would be worse than occasional miscarriages of justice.’ ” Alexander, 226 S.W.2d at 998 (quoting Pico v. Cohn, 91 Cal. 129, 25 P. 970, 971 (1891)). To the extent we have expressed an elevated concern for finality of probate judgments, our interest is hardly idiosyncratic. As the United States Supreme Court has held, “[ajfter an estate has been finally distributed, the interest in finality may provide an additional, valid justification for barring the belated assertion of claims,” even if the claims have merit and “even though mistakes of law or fact may have occurred during the probate process.” Reed v. Campbell, 476 U.S. 852, 855-56, 106 S.Ct. 2234, 90 L.Ed.2d 858 (1986) (involving a Texas estate); see also Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 259, 268, 99 S.Ct. 518, 58 L.Ed.2d 503 (1978) (<HOLDING>). Circumscribing the reach of
recognizing the disposition of property for charitable purposes  can be in the form of an absolute transfer subject to conditions holding that bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to control disposition of chapter 13 debtors property that is not property of the bankruptcy estate unless the property is related to the bankruptcy proceedings of the code holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property recognizing that a states interest in providing for the just and orderly disposition of property at death is of considerable magnitude holding that while death benefits have characteristics of community property the washington legislatures designation of the beneficiaries of the statutory death benefit supersedes characterization of the interest under community property principles