Wash. Rev. Code § 11.68.070
Procedure when personal representative recreant to trust or subject to removal
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1)(a) A party, as defined in RCW 11.96A.030, may petition the court under chapter 11.96A RCW for a determination that a personal representative:
(i) Has breached a fiduciary duty;
(ii) Has exceeded the personal representative's authority;
(iii) Has abused the personal representative's discretion in exercising a power;
(iv) Has otherwise failed to execute the trust faithfully;
(v) Has violated a statute or common law affecting the estate; or
(vi) Is subject to removal for a reason specified in RCW 11.28.250.
(b) The petition submitted under (a) of this subsection must allege facts in support of the claim and must be verified or be supported by an affidavit showing facts in support of the claim.
(2) If the court finds that the personal representative has committed one or more of the acts listed in subsection (1)(a) of this section, the court may order such remedy in law or in equity as it deems appropriate. The remedy may include, but not be limited to, awarding money damages, surcharging the personal representative, directing the personal representative to take a specific action, restricting the powers of the personal representative, removing the personal representative and appointing a successor, and awarding fees and costs under RCW 11.96A.150. If the court restricts the powers of the personal representative, it shall endorse the words "powers restricted" upon the original order granting the personal representative nonintervention powers and upon the letters testamentary or of administration together with the date of the endorsement.
Notes:
Application—2021 c 140 ss 4003-4017, 4023, 4024, and 4026: See note following RCW 11.48.130.
Application, effective date—Severability—1977 ex.s. c 234: See notes following RCW 11.20.020.
Application, construction—Severability—Effective date—1974 ex.s. c 117: See RCW 11.02.080 and notes following.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 54
cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: In Re Estate of Jones
In Re Estate of Jones (2004)
“The appellate court reinstated him as the personal representative holding the trial court lacked the specific legal grounds for his removal listed in RCW 11.68.070 and 11.28.250. We construe RCW 11.”
Jones v. Jones (2004)
“The appellate court reinstated him as the personal representative holding the trial court lacked the specific legal grounds for his removal listed in RCW 11.68.070 and 11.28.250. We construe RCW 11-.”
Rathbone v. Estate of Rathbone (In Re Estate of Rathbone) (2018)
“The trial court held it had the authority to construe the will under RCW 11.68.070 and, in the alternative, TEDRA itself gave the trial court authority to construe the will.”
In Re Estate of Kerr (1998)
“140, [1] courts may award discretionary attorneys' fees in removal proceedings or whether that provision is inapplicable because the specific section of RCW 11.68.070 [2] relating to removal of a personal representative is the exclusive authority for award of attorneys' fees.”
Bennett v. Ruegg (1998)
“140, 1 courts may award discretionary attorneys’ fees in removal proceedings or whether that provision is inapplicable because the specific section of RCW 11.68.070 2 relating to removal of a personal representative is the exclusive authority for award of attorneys’ fees.”
In the Matter of the Estate of: K. Wendell Reugh (2019)
“During the argument, the co-personal representatives never contended that the court lacked authority to remove them because of their nonintervention powers or because the Community Foundation did not qualify under RCW 11.68.070 as a party able to remove a personal representative.”
Jones v. Jones (2003)
“RCW 11.68.070. Under the probate statutes in effect at the relevant times here, a nonintervention personal representative was not required to provide interim accountings to the estate beneficiaries.”
In Re the Estate of Ardell (1999)
“Romary filed a petition under RCW 11.68.070 seeking revocation of Mr. Chatham’s letters testamentary and his nonintervention powers, removal of him as personal representative and an accounting.”
In Re the Estates of Aaberg (1980)
“Carlton petitioned the Superior Court, under RCW 11.68.070, seeking revocation of the executor's letters testamentary or restriction of his nonintervention powers.”
In Re Estate of Jones (2003)
“RCW 11.68.070. Under the probate statutes in effect at the relevant times here, a nonintervention personal representative was not required to provide interim accountings to the estate beneficiaries.”
In the Matter of Estate of Bobbitt (1991)
“Unlike RCW 11.68.070 and its predecessor, former RCW 11.”
In Re the Estate of Lowe (2015)
“250,' RCW 11.68.070 allows the court to intervene and remove or restrict the powers of a nonintervention personal representative.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.68.070(1)(a) — 1 case
Estate Of Michael Cohen (2023)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.68.070(1)(a)(i) — 1 case
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.68.070(1)(a)(vi) — 1 case
Estate Of Michael Cohen (2023)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.68.070(2) — 2 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.