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

Wash. Rev. Code § 11.96A.090 (2026)

Judicial proceedings

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A judicial proceeding under this title is a special proceeding under the civil rules of court. The provisions of this title governing such actions control over any inconsistent provision of the civil rules.
(2) A judicial proceeding under this title must be commenced as a new action.
(3) Once commenced, the action may be consolidated with an existing proceeding upon the motion of a party for good cause shown, or by the court on its own motion.
(4) The procedural rules of court apply to judicial proceedings under this title only to the extent that they are consistent with this title, unless otherwise provided by statute or ordered by the court under RCW 11.96A.020 or 11.96A.050, or other applicable rules of court.
[ 2013 c 246 s 2; 1999 c 42 s 302.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case: Carlton v. Black, 116 Wash. App. 492 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Carlton v. Black, 116 Wash. App. 492 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “Black cites RCW 11.96A.090 1 to support her contention that the regular civil rules may be freely imported into the probate statute.”
Kitsap Bank v. Denley, 312 P.3d 711 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “However, under former RCW 11.96A.090(2) (1999), “[a] judicial proceeding under this title may be commenced as a new action or as an action incidental to an existing judicial proceeding relating to the same trust or estate or nonprobate asset.”
Sloans v. Berry, 358 P.3d 426 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “RCW 11.96A.090(2), effective July 28, 2013.”
Vaux-Michel v. Simmons, 315 P.3d 579 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 11.96A.090(1) pro *562 vides, “A judicial proceeding under [Title 11 RCW] is a special proceeding under the civil rules of court.”
Griffith v. Sherry, 158 Wash. App. 69 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “On June 15, 2009, Barbara filed petitions under RCW 11.96A.090 in both estates asking that the court construe the wills as she contended and order Mark to comply.”
In Re Est. of Black, 66 P.3d 678 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “Black cites RCW 11.96A.090 [1] to support her contention that the regular civil rules may be freely imported into the probate statute.”
In Re Est. of Sherry, 240 P.3d 1182 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “On June 15, 2009, Barbara filed petitions under RCW 11.96A.090 in both estates asking that the court construe the wills as she contended, and order Mark to comply.”
Vandercook v. Reece, 120 Wash. App. 647 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “See RCW 11.96A.090, .100. Vandercook claims Freres did not object, but the record shows otherwise.”
Joe Brandmeier & Lisa Brandmeier, Apps. v. Noele Miller & Wah Investments, Inc., Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 7× “” RCW 11.96A.090(1). As such, the statutory provisions of TEDRA “control over any inconsistent provision of the civil rules.”
In Re The Est. Of Lillian June Dust (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 6× “” RCW 11.96A.090(2). “Once commenced, the action may be consolidated with an existing proceeding.”
Est. Of Mildred G. Johnson (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “Effective July 28, 2013, RCW 11.96A.090 (2) requires that “[a] judicial proceeding under this title must be commenced as a new action.”
In Re The Est. Of Robert Carlton Gilkey (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “RCW 11.96A.090(1). A proceeding under TEDRA must be commenced as a new action; after the proceeding has been commenced, it may be consolidated with an existing proceeding.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.96A.090(1) — 9 cases
Vaux-Michel v. Simmons, 315 P.3d 579 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 11.96A.090(1) pro *562 vides, “A judicial proceeding under [Title 11 RCW] is a special proceeding under the civil rules of court.”
Joe Brandmeier & Lisa Brandmeier, Apps. v. Noele Miller & Wah Investments, Inc., Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “” RCW 11.96A.090(1). As such, the statutory provisions of TEDRA “control over any inconsistent provision of the civil rules.”
In Re The Est. Of Robert Carlton Gilkey (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “RCW 11.96A.090(1). A proceeding under TEDRA must be commenced as a new action; after the proceeding has been commenced, it may be consolidated with an existing proceeding.”
In The Matter Of: The Catherine P. Davis Living Trust (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
In the Matter of the Est. of: Gary Ray Blakey (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.96A.090(2) — 16 cases
Kitsap Bank v. Denley, 312 P.3d 711 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “However, under former RCW 11.96A.090(2) (1999), “[a] judicial proceeding under this title may be commenced as a new action or as an action incidental to an existing judicial proceeding relating to the same trust or estate or nonprobate asset.”
Sloans v. Berry, 358 P.3d 426 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “RCW 11.96A.090(2), effective July 28, 2013.”
Carlton v. Black, 116 Wash. App. 492 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “Black cites RCW 11.96A.090 1 to support her contention that the regular civil rules may be freely imported into the probate statute.”
In Re Est. of Black, 66 P.3d 678 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “Black cites RCW 11.96A.090 [1] to support her contention that the regular civil rules may be freely imported into the probate statute.”
In Re The Est. Of Lillian June Dust (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “” RCW 11.96A.090(2). “Once commenced, the action may be consolidated with an existing proceeding.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.96A.090(3) — 3 cases
Joe Brandmeier & Lisa Brandmeier, Apps. v. Noele Miller & Wah Investments, Inc., Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “” RCW 11.96A.090(1). As such, the statutory provisions of TEDRA “control over any inconsistent provision of the civil rules.”
In Re The Est. Of Lillian June Dust (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “” RCW 11.96A.090(2). “Once commenced, the action may be consolidated with an existing proceeding.”
In The Matter Of The Est. Of Joseph P. Burroughs (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.96A.090(4) — 2 cases
Joe Brandmeier & Lisa Brandmeier, Apps. v. Noele Miller & Wah Investments, Inc., Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “” RCW 11.96A.090(1). As such, the statutory provisions of TEDRA “control over any inconsistent provision of the civil rules.”
In Re Est. Of: Vernon D. Hannah (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
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.