Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 11.24.030 (2026)
Burden of proof
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
In any such contest proceedings the previous order of the court probating, or refusing to probate, such will shall be prima facie evidence of the legality of such will, if probated, or its illegality, if rejected, and the burden of proving the illegality of such will, if probated, or the legality of such will, if rejected by the court, shall rest upon the person contesting such probation or rejection of the will.
[ 1965 c 145 s 11.24.030. Prior: 1917 c 156 s 17; RRS s 1387.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: Estill v. Sisters of Charity, 479 P.2d 1 (Wash. 1970).
Estill v. Sisters of Charity, 479 P.2d 1 (Wash. 1970). “RCW 11.24.030 provides that under those circumstances the will is presumed to be valid, and the burden is upon the contestants to prove the contrary by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.”
Mueller v. Wells, 367 P.3d 580 (Wash. 2016). “RCW 11.24.030. Nevertheless, a will executed by a person with testamentary capacity may be invalidated if “undue influence” existed at the time of the testamentary act.”
In Re Est. of Esala, 559 P.2d 592 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977). “Resolution of this appeal essentially requires a determination of whether the evidence supports a finding of undue influence.”
In Re the Est. of Peters, 264 P.2d 1109 (Wash. 1953). “The test of testamentary capacity, as frequently stated by this court, is whether, at the time the will was executed, the testator had sufficient mind and memory to understand the transaction in which he is then engaged, to comprehend generally the nature and extent of the…”
Bowechop v. Bowechop, 764 P.2d 657 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “See In re Estate of Campbell, 47 Wn.2d 610, 613 , 288 P.”
In Re the Est. of Hastings, 484 P.2d 442 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). “RCW 11.24.030. We think that the trial court well exercised its discretion in refusing to award costs to respondent under RCW 11.”
In Re Mayer's Est., 260 P.2d 888 (Wash. 1953). “[3] Where a will rational upon its face has been admitted to probate, our statute, RCW 11.24.030 [ cf. Rem. Rev. Stat., § 1387], imposes upon those who contest its legal force the burden of proving its invalidity.”
Gullilstad v. Kromm, 260 P.2d 888 (Wash. 1953). “Where a will rational upon its face has been admitted to probate, our statute, RCW 11.24.030 [cf. Rem. Rev. Stat., § 1387], imposes upon those who contest its legal force the burden of proving its invalidity.”
In re Est. of Barnes (Wash. 2016). “RCW 11.24.030. Nevertheless, a will executed by a person with testamentary capacity may be invalidated if "undue influence" existed at the time of the testamentary act.”
The Est. Of Mary-louise Korsten (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “2d at 9 ; RCW 11.24.030. “Nevertheless, a will executed by a person with testamentary capacity may be invalidated if ‘undue influence’ existed at the time of the testamentary act.”
In the Matter of the Est. of: Lawrence D. Goldberg (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “) Once a will has been admitted for probate, “RCW 11.24.030 provides that . . . the will is presumed to be valid, and the burden is upon the contestants to prove the contrary by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.”
In Re Terri Beede, App. V. Nicholas Aldrich, Sr., Res.Est. Of Michael E. Walters (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “RCW 11.24.030. However, “[a] will of a person who otherwise possesses testamentary capacity may be set aside upon a 7 No.”
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.