[WSBAPT] Life insurance company requires parent of minors to be appointed guardian (Personal Jurisdiction?)

[Marketa Vorel]

Thank you to all who replied. 

Sent from my iPhone. 

> On May 18, 2015, at 4:57 PM, Eric Nelsen <Eric at sayrelawoffices.com> wrote:
> 
> Doug--I agree with you, but have a question that I don't think I've seen answered in case law yet.
>  
> Is the old citation system supplanted by TEDRA except for what remnants specifically persist in statutes (such as RCW 11.68.070)--and the big issue: Is the TEDRA notice-by-mail procedure under RCW 11.96A.110 truly a constitutionally valid method of establishing personal jurisdiction over parties? As I read TEDRA, even the initial Summons of a judicial proceeding does not require personal service of process--just mailing via RCW 11.96A.110. And recall that TEDRA proceedings can be full trials of all issues of fact and law at the first hearing, at the option of the judge. And attorney fees can be awarded for any party, against any party.
>  
> 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 Doug Schafer
> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 4:32 PM
> To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv
> Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] Life insurance company requires parent of minors to be appointed guardian (Personal Jurisdiction?)
>  
> I'm not defending any insurance company or bank, but I suggest we keep in mind Civil Procedure 101 -- mailing or personally serving a notice of a hearing does not give the court personal jurisdiction over a non-party (one that has not sought judicial relief, formally appeared as a party, or been served with process).  So if an order directs that the non-party act in some manner, that order is void for lack of personal jurisdiction over the non-party.  I recognize that an insurance company or bank may choose to act as directed in some court order, however it could just as well ignore the order until it becomes subject to the jurisdiction of the issuing court.  That is accomplished by serving the non-party with a citation (that is the functional equivalent of a summons) or possibly with an order to show cause that directs them to appear and respond to some motion/petition.
> 
> Doug Schafer, in Tacoma
> 
> On 5/18/2015 3:28 PM, Jill H. Sasser wrote:
> I have done what Marcus suggested below, and have never had a problem.  I think that the insurance companies do not want to read and interpret laws, but they are willing to comply with court orders that appoint custodians for UTMAs, or appoint trustees, or appoint guardians.  I do notice the insurance company, and my order includes language that directs the insurance company to distribute to the custodian.
>  
> Jill H. Sasser | Attorney at Law
>  
> From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Fry
> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 12:57 PM
> To: 'WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv'
> Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] Life insurance company requires parent of minors to be appointed guardian
>  
> I have got the push back, but have sent them the UTMA statute and it worked just fine.  Why doesn’t the PR simply petition for an order directing insurance co. to distribute to custodian FBO child under UTMA and serve notice to insurance co. for hearing on the petition.  Let insurance company show up and argue that a gship is necessary.  One could even use TEDRA if they wanted.
>  
> Marcus J. Fry
> Lyon, Weigand & Gustafson, P.S.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150519/7289bb83/attachment.html>