Wash. Rev. Code » Title 11 · Chapter 11.28
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 11.28.120 (2026)

Persons entitled to letters

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
*** CHANGE IN 2026 *** (SEE 2445.SL) ***
Administration of an estate if the decedent died intestate or if the personal representative or representatives named in the will declined or were unable to serve shall be granted to some one or more of the persons hereinafter mentioned, and they shall be respectively entitled in the following order:
(1) The surviving spouse or state registered domestic partner, or such person as he or she may request to have appointed.
(2) The next of kin in the following order: (a) Child or children; (b) father or mother; (c) brothers or sisters; (d) grandchildren; (e) nephews or nieces.
(3) The trustee named by the decedent in an inter vivos trust instrument, testamentary trustee named in the will, guardian of the decedent, conservator of the decedent, or an agent named in a durable power of attorney appointed by the decedent, if any such a fiduciary controlled or potentially controlled substantially all of the decedent's probate and nonprobate assets.
(4) One or more of the beneficiaries or transferees of the decedent's probate or nonprobate assets.
(5)(a) The director of revenue, or the director's designee, for those estates having property subject to the provisions of chapter 11.08 RCW; however, the director may waive this right.
(b) The secretary of the department of social and health services for those estates owing debts for long-term care services as defined in *RCW 74.39A.008; however the secretary may waive this right.
(6) One or more of the principal creditors.
(7) If the persons so entitled shall fail for more than forty days after the death of the decedent to present a petition for letters of administration, or if it appears to the satisfaction of the court that there is no next of kin, as above specified eligible to appointment, or they waive their right, and there are no principal creditor or creditors, or such creditor or creditors waive their right, then the court may appoint a contract service provider with the office of public guardianship and conservatorship under chapter 2.72 RCW or any suitable person to administer such estate.
[ 2020 c 312 s 405; 2019 c 215 s 5; 2007 c 156 s 28; 1995 1st sp.s. c 18 s 61; 1994 c 221 s 23; 1985 c 133 s 1; 1965 c 145 s 11.28.120. Prior: 1927 c 76 s 1; 1917 c 156 s 61; RRS s 1431; prior: Code 1881 s 1388; 1863 p 219 s 122; 1860 p 181 s 89.]

Notes:

*Reviser's note: RCW 74.39A.008 was repealed by 1997 c 392 s 530.
Effective dates—2020 c 312: See note following RCW 11.130.915.
Conflict with federal requirements—Severability—Effective date—1995 1st sp.s. c 18: See notes following RCW 74.39A.030.
Effective dates—1994 c 221: See note following RCW 11.100.035.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: Atchison v. Great W. Malting Co., 161 Wash. 2d 372 (Wash. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Atchison v. Great W. Malting Co., 161 Wash. 2d 372 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 5× “120 prioritizes the order in which intestate heirs can be appointed: the surviving spouse (or the person of the spouse’s choice), the decedent’s child or children, the decedent’s father or mother, the decedent’s siblings, the decedent’s grandchildren, and the decedent’s nephews…”
Atchison v. Great W. Malting Co., 166 P.3d 662 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 5× “120 prioritizes the order in which intestate heirs can be appointed: the surviving spouse (or the person of the spouse's choice), the decedent's child or children, the decedent's father or mother, the decedent's siblings, the decedent's grandchildren, and the decedent's nephews…”
Jones v. Jones, 152 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 2× “010 (stating that if a personal representative becomes disqualified, “the letters shall be granted to the other persons appointed therein”); see also RCW 11.28.120 (listing the order of preference for appointment if representatives named in a will are unable to serve).”
In Re Est. of Jones, 93 P.3d 147 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 2× “Here, if Russell had not been appointed as the personal representative, David would have been appointed, as he was the alternative personal representative named in the will. See RCW 11.28.010 (stating that if a personal representative becomes disqualified, "the letters shall be…”
Wagg v. Est. of Dunham, 146 Wash. 2d 63 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “PROCEDURAL HISTORY On February 12, 1999, pursuant to RCW 11.28.120, 2 Wagg filed a petition for letters of administration in Okanogan County, requesting the appointment of Thomas Benner as personal representative of the estate for the sole purpose of resolving Wagg’s personal…”
Wagg v. Est. of Dunham, 42 P.3d 968 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “PROCEDURAL HISTORY On February 12, 1999, pursuant to RCW 11.28.120, [2] Wagg filed a petition for letters of administration in Okanogan County, requesting the appointment of Thomas Benner as personal representative of the estate for the sole purpose of resolving Wagg's personal…”
Huntington v. Samaritan Hosp., 680 P.2d 58 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 2× “Bright's estate pursuant to RCW 11.28.120. Nevertheless, because proper appointment of a personal representative could be obtained, we address the statute of limitations issue in the interest of judicial economy.”
Huntington v. Samaritan Hosp., 666 P.2d 405 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “RCW 11.28.120. 2 Mr. Huntington had no authority to bring this wrongful death action; he was not duly appointed by the court.”
In Re Est. of Lyman, 503 P.2d 1127 (Wash. Ct. App. 1972). “030, conferring upon the surviving spouse the prior right to administer community property, and under RCW 11.28.120, according *953 priority to a surviving spouse to administer the estate of the deceased spouse dying intestate, there is a 40-day period in which the respective…”
In Re Est. of Wiltermood, 472 P.2d 536 (Wash. 1970). “See RCW 11.28.120. Appellant does not challenge his removal, asserting that it is to the best interests of the estate that the Old National Bank of Washington continue to serve.”
In re the Est. of Leith, 254 P.2d 490 (Wash. 1953). · cites it 3× “The statute to which they refer is RCW 11.28.120 [cf. Rem. Rev. Stat., § 1431].”
Harris v. Griffith, 413 P.3d 51 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “RCW 11.28.120(2), (7). Otherwise, a court may appoint "any suitable person" as personal representative.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.28.120(1) — 3 cases
Atchison v. Great W. Malting Co., 161 Wash. 2d 372 (Wash. 2007). “120 prioritizes the order in which intestate heirs can be appointed: the surviving spouse (or the person of the spouse’s choice), the decedent’s child or children, the decedent’s father or mother, the decedent’s siblings, the decedent’s grandchildren, and the decedent’s nephews…”
Atchison v. Great W. Malting Co., 166 P.3d 662 (Wash. 2007). “120 prioritizes the order in which intestate heirs can be appointed: the surviving spouse (or the person of the spouse's choice), the decedent's child or children, the decedent's father or mother, the decedent's siblings, the decedent's grandchildren, and the decedent's nephews…”
A. Shane Roeser v. Est. Of Kimberly Ann Blowers (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.28.120(2) — 3 cases
Harris v. Griffith, 413 P.3d 51 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “RCW 11.28.120(2), (7). Otherwise, a court may appoint "any suitable person" as personal representative.”
In Re The Est. Of: Taylor Griffith (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
Est. Of Michael Cohen (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.28.120(3) — 2 cases
Atchison v. Great W. Malting Co., 161 Wash. 2d 372 (Wash. 2007). “120 prioritizes the order in which intestate heirs can be appointed: the surviving spouse (or the person of the spouse’s choice), the decedent’s child or children, the decedent’s father or mother, the decedent’s siblings, the decedent’s grandchildren, and the decedent’s nephews…”
Atchison v. Great W. Malting Co., 166 P.3d 662 (Wash. 2007). “120 prioritizes the order in which intestate heirs can be appointed: the surviving spouse (or the person of the spouse's choice), the decedent's child or children, the decedent's father or mother, the decedent's siblings, the decedent's grandchildren, and the decedent's nephews…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.28.120(4) — 2 cases
Atchison v. Great W. Malting Co., 161 Wash. 2d 372 (Wash. 2007). “120 prioritizes the order in which intestate heirs can be appointed: the surviving spouse (or the person of the spouse’s choice), the decedent’s child or children, the decedent’s father or mother, the decedent’s siblings, the decedent’s grandchildren, and the decedent’s nephews…”
Atchison v. Great W. Malting Co., 166 P.3d 662 (Wash. 2007). “120 prioritizes the order in which intestate heirs can be appointed: the surviving spouse (or the person of the spouse's choice), the decedent's child or children, the decedent's father or mother, the decedent's siblings, the decedent's grandchildren, and the decedent's nephews…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.28.120(6) — 1 case
Est. of Garth Benjamin Peterson (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.28.120(7) — 10 cases
Atchison v. Great W. Malting Co., 161 Wash. 2d 372 (Wash. 2007). “120 prioritizes the order in which intestate heirs can be appointed: the surviving spouse (or the person of the spouse’s choice), the decedent’s child or children, the decedent’s father or mother, the decedent’s siblings, the decedent’s grandchildren, and the decedent’s nephews…”
Atchison v. Great W. Malting Co., 166 P.3d 662 (Wash. 2007). “120 prioritizes the order in which intestate heirs can be appointed: the surviving spouse (or the person of the spouse's choice), the decedent's child or children, the decedent's father or mother, the decedent's siblings, the decedent's grandchildren, and the decedent's nephews…”
Harris v. Griffith, 413 P.3d 51 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “RCW 11.28.120(2), (7). Otherwise, a court may appoint "any suitable person" as personal representative.”
Est. Of Michael Cohen (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
In Re The Est. Of: Daphne May Burns (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
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.