[WSBAPT] TOD Deeds

Thu Dec 11 20:46:38 PST 2014

Well, this is good to know, as I was hoping to use the TOD deed for some smaller estates to avoid probate.  Eliminating contingent interests, though, seems to limit the utility of the statute.

Having said that-- and I'm not disagreeing with anything said on this list so far-- I don't see a specific prohibition against contingent interests in the statute (nor does it specifically allow them).

The language in 64.80.100(1)(c) does state that concurrent interests will receive equal and undivided shares (thus, apparently not allowing disproportionate gifting among the beneficiaries).  But there is language in subsection (d) that could be construed as opening the door for contingent beneficiaries.  64.80.100(1)(d)  leads off with, "[i]f the transferor has identified two or more designated beneficiaries to receive concurrent interests in the property" [emphasis added].  If the statute is only intended to allow concurrent interests in multiple beneficiaries, why bother with that modifying language?

Anyway, something to ponder as I head off...

Jeffrey D. Winter

Law Office of Jeffrey D. Winter, P.S.

604 North Main
Street

Ellensburg, WA
98926

(509) 925-9600
tel.

(509) 925-9606
fax

From: kate at skagitlaw.com
To: wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 01:57:13 +0000
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] TOD Deeds

I’m not so sure there is an objection so much as the fact that there is a governing statute.  Try RCW 64.80.100.  I haven’t looked at it carefully enough (yet)
 to be absolutely certain it answers the current question, but Dwight Bickel, regional counsel for title companies across 6 northwestern states, indeed told us at the RPPT seminar last Friday that all interests given must be equal and concurrent, and if there
 are multiple grantees, the share of a deceased grantee passes to the other grantees.  He also said a grantee must be alive at the time of transfer, and the interest is not subject to right of representation or anti-lapse rules.  I do not recall, however, his
 specifically discussing specifically stated contingent interests – but I cannot see how contingent interests can be concurrent.  Dwight also referred us to Al Falk’s summer 2014 article in the RPPT newsletter.  Al worked hard on the legislation and was instrumental
 in getting it passed, so I suspect his article covers the bases.

Kate

Kate Szurek, J.D., LL.M.
P.O. Box 336 / 227 Freeway Drive, Suite B
Mount Vernon, WA  98273
360.336.1000
360.336.6690 (fax)
kate at skagitlaw.com
http://www.skagitlaw.com

From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com]
On Behalf Of Paul

Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 5:16 PM

To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv

Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] TOD Deeds

It's not my issue here but, why is there a problem with giving to one named person (who just happens to be a son) and also give to several other named persons
 (who just happen to be son's children)?  Is your objection that it is a multi-generational gift or is there an objection if I say to "Son and to Son's children" (that is, I don't specifically name the son's children?)

From:
heatherd at westseattlelaw.com

To: wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 00:16:58 +0000

Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] TOD Deeds

The consensus of the panel on this subject at the recent Estate Planning CLE was that you cannot do what you propose effectively. As I understand it, all grantees must be given
 simultaneous and equal interests and cannot be survival contingencies in the document. Similarly, you could not give ½ to son and ½ to son’s children equally.

Heather

Heather S. de Vrieze

Attorney-at-Law

3909 California Avenue SW
Seattle, WA 98116-3705                         

(206)938-5500

heatherd at westseattlelaw.com

www.westseattlelaw.com

CONFIDENTIAL & PRIVILEGED. This e-mail message may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please
 notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this e-mail message and any attachment.

From:
wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com]
On Behalf Of Paul Neumiller

Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 3:48 PM

To: wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com

Subject: [WSBAPT] TOD Deeds

Listservers: Has anyone done the following yet? 

Client wants to use a Transfer on Death Deed to transfer residence to Able, and if Able is deceased or disclaims the residence (RCW 64.80.110 says the beneficiary may disclaim), then residence
 goes to Baker.  RCW 64.80.100(1)(b) says the transfer “lapses” if the beneficiary fails to survive the transferor.  Does the collective mind of the listserv believe that it would be an effective TODD if I put:  “To Able, and if Able either fails to survive
 me or chooses to disclaim Able’s beneficiary interest in this Revocable Transfer Upon Death Deed pursuant to RCW 64.80.110, then to Baker.”???  Thanks for your input.

_______________________________________________ WSBAPT mailing list 
WSBAPT at lists.wsbarppt.com 
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbapt

_______________________________________________
WSBAPT mailing list
WSBAPT at lists.wsbarppt.com
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbapt 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20141212/37259d75/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6650 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20141212/37259d75/image001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 8009 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20141212/37259d75/image002.jpg>