admit the 1991 Will.”
Carlton v. Black, 116 Wash. App. 476 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 5× “Black produced the evidence called for in RCW 11.20.070 in the form of the affidavits of Mr.”
Berghmans v. Museum of Flight, 131 P.3d 916 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 26× “¶2 Alison challenges the superior court decision to admit the 1991 Will to probate under RCW 11.20.070 and the sufficiency of the Museum of Flight’s petition to admit the 1991 Will.”
In Re Est. of Black, 66 P.3d 670 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “Black produced the evidence called for in RCW 11.20.070 in the form of the affidavits of Mr.”
Est. of: I. Wilner Appeal of: Baker, L., 142 A.3d 796 (Pa. 2016). · cites it 2× “156; Wash. Rev.Code § 11.20.070; Wyo. Stat. § 2-6-207.”
In Re The Matter Of The Est. Of: Bert W. Hook, 374 P.3d 215 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “020 is required to determine whether a lost will was properly executed under RCW 11.20.070. Estate of Black, 153 Wn.2d at 164 .”
In Re Est. of Nelson, 537 P.2d 765 (Wash. 1975). · cites it 3× “During the pendency of these motions the parties were each enjoined from engaging in discovery until their resolution, which came when decedent’s will, naming her mother executrix, was proven and admitted to probate under the “lost will” statute, RCW 11.20.070. This appeal is…”
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Rowley, 378 P.3d 139 (Wash. 2016). “2d 1109 (1953) (“[t]he language of RCW 11.20.070, requiring that the provisions of a lost or destroyed will be clearly and distinctly proved by at least two witnesses, is mandatory and cannot be disregarded by the courts”); Premium Distrib.”
In Re the Est. of Peters, 264 P.2d 1109 (Wash. 1953). · cites it 4× “RCW 11.20.070 [cf. Rem. Rev. Stat., § 1390].”
In Re the Est. of Neubert, 369 P.2d 838 (Wash. 1962). · cites it 6× “Neubert’s relations with her brother and her nephew by marriage), the trial court orally expressed the opinion that appellants had not met the burden of proof required by our statute relating to lost wills (RCW 11.20.070). It stated that the testimony of Mr.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.20.070(1) — 8 cases
Carlton v. Black, 153 Wash. 2d 152 (Wash. 2004). “Nelson interpreted an earlier version of the lost will statute, RCW 11.20.070. Nelson, 85 Wn.2d at 605 . Since Nelson, the legislature has amended the statute and deleted the requirement that the will must be in existence at the time of the testator’s death.”
In Re Est. of Black, 102 P.3d 796 (Wash. 2004). “Nelson interpreted an earlier version of the lost will statute, RCW 11.20.070. Nelson, 85 Wash.2d at 605 , 537 P.”
In Re Est. of Bowers, 131 P.3d 916 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “¶ 2 Alison challenges the superior court decision to admit the 1991 Will to probate under RCW 11.20.070 and the sufficiency of the Museum of Flight's Petition to admit the 1991 Will.”
Carlton v. Black, 116 Wash. App. 476 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “Black produced the evidence called for in RCW 11.20.070 in the form of the affidavits of Mr.”
Berghmans v. Museum of Flight, 131 P.3d 916 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “¶2 Alison challenges the superior court decision to admit the 1991 Will to probate under RCW 11.20.070 and the sufficiency of the Museum of Flight’s petition to admit the 1991 Will.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.20.070(2) — 10 cases
In Re Est. of Black, 102 P.3d 796 (Wash. 2004). “Nelson interpreted an earlier version of the lost will statute, RCW 11.20.070. Nelson, 85 Wash.2d at 605 , 537 P.”
Carlton v. Black, 153 Wash. 2d 152 (Wash. 2004). “Nelson interpreted an earlier version of the lost will statute, RCW 11.20.070. Nelson, 85 Wn.2d at 605 . Since Nelson, the legislature has amended the statute and deleted the requirement that the will must be in existence at the time of the testator’s death.”
Carlton v. Black, 116 Wash. App. 476 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “Black produced the evidence called for in RCW 11.20.070 in the form of the affidavits of Mr.”
In Re Est. of Black, 66 P.3d 670 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “Black produced the evidence called for in RCW 11.20.070 in the form of the affidavits of Mr.”
Est. of: I. Wilner Appeal of: Baker, L., 142 A.3d 796 (Pa. 2016). “156; Wash. Rev.Code § 11.20.070; Wyo. Stat. § 2-6-207.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.20.070(3) — 2 cases
In Re Est. of Bowers, 131 P.3d 916 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “¶ 2 Alison challenges the superior court decision to admit the 1991 Will to probate under RCW 11.20.070 and the sufficiency of the Museum of Flight's Petition to admit the 1991 Will.”
Berghmans v. Museum of Flight, 131 P.3d 916 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “¶2 Alison challenges the superior court decision to admit the 1991 Will to probate under RCW 11.20.070 and the sufficiency of the Museum of Flight’s petition to admit the 1991 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.