Your state’s pack. New issues arrive periodically on Mondays. Bookmark it. I built this for the Washington T&E solo who knows Title 11 (Washington’s own probate code, non-UPC, with nonintervention administration) cold but still loses an afternoon a week hunting the current homestead number, the Apple Health slot posture, whether the latest WSBA changes how you scope an engagement, or whether a recent Court of Appeals of Washington decision just moved the law on capacity, undue influence, or a trustee’s duties. What’s below is what mattered in Washington lately — the week’s developments and the recent rulings from the bench.
For licensed attorneys. This pack is general legal information and professional commentary for practicing attorneys — it is not legal advice, does not apply to any specific matter, and creates no attorney-client relationship. Verify every authority against the cited primary source before relying on it with a client. Published by Mike Moss, a Utah-admitted attorney, as an AI-enablement information product; it is not an offer of legal services and is not a representation that the author is admitted to practice in your jurisdiction.
Three developments from the last several weeks that I think actually matter to a Washington T&E solo. Each one has a read that lands on your practice specifically — and each one comes with the citation so you can verify the detail yourself before you use it with a client.
ESB 6347 (ch. 209, 2026 Laws; signed March 24, 2026; effective June 11, 2026) rolls back ESSB 5813 (2025): the 35% top rate applies only to deaths July 1, 2025–June 30, 2026, and the CPI-indexed $3,076,000 exclusion only to deaths January 1–June 30, 2026. For deaths on or after July 1, 2026 the applicable exclusion is a flat $3,000,000 and the top marginal rate reverts to 20%; per the session law, CPI indexing of the $3,000,000 resumes for deaths in calendar 2027 and after.
Every Washington estate plan modeled on the 2025 regime needs its numbers re-run — the one-year 35%/indexed window is closed. Update formula clauses, disclaimers, and client projections to the flat $3M/20% posture now, and note the 2027 indexing resumption in any plan that spans the boundary.
ESB 6347, ch. 209, 2026 Laws (eff. June 11, 2026), amending RCW 83.100.020, .040 · app.leg.wa.gov
HB 2445 (2026), an Attorney General-request bill, passed the Legislature (the Senate unanimously) to strengthen probate for people who die without a will. It bars a third-party probate administrator from buying any estate asset or profiting from the sale of an estate asset unless the court approves, and it raises transparency and reporting requirements so courts, heirs, and families can monitor the administration and prevent exploitation of unrepresented estates.
For a Washington solo, this is both a guardrail to point clients to and a reason to push for a will. It mainly polices predatory third-party administrators in no-will estates, but the cleanest protection against a stranger administering (and profiting from) an estate is still a valid will that names a personal representative the family trusts — use HB 2445 as the concrete example of what goes wrong when no one is named.
Washington HB 2445 (2026), AGO-request probate-integrity act · leg.wa.gov · HB 2445
The WSBA Committee on Professional Ethics released Advisory Opinion 202505 (2025), mapping seven RPC duties — competence, confidentiality, supervision, billing, candor, communication, and fees — onto lawyers’ use of generative and agentic AI. The Washington courts’ Board for Judicial Administration separately published an AI Statement of Principles.
This is an advisory opinion, not a court rule, but it is the bar’s stated read on how the existing RPCs apply to AI — treat it as the standard of care. If you use AI-assisted drafting, paper your supervision, confidentiality, and billing practices against the seven duties the opinion enumerates.
WSBA Comm. on Prof. Ethics, Advisory Op. 202505 (2025) · WSBA.ORG
Decisions that bind a Washington practitioner — Washington’s appellate courts and the federal courts covering Washington, including the U.S. Ninth Circuit — read for what actually changes how you draft, advise, and plan. Trusts and estates broadly, not Medicaid alone: wills and capacity, undue influence, fiduciary duty, trust construction, and estate recovery. One read, the holding, and the official cite.
A woman bought a property in 1997, then she and her husband quitclaimed it to his parents in 2000 for no value. The couple and their children lived in the main house while the parents lived in an in-law apartment. After the father-in-law died in 2005 the mother-in-law took the property and assured her daughter-in-law that she and her husband would inherit it. The daughter-in-law then spent about $143,000 more on the property, developing a horse farm. The couple divorced in 2017; the mother-in-law revoked her will and left the property solely to her son. The daughter-in-law sued in 2018 on several theories including unjust enrichment and filed a lis pendens. The mother-in-law died and her estate was substituted. After two failed motions and a remand, the trial court granted a third motion and cancelled the lis pendens. Division II reversed in a published opinion: the law-of-the-case doctrine barred neither side’s argument, and a claim for unjust enrichment seeking an equitable lien — where the claim rests on the plaintiff’s own resources having enhanced the value of the real property — is an action affecting title to real property under RCW 4.28.320 and RCW 4.28.328(2). Neither side got fees.
The underlying story is one of the most common in this practice: someone pours money and years into a house they were promised, the promise lives only in conversation, and the will changes. This decision does not decide who wins that fight, but it hands the improver real leverage — a lis pendens that clouds title and survives a motion to cancel, which is often what makes the case settle. Read it from both sides. If you act for the improver, plead the equitable lien and tie it explicitly to resources that enhanced the value of this parcel; the nexus is what carried the day. If you act for the estate or the devisee, understand that a cancellation motion is not the escape hatch it used to be, and that the marketability problem may outlast the merits. And the planning lesson is the cheapest of all: when a client intends to leave property to someone who is paying to improve it, put it in writing — a life estate, a written agreement, a recorded interest, or a will that says so. An assurance at the kitchen table produced eight years of litigation here.
Elizabeth M. Parman v. Estate of Ruth Marie Parman and Shawn Parman, No. 60735-2-II (Wash. Ct. App. Div. II July 14, 2026) (published) — cancellation of lis pendens reversed. · COURTS.WA.GOV · official opinion
An administrator with nonintervention powers privately sold the estate’s statutory right to redeem a foreclosed condominium to an interested third party for $15,000 before the redemption window closed. The foreclosure purchaser — who believed the redemption right was worth far more — moved to void the sale, alleging breach of fiduciary duty. A commissioner voided the sale, but the superior court reversed, finding no evidence of fraud or misconduct, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in a published opinion: under RCW 11.68.090 a nonintervention administrator may sell an estate asset in a private sale provided she acts in good faith and with honest judgment, and absent evidence of fraud or misconduct the sale will not be undone.
For Washington estate administration, nonintervention powers mean what they say — a personal representative can sell estate assets privately without court approval, and a low price alone will not void the sale; the challenger must show fraud or other misconduct, not just a better offer in hindsight. And parties contesting a fiduciary’s estate decisions should bring the challenge under TEDRA (chapter 11.96A RCW), the statute that governs these disputes.
In re Estate of Burns, No. 87795-0-I (Wash. Ct. App., Div. I May 11, 2026) — published Court of Appeals of Washington opinion — publication ordered June 23, 2026 (opinion now precedential); 37 Wn. App. 2d 1017.
This slot holds the next significant trusts-and-estates or estate-recovery decision from Washington’s appellate courts or the federal courts covering Washington. The lane reads each opinion before it lands here, and reads-and-discards matters that aren’t trusts-and-estates — criminal, family, commercial/LLC fiduciary, tax, and cases where an estate or trust is only a party. When the trailing window has no further ruling, this row says so plainly rather than inventing one.
Nothing further to re-paper from the bench this period; controlling authority is otherwise unchanged.
This week in Washington for the T&E solo with Apple Health (Medicaid) clients: the developments from the Washington State Bar Association (Real Property, Probate and Trust Section) and the Health Care Authority (Apple Health) that actually moved your practice this period — each one primary-source verified.
Bar and Medicaid changes land on different schedules and aren’t indexed by practice focus. Every item here was checked against its primary source, with the link, so you can verify before relying on it.