[WSBAPT] PERS Pension Benefits to Spouse?

Fri Jan 8 13:16:46 PST 2016

Former client, now deceased, was a state employee for 15 years before
passing away rather suddenly.  He listed his former girlfriend/partner as
Beneficiary of his DRA pension.  He was aware of this designation long after
they broke off their relationship, and they remained friends.

He married another woman six weeks before he died.  In a conversation with
DRS, the Personal Rep was informed that  all of the funds remaining in
decedent's pension go to the new spouse, regardless of the Beneficiary
designation to former girlfriend.  

Before I engage in the research and / or call DRS to discuss, has anyone
else ever dealt with a similar scenario or is anyone aware of RCW or WAC
related to this issue?  As the current Personal Rep, my client does not have
a dog in this potential dispute, however, the result seems inequitable to
me.

FYI: the decedent did make changes to the beneficiary designation on his
IRA, from former girlfriend to current spouse.  He did not change his Will
to include his new spouse, so she is claiming one half of his separate
property as an omitted spouse.

Any thoughts appreciated.

Jim Dolan

===================

Jones Butler Dolan, PS

www.jbdolan.com

www.jonesbutlerdolan.com

Mount Vernon

P.O. Box 2784

415 Pine Street 

Mount Vernon, WA 98273

Telephone: 360-336-2939

Facsimile: 360-336-2949

Stanwood

P.O. Box 458

10027 - 269th Place NW (SR 532)

Stanwood, WA 98292

Telephone: 360-629-3833

Facsimile: 360-629-6253

From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
[mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Eric Nelsen
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 4:57 PM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] Ademption by Extinction

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

 <mailto:spencer at davidspencerlaw.com> spencer at davidspencerlaw.com

 <mailto:spencerlaw at hotmail.com> spencerlaw at hotmail.com

 <http://www.davidspencerlaw.com/> 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/20160108/1ab9afb5/attachment.html>