[WSBAPT] JT/ROS

Thu Jun 4 17:34:41 PDT 2015

The worst (nastiest) estates I have ever worked on were due to this 
issue.  How can you know intent when the person is dead?  The one kid 
says, "I took care of her all those years, so she wanted me to have this 
extra."  The other says, "Like heck, read the Will, she wanted 
everything evenly divided."  So I spend a lot of time in conference 
discussing this issue, and often times put the testator's intent in the 
Will, either way.  But bank tellers generally don't realize the issue 
and all to often automatically make it JTWROS. Makes for ambiguities, 
which lead to conflict.

Very Truly Yours,

Robert R. Cole

Law Office of Cole & Gilday, P.C.

10101 - 270th St. NW

P.O. Box 249

Stanwood, WA 98292

(360) 629-2900 (Telephone)

(360) 629-0220 (Fax)

This message contains confidential and privileged information that is 
intended only for the named recipient(s).Unless you are the named 
recipient or authorized agent thereof, you are prohibited from reading, 
copying, distributing or otherwise disseminating such information.If you 
receive this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately.

On 6/4/2015 5:18 PM, Kate Szurek wrote:
>
> Well, the very last sentence of RCW 30A.22.100 is interesting.  How 
> does that jive with RCW 11.11.020(3) – which we have relied upon from 
> time to time, especially with older clients who we learn have put a 
> child’s name on their accounts so the child could help them manage 
> their finances (i.e., for convenience only) and not meaning the 
> account should pass to that child alone?  Of course, we can always go 
> bank to bank and fix it, but that can be tough to accomplish with any 
> rapidity.
>
> Kate
>
> SkagitLaw_Signature (2)
>
> */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 <mailto: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] *On Behalf Of *Eric Nelsen
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 04, 2015 2:18 PM
> *To:* WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBAPT] JT/ROS
>
> A bank isn't /required/ to offer all varieties of account allowed 
> under RCW 30A.22.050 
> <http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=30A.22&full=true#30A.22.050>, 
> so far as I'm aware. (Hey look everybody--I just discovered that RCW 
> 30.22 has been changed to RCW 30A.22, effective on January 5 of this 
> year! Does anybody know what substantive changes were made?)
>
> I think it's convenient for the banks to blame "state law" but that's 
> bull puckey. They could offer TIC, they just don' wanna. Despite the 
> fact that the law continues to shield them from almost any kind of 
> liability.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Eric
>
> Eric C. Nelsen
>
> SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
>
> 1320 University St
>
> Seattle WA 98101-2837
>
> phone 206-625-0092
>
> fax 206-625-9040
>
> *From:*wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com 
> <mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> 
> [mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] *On Behalf Of *Jacob Menashe
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 04, 2015 1:44 PM
> *To:* WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBAPT] JT/ROS
>
> How timely. I have definitely experienced this in the last few weeks – 
> and pressed but not too hard – with both Chase and B of A. They refer 
> to “state law” and one of them said TIC is only possible in two 
> states! (For the life of me, I don’t get what they are getting at. 
> Maybe someone here can elucidate?)  I just had a conversation with 
> someone at Wells Fargo and the person confirmed they still do this.
>
> Jacob
>
> *From:* wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com 
> <mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> 
> [mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] *On Behalf Of *Kate Szurek
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 04, 2015 1:27 PM
> *To:* WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv
> *Subject:* [WSBAPT] JT/ROS
>
> In the grumbling-about-banks department, I was just informed that WA 
> Fed will not allow a couple to hold their CDs in both names _unless_ 
> it as joint tenants _with right of survivorship_.  We have a taxable 
> estate, so I prefer to avoid investments that pass automatically on 
> death to the survivor.
>
> Of course, I have any number of work-arounds, and I’m not worried 
> about small accounts, but my question of you is whether you are 
> similarly finding such restrictions, and if you are, whether you have 
> found banks who are willing to allow the accounts to be held simply as 
> joint tenants (tenants-in-common), without any kind of automatic 
> transfer on the death of one of the owners.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Kate
>
> SkagitLaw_Signature (2)
>
> */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 <mailto:kate at skagitlaw.com>
>
> http://www.skagitlaw.com <http://www.skagitlaw.com/>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150604/08250252/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 8009 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20150604/08250252/attachment.jpe>