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

Wash. Rev. Code § 11.96A.220 (2026)

Binding agreement

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
RCW 11.96A.210 through 11.96A.250 shall be applicable to the resolution of any matter, as defined by RCW 11.96A.030, other than matters subject to chapter 11.130 RCW, or a trust for a minor or other incapacitated person created at its inception by the judgment or decree of a court unless the judgment or decree provides that RCW 11.96A.210 through 11.96A.250 shall be applicable. If all parties agree to a resolution of any such matter, then the agreement shall be evidenced by a written agreement signed by all parties. Subject to the provisions of RCW 11.96A.240, the written agreement shall be binding and conclusive on all persons interested in the estate, trust, nonprobate asset, other property passing at death, or custodial property. The agreement shall identify the subject matter of the dispute and the parties. If the agreement or a memorandum of the agreement is to be filed with the court under RCW 11.96A.230, the agreement may, but need not, include provisions specifically addressing jurisdiction, governing law, the waiver of notice of the filing as provided in RCW 11.96A.230, and the discharge of any special representative who has acted with respect to the agreement.
If a party who virtually represents another under RCW 11.96A.120 signs the agreement, then the party's signature constitutes the signature of all persons whom the party virtually represents, and all the virtually represented persons shall be bound by the agreement.
[ 2021 c 140 s 4021; (2021 c 140 s 4020 expired January 1, 2022); 2020 c 312 s 718; 1999 c 42 s 402.]

Notes:

Effective date—2021 c 140 s 4021: "Section 4021 of this act takes effect January 1, 2022." [ 2021 c 140 s 4029.]
Expiration date—2021 c 140 s 4020: "Section 4020 of this act expires January 1, 2022." [ 2021 c 140 s 4028.]
Effective dates—2020 c 312: See note following RCW 11.130.915.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 2008–2019 · leading case: In re the Est. of Bernard, 332 P.3d 480 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Est. of Bernard, 332 P.3d 480 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “110 and that their signatures were required to create a TEDRA agreement under RCW 11.96A.220. They are again wrong. ¶110 RCW 11.”
Becker v. White, 298 P.3d 720 (Wash. 2013). “RCW 11.96A.220. That agreement is then “binding and conclusive on all persons interested in the estate or trust.”
Foster v. Gilliam, 268 P.3d 945 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “041 or by agreement of the parties under RCW 11.96A.220; or (iii) the time of termination of the trust or the trustee's repudiation of the trust.”
August v. US Bancorp, 190 P.3d 86 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “041 or by agreement of the parties under RCW 11.96A.220; or (iii) the time of termination of the trust or the trustee's repudiation of the trust.”
August v. U.S. Bancorp, 146 Wash. App. 328 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “041 or by agreement of the parties under RCW 11.96A.220; or (iii) the time of termination of the trust or the trustee’s repudiation of the trust.”
Grondal v. United States, 682 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (E.D. Wash. 2010). · cites it 2× “Settlement agreements entered under TEDRA, RCW 11.96A.220, are “binding and conclusive on all persons interested in the estate or trust.”
Foster v. Gilliam, 165 Wash. App. 33 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “041 or by agreement of the parties under RCW 11.96A.220; or (iii) the time of termination of the trust or the trustee’s repudiation of the trust.”
In Re The Est. Of Darlene B. Snider (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 5× “Snider’s husband Bradley Milligan argues that the Croggs did not properly provide an adequate record for review and improperly made arguments that cannot now be appealed.”
In Re Est. Of: J. Thomas Bernard (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “110 and that their signatures were required to create a TEDRA agreement under RCW 11.96A.220. They are again wrong. RCW 11.”
In Re: The Richard C. Sweezy Trust Of 1990 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 11.96A.220. If the parties file the written agreement with a court, it becomes the equivalent of a final court order binding all interested parties.”
Frederick A. Graham v. Bank Of Am., N.a. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “The overwhelmingly likely outcome of that method is that money will be 14 Under TEDRA, if all parties agree to a resolution of a matter related to a trust or an estate, the parties can settle the matter by signing a written agreement.”
Performance Constr., Llc v. Change Investments & Cascades Concepts (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “Performance argues that the July 21, 2016, TEDRA agreement is a correct interpretation of the Trust, and under the agreement the Property was subject to the spendthrift provision and remained in the Trust.”
Show all 16 citing 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.