[WSBAPT] Ademption by Extinction

[Eric Nelsen]

Several of us on the listserv were on a legislative subcommittee last year, looking at this issue. Currently the ademption rules in Washington are up in the air - no real Washington case law, so would have to fall back on persuasive common-law authority from other jurisdictions.

I would look at Am.Jur. or C.J.S., but off the top of my head I think the best result here is that the insurance proceeds should go to the recipient of the coin collection. The fact that the collection was stolen rather than voluntarily disposed of by the testator, and that the insurance proceeds are completely identifiable because they have not yet been paid, makes the tracing from coin collection to insurance proceeds quite simple. Giving the proceeds to the specific beneficiary does not diminish the Estate that goes to other beneficiaries, or alter the testator's estate planning in any fashion. Therefore, giving the proceeds to the beneficiary comes closest to honoring the testator's intent.

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 David Spencer
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 4:37 PM
To: wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: [WSBAPT] Ademption by Extinction

Dear Forum Members:

I am seeking Washington authority on these facts:

Testator's will makes specific gift of coin collection to devisee.  Collection is stolen before Testator's death but is insured.  However, Testator dies without filing the insurance claim but Executor has now done so.  Executor intends to give the insurance proceeds to the devisee of the collection.  I have not seen the will but client is asking who gets the insurance money.

Reutlinger in Washington Law of Wills and Intestate Succession is a bit unclear to me as to whether Washington allows the specific devisee receive the insurance proceeds.

I've looked at the Washington ademption decisions and not found clear guidance.  I am aware other states have statutes that would give the specific devisee the insurance proceeds (such as New York).

Thanks for any information you may provide.


David D. Spencer
Attorney at Law
1621 Lake Mount Drive
Snohomish, WA 98290
T 206.650.7048 or 360.862.9101
F 206.508.3999
spencer at davidspencerlaw.com<mailto:spencer at davidspencerlaw.com>
spencerlaw at hotmail.com<mailto:spencerlaw at hotmail.com>
www.davidspencerlaw.com<http://www.davidspencerlaw.com/>

This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20160108/aa4346e2/attachment.html>