In twenty-three states, legislative unwillingness to embrace the UPC as a whole has not precluded adoption of some of its provisions. As the first part of this Article indicates, the most common pattern is for a state to use the Code as a model to solve an isolated, but common, problem. Article II of the UPC, which covers intestacy and wills, is by far the most often copied article; the most often followed sections are those dealing with traditional troublespots, such as the effects of survival, adoption, and divorce. In contrast, among those UPC sections garnering the least attention are those proposing controversial reforms, such as the installation of a system for informal probate. Many jurisdictions that have rejected the Code nonetheless have benefited from its use as a model for solving particular problems. The UPC has also been useful to courts seeking solutions to common-law and statutory construction problems. Part III of this Article suggests that judicial willingness to follow the UPC position on a particular point parallels the legislative pattern of applying the UPC to common troublespots. In addition, this part of the Article discusses the ways advocates have used the UPC both as respected secondary authority and as an aid to the interpretation of particular state statutes. The Code's potential as a source of authority is now established but largely untapped. Because many readers of this journal have a particular interest in Washington law, part IV of this Article briefly applies to Washington the lessons of this Article's first parts. Some areas ripe for legislative reform are identified, and examples are given illustrating how Washington advocates might tap the UPC as a source of argument.
Roger W. Andersen, The Influence of the Uniform Probate Code in Nonadopting States, 8 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 599 (1985).