[WSBAPT] Recording a Quit Claim Deed after Death of Grantor

Mon Jan 23 14:45:57 PST 2017

Doug, do you know the cite on that deed in lieu case re delivery? That's just plain wrong, unless there other facts on conditional delivery and/or intervening third party notice rights that factored in to the decision.

Re O'Brien, yeah, I know, but personally I don't rely on that case for anything if I can avoid it. It's such an outlier both nationally and even in Washington as to testamentary instruments and rules of delivery.

Eric Reutter--sorry for hijacking your thread, when you didn't even ask about delivery!

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen
SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA  98144-3909
phone 206-625-0092
fax 206-625-9040

Please Note that We Have Moved. We have moved our Seattle office to Mount Baker Ridge (a small commercial community just above the I-90 tunnel). Our new address is 1417 31st Avenue South, Seattle WA 98144. All other contact information remains the same.

From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Doug Schafer
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 12:43 PM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] Recording a Quit Claim Deed after Death of Grantor

My vague recollection from 1st year property was that delivery of a deed to the grantee perfected the conveyance of title.  But in a recent case involving a condo owner that had delivered his properly executed QC Deed (in lieu of foreclosure) to a lender, lawyers argued and the trial judge agreed that title had not then transferred to the lender because it had not recorded that deed (though its agents took control of the condo).  The lender later accepted and recorded a deed in lieu.

So, in response to Eric's question to the listserv, even if the grantee had actual or constructive possession of the deed but had received it on the condition that it would not be recorded until after the grantor's death, could it be said that title was not conveyed until that condition was fulfilled -- the recording of the deed?

Additionally, In re the Estate of O'Brien, 109 Wash.2d 913, 918, 749 P.2d 154 (1988) involved a QC deed placed in a safe deposit box for which the (daughter) grantee had access:
"We hold (1) that when it is determined that the proved intent of the grantor was to pass title upon his or her death, the legal requirement of "delivery" is satisfied, and (2) that RCW 11.02.090<https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000259&cite=WAST11.02.090&originatingDoc=I97776be3f53811d9bf60c1d57ebc853e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29> removes the conveyance from the requirements of the statute relating to execution of wills, RCW 11.12.020<https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000259&cite=WAST11.12.020&originatingDoc=I97776be3f53811d9bf60c1d57ebc853e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29>. Our result satisfies the policy underlying the legal delivery requirement. This fact, coupled with the philosophy expressed in RCW 11.02.090<https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000259&cite=WAST11.02.090&originatingDoc=I97776be3f53811d9bf60c1d57ebc853e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29>, leads to a just result which implements rather than frustrates the intent of the decedent."

Division II cited the O'Brien opinion as its basis for the following statement: "Delivery of the deed, along with the grantor's intent to deliver, is still necessary for the deed to be operative."
Corp. Dissolution of Ocean Shores Park, Inc. v. Rawson-Sweet, 132 Wn. App. 903, 915, 134 P.3d 1188, 1194 (2006), rev. denied 159 Wash.2d 1009 (2007).

Doug Schafer, in Tacoma.
On 1/23/2017 10:04 AM, Paul Neumiller wrote:
I haven't researched this issue (probably since first year law) but don't you have to have "delivery" of the deed to be effective?  What is your fact pattern?  Did the PR just find the QD in the decedent's drawer (indicating no delivery) or was the QD delivered to the grantee but just not recorded?  It may make a difference whether the interest passes via the QD or passes in the residual clause of decedent's Will.

From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Eric Reutter
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 9:36 AM
To: wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBAPT] Recording a Quit Claim Deed after Death of Grantor

Hello and good morning,

I have a simple fact pattern that presents and interesting procedural question. I am involved in a probate situation where, before passing away, the decedent had properly executed a quit claim deed for the decedent's interest in a home. The decedent, however, did not record the deed or corresponding REETA/Supplemental REETA before the decedent's death.

This situation now presents the following question: What is the procedure for recording a quit claim deed after the grantor had passed away? (Specifically in regards to the REETA and Supplemental REETA)

My first thought was simply to have the personal representative sign the REETA and Supplemental REETA on behalf of the decedent. The representative at the King County Recorder's Office, however, told me that they wanted guidance from the DOR before they would be comfortable with the PR signing off on the Supplemental REETA (they seemed to have no problem recording the deed itself, or with the PR signing off on the REETA, but seemed to be uncomfortable with the PR signing off on the Supplemental REETA).

When I spoke with the DOR on the phone, the DOR representative suggested that I use the inheritance WAC (458-61A-202) on the REETA so as to avoid the need entirely for the Supplemental REETA. I told the representative that I did not fully understand that solution, as the quit claim deed represents an inter-vivos transfer, and that it seemed inappropriate to me to cite the inheritance WAC for such a transfer. The DOR agent was unable to give me written confirmation of this procedure.

I would greatly appreciate any guidance on this issue. I have a few more ideas for how to proceed, but I am curious to see if other practitioners have seen this issue before and, if so, how they recorded the quit claim deed.
Best regards,

Eric Reutter, Partner
J.D., LL.M. Taxation
14205 SE 36th Street, Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 98006
(425) 298-7110 | appelgatereutter.com<http://appelgatereutter.com/>

[https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1_ki68D-hyjqSa4GiscGPV7pYrrbXnk4Y-J2oVpiqZnU/pub?w=1142&h=323]

Confidentiality: This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient or otherwise have received this message in error, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. In such case, you should destroy this message and any attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply email.

Circular 230 Notice:  This communication may not be used by you or any other person or entity for the purpose of avoiding any federal tax penalties.

_______________________________________________

WSBAPT mailing list

WSBAPT at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto: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/20170123/8bc33676/attachment.html>