Wash. Rev. Code » Title 11 · Chapter 11.96A

Wash. Rev. Code § 11.96A.110

Notice in judicial proceedings under this title requiring notice

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Subject to RCW 11.96A.160, in all judicial proceedings under this title that require notice, the notice must be personally served on or mailed to all parties or the parties' legal or virtual representatives and to any other persons to whom notice may be required under applicable law at least twenty days before the hearing on the petition unless a different period is provided by statute or ordered by the court. The date of service shall be determined under the rules of civil procedure. Notwithstanding the foregoing, notice that is provided in an electronic transmission and electronically transmitted complies with this section if the party receiving notice has previously consented in a record delivered to the party giving notice to receiving notice by electronic transmission. Consent to receive notice by electronic transmission may be revoked at any time by a record delivered to the party giving notice. Consent is deemed revoked if the party giving notice is unable to electronically transmit two consecutive notices given in accordance with the consent.
(2) Proof of the service, mailing, or electronic delivery required in this section must be made by affidavit or declaration filed at or before the hearing.
(3) For the purposes of this title, the terms "electronic transmission" and "electronically transmitted" have the same meaning as set forth in RCW 23B.01.400.
[ 2021 c 140 s 4019; 2011 c 327 s 8; 1999 c 42 s 304.]

Notes:

Application—Effective date—2011 c 327: See notes following RCW 11.103.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2014–2025 · leading case: In re the Estate of Bernard
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Estate of Bernard (2014) washctapp · cites it 2× “Specifically, the Linger Beneficiaries argue that they were entitled to notice under RCW 11.96A.110 and that their signatures were required to create a TEDRA agreement under RCW 11.”
In Re The Estate Of Darrel R. Bryant (2025) washctapp · cites it 3× “Cadranell also argues Russell’s and Kenneth’s legal representatives received electronic notice of his co-appointment as RCW 11.96A.110(1) allows. That statute provides: [I]n all judicial proceedings under [Title 11] that require notice, the notice must be personally served on or…”
In Re Estate Of: J. Thomas Bernard (2014) washctapp · cites it 2× “Specifically, the Linger Beneficiaries argue that they were entitled to notice under RCW 11.96A.110 and that their signatures were required to create a TEDRA agreement under RCW 11.”
Sharon D. Rose, Appellant/cross-resp. V John C. Zimmerman, Jr., Respondents/cross-app. (2016) washctapp “18 RCW 11.96A.070(1)(a) provides that “a beneficiary of an express trust may not commence a proceeding against a trustee for breach of trust more than three years after the date a report was delivered in the manner provided in RCW 11.”
In Re The: Verah Landon Testamentary Trust (2018) washctapp “030(5)(0 RCW 11.96A.110 requires that a party commencing a TEDRA action serve notice on all parties at least 20 days before a TEDRA petition is heard.”
Thomas & Marie Gillespie v. Valerie Gillespie & James Eeckhoudt (2020) washctapp “petition after due notice as required in RCW 11.96A.110, the court may, for good cause shown, order the personal representative to deliver to the petitioner the report for any period not covered by a previous report.”
Gilbert Miller Testamentary Credit Shelter Trust v. Estate Of Mary E Miller (2020) washctapp “070 provides, in pertinent part: (1)(a) A beneficiary of an express trust may not commence a proceeding against a trustee for breach of trust more than three years after the date a report was delivered in the manner provided in RCW 11.96A.110 to the beneficiary or to a…”
Jacob Hamblen v. Gregory Hamblen (2024) washctapp “Seibly that he had obtained dates for the initial TEDRA hearing, and asked if he would consent to a September 7, 2022 hearing, even though it was less than the 20-day notice required by RCW 11.96A.110. Mr. Seibly did not respond.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.96A.110(1) — 1 case
In Re The Estate Of Darrel R. Bryant (2025) washctapp “Cadranell also argues Russell’s and Kenneth’s legal representatives received electronic notice of his co-appointment as RCW 11.96A.110(1) allows. That statute provides: [I]n all judicial proceedings under [Title 11] that require notice, the notice must be personally served on or…”
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.