Wash. Rev. Code » Title 11 · Chapter 11.40
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 11.40.100 (2026)

Rejection of claim—Time limits—Notice—Compromise of claim

✓ 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 the personal representative rejects a claim, in whole or in part, the claimant must bring suit against the personal representative within thirty days after notification of rejection or the claim is forever barred. The personal representative shall notify the claimant of the rejection and file an affidavit with the court showing the notification and the date of the notification. The personal representative shall notify the claimant of the rejection by personal service or certified mail addressed to the claimant or the claimant's agent, if applicable, at the address stated in the claim. The date of service or of the postmark is the date of notification. The notification must advise the claimant that the claimant must bring suit in the proper court against the personal representative within thirty days after notification of rejection or the claim will be forever barred.
(2) The personal representative may, before or after rejection of any claim, compromise the claim, whether due or not, absolute or contingent, liquidated, or unliquidated, if it appears to the personal representative that the compromise is in the best interests of the estate.
[ 1997 c 252 s 16; 1974 ex.s. c 117 s 47; 1965 c 145 s 11.40.100. Prior: 1917 c 156 s 116; RRS s 1486; prior: Code 1881 s 1476; 1854 p 281 s 88.]

Notes:

Application—1997 c 252 ss 1-73: See note following RCW 11.02.005.
Application, construction—Severability—Effective date—1974 ex.s. c 117: See RCW 11.02.080 and notes following.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Vaux-Michel v. Simmons, 315 P.3d 579 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Vaux-Michel v. Simmons, 315 P.3d 579 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 26× “Vaux-Michel’s claim within thirty days of notice of the claim, RCW 11.40.100, and then failed to reject or allow, in part or in whole, Ms.”
Sloans v. Berry, 358 P.3d 426 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “But the mistake does not require dismissal if, as in the present case, the action is brought against the estate within the 30-day deadline for establishing a creditor’s claim as provided in RCW 11.40.100. *371 ¶2 Lula Mae Hunter executed her will on January 31, 1989.”
Witt v. Young, 275 P.3d 1218 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 6× “010, because Witt failed to comply with RCW 11.40.100(1) 2 when she filed suit more than 30 days after the Estate rejected her creditor’s claim.”
Johnston v. Von Houck, 150 Wash. App. 894 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 16× “¶5 On July 17, 2007, Von Houck moved for summary judgment, asking the trial court to dismiss Johnston’s suit because she had not complied with RCW 11.40.100. The trial court denied Von Houck’s motion, concluding in a memorandum opinion that Mr.”
Johnston v. Von Houck, 209 P.3d 548 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 19× “His notice advised her that under RCW 11.40.100, she had to commence a lawsuit concerning the claim within 30 days after notification of rejection of the creditor's claim.”
Sutton v. Hirvonen, 775 P.2d 448 (Wash. 1989). “RCW 11.40.100 requires substitution of "the personal representative.”
Barker v. Mora, 764 P.2d 1014 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “Petrarca allowed substitution under CR 25 even though the substitution did not occur within the 90 days required under former RCW 11.40.100. That statute required that if a defendant died while an action was pending against him, the plaintiff must move for substitution of the…”
In Re Est. of Peterson, 9 P.3d 845 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “RCW 11.40.100(1). The Contestants failed to do so.”
Petrarca v. Halligan, 522 P.2d 827 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 5× “The personal representative argues the court has no jurisdiction to substitute her for the deceased inasmuch as respondents failed to serve the motion to substitute within the 90 days following publication of the first notice to creditors provided for by RCW 11.40.100: Action…”
In Re Est. Of T. Mark Stover Teresa Vaux-michel, Resp/cr-app. v. Anne Simmons, App./cr-resp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 28× “Vaux-Michel's claim within thirty days of notice of the claim, RCW 11.40.100, and then failed to reject or allow, in part or in whole, Ms.”
Ianicelli v. Peterson, 9 P.3d 845 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “RCW 11.40.100(1). The Contestants failed to do so.”
Porter v. Boisso, 354 P.3d 892 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “RCW 11.40.100. The statute provides that the personal representative’s notification of rejection “must advise the claimant that the claimant must bring suit in the proper court against the personal representative within thirty days.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.40.100(1) — 11 cases
Vaux-Michel v. Simmons, 315 P.3d 579 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “Vaux-Michel’s claim within thirty days of notice of the claim, RCW 11.40.100, and then failed to reject or allow, in part or in whole, Ms.”
Witt v. Young, 275 P.3d 1218 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “010, because Witt failed to comply with RCW 11.40.100(1) 2 when she filed suit more than 30 days after the Estate rejected her creditor’s claim.”
Johnston v. Von Houck, 150 Wash. App. 894 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “¶5 On July 17, 2007, Von Houck moved for summary judgment, asking the trial court to dismiss Johnston’s suit because she had not complied with RCW 11.40.100. The trial court denied Von Houck’s motion, concluding in a memorandum opinion that Mr.”
Sloans v. Berry, 358 P.3d 426 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “But the mistake does not require dismissal if, as in the present case, the action is brought against the estate within the 30-day deadline for establishing a creditor’s claim as provided in RCW 11.40.100. *371 ¶2 Lula Mae Hunter executed her will on January 31, 1989.”
In Re Est. of Peterson, 9 P.3d 845 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “RCW 11.40.100(1). The Contestants failed to do so.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.40.100(l) — 1 case
Vaux-Michel v. Simmons, 315 P.3d 579 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “Vaux-Michel’s claim within thirty days of notice of the claim, RCW 11.40.100, and then failed to reject or allow, in part or in whole, Ms.”
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.