[WSBAPT] TOD Deeds

Fri Dec 12 10:56:23 PST 2014

Fascinating and important details here, underscoring how great this listserv
is!

It sounds like the problem isn't with naming multiple individuals or the
class-designation as a way to identify the beneficiaries, but with the
differing fractions between the two groups in the example not resulting "in
equal and undivided shares" that RCW 64.80.100(1)(c) requires.  Something
like "to my son and my son's children" might work, but must result in equal
shares being received by each individual.

Also, it seems like it would have to apply only to "the children" living at
the time the deed was executed.  As an interest in real property, rather
than a typical testamentary interest, vesting would occur at the time of the
execution of the deed?  Rather than at the death of grantee?  So,
designation as a class might result in an "omitted child" type situation for
after-born children, grandchildren, or whatever class designation was used?

Tara M. Roberts

Puget Sound Law

roberts at pugetsoundlaw.com

******************************
The information contained in this email may be privileged and confidential
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named
above.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of the fax
is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this email in error, please
notify us immediately and delete the original message and any copies you may
have.  Thank you.
******************************

From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
[mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of jeffrey winter
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 8:47 PM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] TOD Deeds

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 <mailto:kate at skagitlaw.com> 
To: wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto: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)

 <mailto:kate at skagitlaw.com> kate at skagitlaw.com

 <http://www.skagitlaw.com/> http://www.skagitlaw.com 

From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
<mailto: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 <mailto:heatherd at westseattlelaw.com> 
To: wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto: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 

 <mailto:heatherd at westseattlelaw.com> heatherd at westseattlelaw.com 

 <http://www.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>
[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 <mailto: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 <mailto:WSBAPT at lists.wsbarppt.com>
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbapt

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 38259 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20141212/c347a8a0/winmail.dat>