Washington Outlaws “Probates for Profit”

New Probate Law Passed: EHB 2445

Between 2019 and 2024, a Tacoma man named John Elliott and his business partner, Shanelle Sunde, discovered a gap in Washington probate law and decided to build a unique business model around it. Using a provision that let virtually anyone petition to administer a Washington estate of a person who died without a will in place, the pair took control of over 200 estates belonging to strangers, with most of the filings concentrated in Kitsap County.

Together, they sold at least 90 homes for a combined value above $28 million, collected outsized fees for themselves, and in several instances sold off a decedent’s personal belongings, including a Jaguar vehicle, a Rolex, and family jewelry, all before heirs even learned that probate had been opened for those estates. In October 2025, a King County Superior Court judge ordered Elliott, Sunde, and their companies to pay around $7 million in restitution and penalties. The court coined their predatory process “probates for profit”.

To combat the newly perceived loophole, the Washington Legislature responded with Engrossed House Bill 2445, which took effect June 11, 2026, and meaningfully narrowed the legal pathways that made a scheme like this possible. Below we outline what this law changed, and what it still will not protect against if your own family has no estate plan in place. If you are currently waiting on a probate to open for a parent, spouse, or loved one, unsure whether you still have time to be named personal representative, or are wondering whether an unfamiliar administrator has already filed on an estate you assumed was yours to handle, the rest of this article is written for those exact situations.

How “Probates for Profit” Worked

Washington law has long allowed a court to appoint someone other than a family member to administer an estate when no one with priority comes forward within the designated timeline. Under RCW 11.28.120, a surviving spouse, followed by children, parents, siblings, and other close relatives, have the priority (in the order they are listed) to petition for appointment as personal representative to administer the estate. Before 2026, that window lasted only 40 days from the date of death.

If no eligible family member filed within that period, the court could appoint, in the language of the prior statute, “any suitable person.” The statute used the word 'eligible' because some disqualifiers, such as a felony conviction, still applied. Beyond those narrow exclusions, though, nearly anyone could fill the role. This broad description provided an opportunity for essentially anyone to step in and fill the role if they could complete the right steps. In some cases, third-party administration was necessary and prudent. Elliott and Sunde turned it into a weapon for personal financial gain, to the detriment of the estates they controlled. 

Elliott and Sunde treated that 40-day window as an opportunity rather than a safety net. Operating through several companies, including Probate & Administration Services LLC and Sunde Consulting LLC, they monitored death notices and county filings, then petitioned to administer estates before grieving families realized they needed to act at all. Once appointed, they controlled the sale of estate property (which they could direct to companies or parties they were directly connected with), charged substantial commissions, and, according to the court’s findings, moved money between trust accounts in ways that obscured what they were doing. 

The Attorney General’s Office sued under the state’s Consumer Protection Act and Washington’s probate statutes. The court found the defendants liable for unfair and deceptive practices, ordered more than $4 million in restitution within 30 days and an additional $3 million in penalties, fees, and costs, and permanently barred them from ever serving as a probate administrator again.

What the New Law Changes

The Legislature passed EHB 2445 at the Attorney General’s request, and the law took effect June 11, 2026. The new statute does not provide an avenue to eliminate third-party administration outright. Washington still needs a way to handle estates when no family member is available or willing to serve. Instead, the law tightens the surrounding rules considerably. Below are a few, but not nearly all, of the additional rules that will now apply.

• Those who are not a close relative under RCW 11.28.120 are required to obtain a bond in order to serve as PR.

• The priority window for family members and other rightful heirs to petition for appointment grew from 40 days to 90 days, giving grieving families more realistic breathing room before a third party can step in unannounced.

• Third-party administrators can no longer purchase estate property themselves or profit from its sale without specific court approval, closing off the most direct way the scheme generated profit.

• Anyone found to have committed an act of dishonesty, theft, or a fiduciary breach within the preceding 36 months is disqualified from serving as an administrator at all.

• Petitions filed without a will must now document, in detail, the petitioner’s effort to locate every heir, including names, ages, and last known addresses. (Law firms must already do this! Another reason working with a law firm is a solid idea)

• Third-party administrators must file in the county connected to the decedent’s actual residence or property, closing the venue-shopping tactic that let the Kitsap County scheme operate at scale.

• The court will assume the estate is closed within 24 months, and order a final review of accounting to occur as an audit once, or if, this date has passed unless good cause is provided.

  
  

Together, these changes raise the cost of trying to exploit the system and give families a longer, more realistic opportunity to step forward before anyone else legally can.

The Standard We Always Uphold

Long before Engrossed House Bill 2445 existed, and long before a $28 million judgment against Elliott and Sunde forced the issue into public view, bar-licensed attorneys in Washington were already held to a stricter standard than the one this new law now imposes on non-attorney administrators. A bar-licensed attorney could not have run the Elliott and Sunde scheme even before this year, as self-dealing, commingling estate funds, and profiting from a sale without disclosure all already violate the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. Those violations carry consequences that do not require a multi-year Attorney General investigation spanning 200 estates to trigger: a single bar complaint from one beneficiary, routine audited trust accounting under established guidelines, and direct personal accountability to the Washington State Bar Association, with consequences ranging from suspension to disbarment and standing entirely apart from any civil judgment.

This is not a special safeguard unique to our firm but the baseline every bar-licensed attorney in Washington practices under. What changes when you work specifically with attorneys who handle probate and estate administration every day is that this standard is applied with direct, ongoing familiarity with exactly the kind of scenario this case represents, rather than discovered after the fact by a regulator.

That is the real answer to the question this case raises for any Washington family: working with a bar-licensed attorney would have closed off the exact path this scheme relied on, long before any legislature got involved, because the rules already prohibited it. House Bill 2445 does not improve on that standard so much as extend a version of it to administrators who were never bound by it.

Gaps the Law Still Does Not Solve

EHB 2445 is a meaningful response to a documented abuse, and it should make a repeat of the Elliott and Sunde scheme considerably harder to pull off. However, the limits to the law deserve attention. The probate process itself is still necessary, so this update does not skip probate. Nor does it shorten the process, reduce its cost, or make it private. The new application truly only protects a family that knows to act within the new window, and provides additional oversight as protection against abuse from strangers.

Consider a scenario that plays out often in our busy regular lives. A homeowner in Spokane dies unexpectedly without a will. Her two adult children live out of state and assume, reasonably but incorrectly, that probate will simply sort itself out or that they have ample time to become organized. If 90 days pass without a petition, current law still allows a qualified third party to step forward. That party now faces far more restrictions than Elliott and Sunde ever did, but the family has still lost control of the timeline and, with it, a measure of say over how their mother’s home and belongings are handled. The reform fixes the worst abuses of an imperfect system. It does not fix the underlying vulnerability that made the system exploitable in the first place.

How to Make Sure Your Family Never Needs This Law’s Protection

The most reliable defense against this entire category of risk has nothing to do with EHB 2445. Your best defense is a properly executed estate plan that names, in writing, who has the authority to act when you cannot. A last will and testament that nominates a personal representative, ideally with some back up options, removes the guesswork and the deadline pressure entirely.

When that set of nominees is named in a validly executed will, your family does not need to win a race against a 90-day clock. They simply present the will to the court. Those without any available family are able to select friends, or a trusted legal advisor to act in this role, further protecting estate assets from misuse or abuse by “any suitable person”.

For families who would rather avoid the probate process altogether, a properly funded revocable living trust accomplishes something the new law cannot. Assets titled in the name of a trust generally pass to beneficiaries according to its terms without court involvement, public filings, or any waiting period. Once an item is placed within the trust, the trust is considered “funded” with at least that item. A trust that sits in a drawer unfunded, however, offers none of this protection, which is why working with a practiced estate planning attorney to complete the funding process matters just as much as drafting the document itself.

Durable powers of attorney for finances and health care round out the picture of your estate plan, though they will have nothing to do with probate. While they address incapacity rather than death, they belong in the same conversation, since the same families who are vulnerable to a probate gap are often vulnerable to an incapacity gap as well. A family with a current will or a funded trust, paired with active powers of attorney, is, in practical terms, insulated from the vulnerability that Elliott and Sunde exploited for five years against hundreds of estates. There will be no 40-day or 90-day window to lose, because no one will be racing the clock in the first place.

What This Means For You

Washington's new probate law is a genuine improvement, born out of real harm done to real families, and it should meaningfully reduce the kind of exploitation that the Elliott and Sunde case made public. It also illustrates a pattern worth remembering: legislative fixes tend to arrive after the damage is done, protecting the next family rather than the one whose estate has already changed hands.

If you do not currently have a will that names a personal representative, or you have wondered whether a revocable living trust makes sense for your family, now is the moment to address it, before the question becomes urgent. Our attorneys at Cornerstone Legal PLLC are well-versed in Washington probate and trust law and are glad to walk you through your options.

Worried that a stranger has already filed on a family member's estate, or unsure whether proper notice was given? Reach out to our team of Washington probate attorneys, and we can review the filing against the new disclosure and notice standards that EHB 2445 put in place.