[WSBAPT] JT/ROS

Fri Jun 5 06:47:01 PDT 2015

Twin Star CU actually states in their account contracts that they will not
honor outside language controlling the account.... Super will provisions
On Jun 4, 2015 6:38 PM, "Eric Nelsen" <Eric at sayrelawoffices.com> wrote:

>  Yikes--it's a conflict between statutes so that's a full-employment act
> for the lawyers.
>
>
>
> Speaking off the cuff, I'd argue that 30A.22.100 is meant to allow banks
> to pay to the named party without liability, but in fact a Will provision
> under 11.11.020(3) would control and impose a constructive trust on the POD
> recipient, for the benefit of the estate or beneficiary designated in the
> Will. But who knows, once we wander into the thicket of statutory
> construction.
>
>
>
> "Most recently enacted statute wins?"
>
>
>
> Or, "the Legislature will not repeal an existing statute by implication?"
>
>
>
> 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] *On Behalf Of *Kate Szurek
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 04, 2015 5:19 PM
> *To:* WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBAPT] JT/ROS
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> [image: 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
>
> http://www.skagitlaw.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [
> mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> <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
> <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
> <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
>
>
>
> [image: 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
>
> 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/20150605/e490ee0e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 8009 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20150605/e490ee0e/image001.jpg>