Did the Washington Court err in finding that an infirmity in due process is cured by denial of a motion seeking to correct it and violate the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution and contravene Armstrong v. Manzo (1965)?

Did the Washington Court err against public policy by not recognizing a good faith and probable cause exception to in terrorem clauses as adopted by most jurisdictions, the Uniform Probate Code, and the Restatement to the forfeiture clause in this missing 2015 will?

Does enforcing an in terrorem clause against a beneficiary who is complaining of the misconduct, malfeasance, or mistake of a personal representative, without checking the claim's validity simply because the clause is generally enforceable violate public policy, the Washington State Constitution, and the United States Constitutional due process provisions?

Did the Washington Court err in finding that an infirmity in due process is cured by denial of a motion seeking to correct it and violate the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution and contravene Armstrong v. Manzo (1965)?