Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 11.98.039 (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) Where a vacancy occurs in the office of the trustee and there is a successor trustee who is willing to serve as trustee and (a) is named in the governing instrument as successor trustee or (b) has been selected to serve as successor trustee under the procedure established in the governing instrument for the selection of a successor trustee, the outgoing trustee, or any other interested party, must give notice of such vacancy, whether arising because of the trustee's resignation or because of any other reason, and of the successor trustee's agreement to serve as trustee, to each permissible distributee. The successor trustee named in the governing instrument or selected pursuant to the procedure therefor established in the governing instrument is entitled to act as trustee except for good cause or disqualification. The successor trustee is deemed to have accepted the trusteeship as of the effective date of the discharge of the predecessor trustee as provided in RCW 11.98.041.
(2) Where a vacancy exists or occurs in the office of the trustee and there is no successor trustee who is named in the governing instrument or who has been selected to serve as successor trustee under the procedure established in the governing instrument for the selection of a successor trustee, and who is willing to serve as trustee, then all parties with an interest in the trust may agree to a nonjudicial change of the trustee under RCW 11.96A.220. The successor trustee is deemed to have accepted the trusteeship as of the effective date of the discharge of the predecessor trustee as provided in RCW 11.98.041 or, in circumstances where there is no predecessor trustee, as of the effective date of the trustee's appointment.
(3) When there is a desire to name one or more cotrustees to serve with the existing trustee, then all parties with an interest in the trust may agree to the nonjudicial addition of one or more cotrustees under RCW 11.96A.220. The additional cotrustee is deemed to have accepted the trusteeship as of the effective date of the cotrustee's appointment.
(4) Unless subsection (1), (2), or (3) of this section applies, any beneficiary of a trust, the trustor, if alive, or the trustee may petition the superior court having jurisdiction for the appointment or change of a trustee or cotrustee under the procedures provided in RCW 11.96A.080 through 11.96A.200: (a) Whenever the office of trustee becomes vacant; (b) upon filing of a petition of resignation by a trustee; or (c) for any other reasonable cause.
(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term fiduciary includes both trustee and personal representative.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in the governing instrument, a successor fiduciary, absent actual knowledge of a breach of fiduciary duty: (i) Is not liable for any act or omission of a predecessor fiduciary and is not obligated to inquire into the validity or propriety of any such act or omission; (ii) is authorized to accept as conclusively accurate any accounting or statement of assets tendered to the successor fiduciary by a predecessor fiduciary; and (iii) is authorized to receipt only for assets actually delivered and has no duty to make further inquiry as to undisclosed assets of the trust or estate.
(b) Nothing in this section relieves a successor fiduciary from liability for retaining improper investments, nor does this section in any way bar the successor fiduciary, trust beneficiaries, or other party in interest from bringing an action against a predecessor fiduciary arising out of the acts or omissions of the predecessor fiduciary, nor does it relieve the successor fiduciary of liability for its own acts or omissions except as specifically stated or authorized in this section.
(6) A change of trustee to a foreign trustee does not change the situs of the trust. Transfer of situs of a trust to another jurisdiction requires compliance with RCW 11.98.005 and RCW 11.98.045 through 11.98.055.
[ 2013 c 272 s 12; 2011 c 327 s 21; 2005 c 97 s 13; 1999 c 42 s 618; 1985 c 30 s 44. Prior: 1984 c 149 s 72; 1959 c 124 s 5. Formerly RCW 30.99.050.]

Notes:

Application2013 c 272: See note following RCW 11.98.002.
ApplicationEffective date2011 c 327: See notes following RCW 11.103.020.
Effective date1999 c 42: See RCW 11.96A.902.
Short titleApplicationPurposeSeverability1985 c 30: See RCW 11.02.900 through 11.02.903.
SeverabilityEffective dates1984 c 149: See notes following RCW 11.02.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1986–2024 · leading case: In Re Est. of Ehlers, 911 P.2d 1017 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996).
In Re Est. of Ehlers, 911 P.2d 1017 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “The most compelling argument advanced by Loraine is that Vera’s distribution of property to herself *761 over the objections of another beneficiary proves a conflict of interest justifying her removal as trustee.”
Bartlett v. Betlach, 146 P.3d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “" RCW 11.98.039(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). “” RCW 11.98.039(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 Stevens, 971 P.2d 58 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “5 of the trust agreement, nor did it comply with the requirements of RCW 11.98.039. Knight further asserted that the Surviving Schedule C differs from the Schedule C that she saw at the time she executed the trust as the alternate cotrustee.”
In Re Est. of Stevens, 971 P.2d 58 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “5 of the trust agreement, nor did it comply with the requirements of RCW 11.98.039. Knight further asserted that the Surviving Schedule C differs from the Schedule C that she saw at the time she executed the trust as the alternate co-trustee.”
Porter v. Porter, 726 P.2d 459 (Wash. 1986). “The court, however, made no specific finding of fact to support that conclusion. We nevertheless find that the trial court properly removed Karen under the following analysis: A trustee may be removed by a superior court and a successor trustee appointed for reasonable cause.”
Waits v. Hamlin, 776 P.2d 1003 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). “A trustee may be removed and a successor appointed for reasonable cause, RCW 11.98.039, which may include conflict of interest between the trustee beneficiary and the other trust beneficiaries.”
In Re Joanne K Blankenship Survivor's Trust (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3× “He requested the court: (1) conclude that he is a beneficiary of the Trust and the Survivor’s Trust; (2) conclude that he has a right to receive an accounting and report of the Survivor’s Trust annually under the CR 2A; (3) conclude that he has standing to petition for the…”
Est. of Lester J. Kile (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “RCW 11.98.039(4); Ehlers, 80 Wn. App. at 761 .”
In Re The Matter Of: The Bernice K. Price-cameron Trust (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “The Trial Court’s Dismissal Ruling Turning to the merits of the appeal, Marcus argues that the trial court erred when it dismissed his petition to remove Antoinette as trustee and to order the Trust to perform an accounting.”
Marcus Price v. Antoinette S. Price (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “RCW 11.98.039(4). Breach of fiduciary duty, a conflict of interest between the trustee and the beneficiary, or bad will generated by litigation are examples of reasonable cause to remove a trustee.”
Lanzce Douglass v. Harley C. Douglass (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “” RCW 11.98.039(4)(c); see Ehlers, 80 Wn. App.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.98.039(3) — 1 case
In Re Est. of Ehlers, 911 P.2d 1017 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “The most compelling argument advanced by Loraine is that Vera’s distribution of property to herself *761 over the objections of another beneficiary proves a conflict of interest justifying her removal as trustee.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.98.039(4) — 6 cases
Bartlett v. Betlach, 146 P.3d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “" RCW 11.98.039(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). “” RCW 11.98.039(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 Joanne K Blankenship Survivor's Trust (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “He requested the court: (1) conclude that he is a beneficiary of the Trust and the Survivor’s Trust; (2) conclude that he has a right to receive an accounting and report of the Survivor’s Trust annually under the CR 2A; (3) conclude that he has standing to petition for the…”
Est. of Lester J. Kile (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “RCW 11.98.039(4); Ehlers, 80 Wn. App. at 761 .”
In Re The Matter Of: The Bernice K. Price-cameron Trust (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “The Trial Court’s Dismissal Ruling Turning to the merits of the appeal, Marcus argues that the trial court erred when it dismissed his petition to remove Antoinette as trustee and to order the Trust to perform an accounting.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.98.039(4)(c) — 1 case
Lanzce Douglass v. Harley C. Douglass (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “” RCW 11.98.039(4)(c); see Ehlers, 80 Wn. App.”
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.