Wash. Rev. Code » Title 11 · Chapter 11.84
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 11.84.160 (2026)

Abuser determination—Evidence factors

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) In determining whether a person is an abuser for purposes of this chapter, the court must find by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that:
(a) The decedent was a vulnerable adult at the time the alleged financial exploitation took place; and
(b) The conduct constituting financial exploitation was willful action or willful inaction causing injury to the property of the vulnerable adult.
(2) A finding of abuse by the department of social and health services is not admissible for any purpose in any claim or proceeding under this chapter.
(3) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, evidence of financial exploitation is admissible if it is not inadmissible pursuant to the rules of evidence.
[ 2009 c 525 s 16.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2011–2026 · leading case: In re the Est. of Haviland, 301 P.3d 31 (Wash. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Est. of Haviland, 301 P.3d 31 (Wash. 2013). “Trial judges are empowered to disinherit an abuser if they find “by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that: (a) The decedent was a vulnerable adult at the time the alleged financial exploitation took place; and (b) The conduct constituting financial exploitation was willful…”
In Re The Est. Of Richard D. Kolesar, 532 P.3d 170 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “RCW 11.84.160(1)(a). 14 Petitioners argued to the trial court that Marsh’s motion should have been continued so that Petitioners could take Marsh’s deposition.”
Haviland v. Haviland, 251 P.3d 289 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “¶16 We reverse the trial court and remand for further proceedings. Dwyer, C.J., and Schindler, J.”
In Re Est. of Haviland, 251 P.3d 289 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “Because we conclude that the statute applies prospectively, we need not address the trial court's rulings that the retroactive application of the amendments here is improper.”
In The Matter Of The Est. Of: Calvin H. Evans, Sr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “He also observed that "RCW 11.84.160 gives evidence factors for determining an abuser.”
In Re The Est. Of Curtis E. Carlson, David Wands, Dds, Resp v. Dona Seely, Dds, Pet (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “030, which provides that either spouse, acting alone, may manage and control community property,” Seely argues that “the transfer of community funds from an account managed by one spouse to an account managed by the other spouse can not constitute an ‘injury’ under RCW…”
Shelley Erickson, V. Melanie Kelliainen (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “3d 170 (2023) (citing RCW 11.84.160(1)(a)). Summary judgment dismissal of these claims was proper.”
In re Est. of Haviland (Wash. 2013). “RCW 11.84.160(1). 4 1 recognize that no case has explicitly found that the "the willful and unlawful killing of any other person" is in fact the triggering event for application of the pre-2009 slayer statute, but my review of the case law persuades me it is fairly implied.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.84.160(1) — 3 cases
In re the Est. of Haviland, 301 P.3d 31 (Wash. 2013). “Trial judges are empowered to disinherit an abuser if they find “by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that: (a) The decedent was a vulnerable adult at the time the alleged financial exploitation took place; and (b) The conduct constituting financial exploitation was willful…”
Haviland v. Haviland, 251 P.3d 289 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “¶16 We reverse the trial court and remand for further proceedings. Dwyer, C.J., and Schindler, J.”
In re Est. of Haviland (Wash. 2013). “RCW 11.84.160(1). 4 1 recognize that no case has explicitly found that the "the willful and unlawful killing of any other person" is in fact the triggering event for application of the pre-2009 slayer statute, but my review of the case law persuades me it is fairly implied.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.84.160(1)(a) — 2 cases
In Re The Est. Of Richard D. Kolesar, 532 P.3d 170 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “RCW 11.84.160(1)(a). 14 Petitioners argued to the trial court that Marsh’s motion should have been continued so that Petitioners could take Marsh’s deposition.”
Shelley Erickson, V. Melanie Kelliainen (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “3d 170 (2023) (citing RCW 11.84.160(1)(a)). Summary judgment dismissal of these claims was proper.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.84.160(b) — 1 case
In The Matter Of The Est. Of: Calvin H. Evans, Sr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “He also observed that "RCW 11.84.160 gives evidence factors for determining an abuser.”
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.