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

Wash. Rev. Code § 11.28.250 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Whenever the court has reason to believe that any personal representative has wasted, embezzled, or mismanaged, or is about to waste, or embezzle the property of the estate committed to his or her charge, or has committed, or is about to commit a fraud upon the estate, or is incompetent to act, or is permanently removed from the state, or has wrongfully neglected the estate, or has neglected to perform any acts as such personal representative, or for any other cause or reason which to the court appears necessary, it shall have power and authority, after notice and hearing to revoke such letters. The manner of the notice and of the service of the same and of the time of hearing shall be wholly in the discretion of the court, and if the court for any such reasons revokes such letters the powers of such personal representative shall at once cease, and it shall be the duty of the court to immediately appoint some other personal representative, as in this title provided.
[ 2010 c 8 s 2020; 1965 c 145 s 11.28.250. Prior: 1917 c 156 s 74; RRS s 1444; prior: Code 1881 s 1414; 1863 p 218 s 112; 1860 p 186 s 114.]

Notes:

Absentee estates, removal of trustee: RCW 11.80.060.
Accounting on revocation of letters: RCW 11.28.290.
Cancellation of letters of administration: RCW 11.28.160.
Effect on compensation of personal representative who fails to discharge duties: RCW 11.48.210.
Notice to creditors when personal representative removed—Limit tolled by vacancy: RCW 11.40.150.
Revocation of letters
by discovery of will: RCW 11.28.150.
upon conviction of crime or becoming of unsound mind: RCW 11.36.010.
Successor personal representative: RCW 11.28.280.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1955–2025 · leading case: Jones v. Jones, 152 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jones v. Jones, 152 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 9× “070, all of the grounds listed in RCW 11.28.250 are incorporated into the nonintervention statutory scheme.”
In Re Est. of Jones, 93 P.3d 147 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 9× “070, all of the grounds listed in RCW 11.28.250 are incorporated into the nonintervention statutory scheme.”
Jones v. Jones, 116 Wash. App. 353 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 11× “They alleged that Russell failed to execute his trust by neglecting his duties and mismanaging the estate. The petition conferred upon the court the jurisdiction to inquire.”
Rathbone v. Est. of Rathbone (In Re Est. of Rathbone), 412 P.3d 1283 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 4× “We held that the superior court's authority allowed it to decide if the personal representative had faithfully discharged his duties pursuant to that statute and under RCW 11.28.250, limiting the court's authority to resolve only the issue of misconduct under the statute.”
In the Matter of the Est. of: K. Wendell Reugh, 447 P.3d 544 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 10× “070 addresses removal of a personal representative with nonintervention powers: If any personal representative who has been granted nonintervention powers fails to execute his or her trust faithfully or is subject to removal for any reason specified in RCW 11.28.250 as now or…”
In Re the Estates of Aaberg, 607 P.2d 1227 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 4× “070 provides, inter alia, that should the executor become subject to removal for any reason specified in RCW 11.28.250, the court may, within its discretion, remove the executor and appoint a successor.”
In Re the Est. of Ardell, 980 P.2d 771 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “Romary presented a prima facie case for removal and whether the court’s grounds for removal were *718 valid.”
In Re the Est. of Lowe, 361 P.3d 789 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “RCW 11.28.250 provides: Whenever the court has reason to believe that any personal representative has wasted, embezzled, or mismanaged, or is about to waste, or embezzle the property ofthe estate committed to his or her charge, or has committed, or is about to commit a fraud…”
In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Vetter, 711 P.2d 284 (Wash. 1985). · cites it 2× “Conversely, RCW 11.28.250 states that when an executor or administrator has been removed, his powers cease at once.”
In Re Est. of Jones, 67 P.3d 1113 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 11× “That is, the removal petition authorized the court to conduct a hearing to determine whether or not good cause had been shown for the court to reassume jurisdiction over the administration of this estate.”
Trask v. Butler, 872 P.2d 1080 (Wash. 1994). “070; RCW 11.28.250. The multifactor balancing test also requires that we evaluate public policy before finding a duty to a third party.”
In the Matter of Est. of Bobbitt, 806 P.2d 254 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “070 provides: "If any personal representative who has been granted nonintervention powers fails to execute his trust faithfully or is subject to removal for any reason specified in RCW 11.28.250 as now or hereafter amended, upon petition of any unpaid creditor of the estate who…”
Show all 39 citing cases →
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.