Wash. Rev. Code » Title 11 · Chapter 11.96A
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 11.96A.020 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) It is the intent of the legislature that the courts shall have full and ample power and authority under this title to administer and settle:
(a) All matters concerning the estates and assets of incapacitated, missing, and deceased persons, including matters involving nonprobate assets and powers of attorney, in accordance with this title; and
(b) All trusts and trust matters.
(2) If this title should in any case or under any circumstance be inapplicable, insufficient, or doubtful with reference to the administration and settlement of the matters listed in subsection (1) of this section, the court nevertheless has full power and authority to proceed with such administration and settlement in any manner and way that to the court seems right and proper, all to the end that the matters be expeditiously administered and settled by the court.
[ 1999 c 42 s 103.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 76 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: In re the Irrevocable Trust of McKean, 144 Wash. App. 333 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Irrevocable Trust of McKean, 144 Wash. App. 333 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “RCW 11.96A.020(1). Moreover, it provided that, if the act should in any case or under any circumstances be inapplicable, insufficient, or doubtful with reference to the administration and settlement of [trusts and trust matters], the court nevertheless has fall power and…”
In Re Irrevocable Trust of McKean, 183 P.3d 317 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “RCW 11.96A.020(1). Moreover, it provided that, if the Act: should in any case or under any circumstances be inapplicable, insufficient, or doubtful with reference to the administration and settlement of [trusts and trust matters], the court nevertheless has full power and…”
Foster v. Gilliam, 268 P.3d 945 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “RCW 11.96A.020; [15] RCW 11.96A.060. [16] The *952 right of a party to a jury trial in probate or court of equity is limited.”
Carlton v. Black, 116 Wash. App. 476 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “RCW 11.96A.020 confers plenary power on the probate court.”
In Re Est. of Black, 66 P.3d 670 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “Burns from estate funds, and the denial of her own fees from the estate. DISCUSSION PROOF OF LOST WILL The beneficiaries of the December 10, 1992 (Carlton) will challenge the summary admission to probate of the August 14, 1993 (Black) will.”
Hayes v. Hayes, 342 P.3d 1161 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “RCW 11.96A.020(1). TEDRA defines a “matter” as the “determination of any question arising in the administration of an estate or trust, or with respect to any nonprobate asset, or with respect to any other asset or property interest passing at death.”
Fitzgerald v. Mountain-West Resources, Inc., 294 P.3d 720 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “However, TEDRA gives the trial court “full and ample power and authority” to administer and settle all estate and trust matters, RCW 11.96A.020(1), “all to the end that the matters be expeditiously administered and settled by the court.”
Bartlett v. Betlach, 146 P.3d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “039(4); RCW 11.96A.020(1)(b). Reasonable cause has generally been construed as requiring a breach of fiduciary duty, a conflict of interest, or bad will generated by litigation.”
Bartlett v. Betlach, 136 Wash. App. 8 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “039(4); RCW 11.96A.020(l)(b). Reasonable cause has generally been construed as requiring a breach of fiduciary duty, a conflict of interest, or bad will generated by litigation.”
Sloans v. Berry, 358 P.3d 426 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “3 TEDRA allows any party to have a judicial proceeding for the declaration of rights or legal relations with respect to any “Matter,” as broadly defined by RCW 11.96A.020 & .030. The “Matters” here include, but are not limited to: A.”
Rathbone v. Est. of Rathbone (In Re Est. of Rathbone), 412 P.3d 1283 (Wash. 2018). “Glen relies heavily on the language of RCW 11.96A.020(1) that courts have "full and ample power" under TEDRA to administer and settle all matters concerning estates, but such an expansive construction of TEDRA would supersede, not supplement, nonintervention powers-an argument…”
In re the Estates of Jones, 287 P.3d 610 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “020(1) and (2), which provide: (1) It is the intent of the legislature that the courts shall have full and ample power and authority under this title to administer and settle: (a) All matters concerning the estates and assets of incapacitated, missing, and deceased persons,…”
Show all 76 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.96A.020(1) — 15 cases
Rathbone v. Est. of Rathbone (In Re Est. of Rathbone), 412 P.3d 1283 (Wash. 2018). “Glen relies heavily on the language of RCW 11.96A.020(1) that courts have "full and ample power" under TEDRA to administer and settle all matters concerning estates, but such an expansive construction of TEDRA would supersede, not supplement, nonintervention powers-an argument…”
In re the Estates of Jones, 287 P.3d 610 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “020(1) and (2), which provide: (1) It is the intent of the legislature that the courts shall have full and ample power and authority under this title to administer and settle: (a) All matters concerning the estates and assets of incapacitated, missing, and deceased persons,…”
In re the Irrevocable Trust of McKean, 144 Wash. App. 333 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “RCW 11.96A.020(1). Moreover, it provided that, if the act should in any case or under any circumstances be inapplicable, insufficient, or doubtful with reference to the administration and settlement of [trusts and trust matters], the court nevertheless has fall power and…”
In Re Irrevocable Trust of McKean, 183 P.3d 317 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “RCW 11.96A.020(1). Moreover, it provided that, if the Act: should in any case or under any circumstances be inapplicable, insufficient, or doubtful with reference to the administration and settlement of [trusts and trust matters], the court nevertheless has full power and…”
Hayes v. Hayes, 342 P.3d 1161 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “RCW 11.96A.020(1). TEDRA defines a “matter” as the “determination of any question arising in the administration of an estate or trust, or with respect to any nonprobate asset, or with respect to any other asset or property interest passing at death.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.96A.020(1)(a) — 13 cases
Ralph v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 343 P.3d 342 (Wash. 2014).
In Re Guardianship of McKean, 151 P.3d 223 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
In re Westall, 423 P.3d 930 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
In Re 1934 Deed to Camp Kilworth, 201 P.3d 416 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
In Re The Est. Of Robert Ridley (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.96A.020(1)(a)(b) — 1 case
In Re: Gust Rakus Credit Trust (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.96A.020(1)(b) — 5 cases
Bartlett v. Betlach, 146 P.3d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “039(4); RCW 11.96A.020(1)(b). Reasonable cause has generally been construed as requiring a breach of fiduciary duty, a conflict of interest, or bad will generated by litigation.”
Guardianship Of Cheryl Russell: Earl Russell v. Melanie Reynolds (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
In the Matter of the Est. of Clara v. Larson (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
In The Matter Of: The Catherine P. Davis Living Trust (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
In Re The Matter Of: The Bernice K. Price-cameron Trust (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.96A.020(2) — 36 cases
In re the Irrevocable Trust of McKean, 144 Wash. App. 333 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “RCW 11.96A.020(1). Moreover, it provided that, if the act should in any case or under any circumstances be inapplicable, insufficient, or doubtful with reference to the administration and settlement of [trusts and trust matters], the court nevertheless has fall power and…”
In Re Irrevocable Trust of McKean, 183 P.3d 317 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “RCW 11.96A.020(1). Moreover, it provided that, if the Act: should in any case or under any circumstances be inapplicable, insufficient, or doubtful with reference to the administration and settlement of [trusts and trust matters], the court nevertheless has full power and…”
Carlton v. Black, 116 Wash. App. 476 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “RCW 11.96A.020 confers plenary power on the probate court.”
In Re Est. of Black, 66 P.3d 670 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “Burns from estate funds, and the denial of her own fees from the estate. DISCUSSION PROOF OF LOST WILL The beneficiaries of the December 10, 1992 (Carlton) will challenge the summary admission to probate of the August 14, 1993 (Black) will.”
Hayes v. Hayes, 342 P.3d 1161 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “RCW 11.96A.020(1). TEDRA defines a “matter” as the “determination of any question arising in the administration of an estate or trust, or with respect to any nonprobate asset, or with respect to any other asset or property interest passing at death.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.96A.020(l)(a) — 6 cases
Kitsap Bank v. Denley, 312 P.3d 711 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
In re the Guardianship of Decker, 353 P.3d 669 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
In re the 1934 Deed to Camp Kilworth, 149 Wash. App. 82 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
White v. Didricksen, 358 P.3d 1222 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
In re the Guardianship of McKean, 136 Wash. App. 906 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.96A.020(l)(b) — 3 cases
Bartlett v. Betlach, 136 Wash. App. 8 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “039(4); RCW 11.96A.020(l)(b). Reasonable cause has generally been construed as requiring a breach of fiduciary duty, a conflict of interest, or bad will generated by litigation.”
In re the Est. of Wimberley, 349 P.3d 11 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
Petrie v. Petrie, 19 P.3d 443 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
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.