[WSBAPT] TEDRA terms contra old court order

Tue Mar 14 11:58:31 PDT 2017

Thanks Heather! 

I guess I am confused on the difference between merely filing the agreement
pursuant to RCW 11.96A.230 ("equivalent to a court order") and petitioning
the court for approval (since no special representative is involved,
11.96A.240 regarding judicial approval of agreement wouldn't apply). While
having the agreement "blessed" by the court would be comforting, I can't
tell whether it is legally necessary or really adds anything. While
11.96a.125 allows judicial reformation of unambiguous will/trust based on
mistake of fact/law, that does not limit the ability to reform such using
the binding non-judicial procedures of .220. So if all interested parties
sign off on an agreement changing successor trustees that is filed with the
court, it seems as good as any stipulated court order. Am I in the bull
rushes? Thanks again for any input, Cy 

From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
[mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Heather deVrieze
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 2:08 PM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] TEDRA terms contra old court order

Depending on how specific the old order was on what was NOT allowed, I would
be inclined to draft a TEDRA Petition, have everyone sign off consenting to
a proposed order doing what you propose and getting a new Order signed off
on by the judge.

It sounds as though circumstances really have overcome the careful planning
done at the time, but laying that out for the Court and getting new order
would be clear.

Heather

Heather S. de Vrieze
Attorney-at-Law

cid:image001.jpg at 01D013C2.30F35160

3909 California Avenue SW

Seattle, WA 98116-3705                          

(206)938-5500 

 <mailto:heatherd at westseattlelaw.com> heatherd at westseattlelaw.com 

 <http://www.westseattlelaw.com/> www.westseattlelaw.com 

Click here to connect with de Vrieze | Carney on Facebook:
<https://www.facebook.com/DeVriezeCarney> FB Logo

CONFIDENTIAL & PRIVILEGED. This e-mail message may contain legally
privileged and/or confidential information.  If you have received this
e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies
of this e-mail message and any attachment.

From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
[mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Cyrus Field
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 1:29 PM
To: 'WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv' <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBAPT] TEDRA terms contra old court order

Folks- I could use a reality check. Husband/father died back in 1990
creating typical testamentary trust for spouse for life, with residue
passing in equal shares to their two children at her passing. A court order
from 1990 in the probate appointed spouse as trustee and a corporate trustee
as successor. The order  further provided  that current income beneficiaries
could pick a successor corporate trustee but under no circumstances could
any other trust beneficiary serve as trustee. 

Fast forward 26 years and now trust holds less than $500k in assets, mom is
thinking of stepping down as trustee but doesn't want a corporate trustee to
take over, and residual beneficiaries are no longer teenagers.  All
interested parties would like to enter into a non-judicial TEDRA agreement
appointing children as successor co-trustees, despite old court order
(Custodian of trust brokerage account would support such a change as well). 

In reviewing RCW 11.96A.220 and .030(2)(c)(ii), I don't see anything
prohibiting interested parties from agreeing to such but was wondering if
I'm missing something (personally, I feel uncomfortable taking action that
is so expressly against a court order)? Thanks in advance for any
thoughts/guidance, Cy

Cyrus W. Field, Attorney at Law (admitted in Washington and Oregon)

phone: 360-472-1223 Mail: POB 367, Shaw Island, WA 98286 Office: 640 Mullis
St. Friday Harbor, WA

******************************************************************

The information contained in this e-mail message, including attachments, may
be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not
the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is
strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail in error,
please e-mail the sender at cyfield at rockisland.com and destroy or delete the
original and any copies. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20170314/9afd50b9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4852 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20170314/9afd50b9/image002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3264 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20170314/9afd50b9/image004.png>