[WSBAPT] Lapsed Gift?

[Lewis, Amy C.]

Is the deceased beneficiary related to the decedent?  If so, take a look at the anti-lapse statute in RCW 11.12.110.


Amy C. Lewis, Attorney

[cid:logocc8df2]

ESTATE PLANNING & PROBATE

1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 1200 | Tacoma, WA 98402
phone 253.572.4500 | fax 253.272.5732 | www.eisenhowerlaw.com<http://www.eisenhowerlaw.com/>

From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of David Faber
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 11:59 AM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv
Subject: [WSBAPT] Lapsed Gift?

I'm working a probate with a Will that leaves all household goods in a specific bequest to a person who predeceased the decedent by three months. The Will does not condition the gift on the specific gift recipient's survivorship.

To review the implications of this gift, I went to the WSBA probate deskbook first, which makes the assertion that "Unless otherwise provided under the terms of the will, the devise or bequest shall lapse if the devisee or legatee fails to survive the testator" then cites to RCW 11.12.120.

When I review RCW 11.12.120, the plain language appears to be ambiguous by providing for a potential diametrically-opposite interpretation. Here's the language of 11.12.120:

"If a will makes a gift to a person on the condition that the person survive the testator and the person does not survive the testator, then, unless otherwise provided, the gift lapses and falls into the residue of the estate to be distributed under the residuary clause of the will, if any, but otherwise according to the laws of descent and distribution."

Here, is the "otherwise according to the laws of descent and distribution" language referring to the decedent whose Will is being probated, or does it refer to the laws of descent and distribution for the predeceased specific beneficiary? I can easily make the argument either way. The language is ambiguous and though I want to go with the interpretation provided in the deskbook, I don't feel confident that the other interpretation is clean-cut. Thoughts?

Best,
David J. Faber
Faber Feinson PLLC
210 Polk Street, Suite 1
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 379-4110

*** NOTICE: ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION - PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL.  This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you have received this communication in error, please do not print, copy, retransmit, disseminate, or otherwise use the information. Also, please indicate to the sender that you have received this communication in error, and destroy the copy you received.***

 IMPORTANT/CONFIDENTIAL: This e-mail message (and any attachments accompanying it) may contain confidential information, including information protected by attorney-client privilege. The information is intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s). Delivery of this message to anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended to waive any privilege or otherwise detract from the confidentiality of the message. If you are not the intended recipient, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, do not read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this transmission. Rather, please promptly notify the sender by reply e-mail, and then destroy all copies of the message and its attachments, if any.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20180525/baa1fc26/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: logocc8df2
Type: image/png
Size: 22687 bytes
Desc: logocc8df2
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20180525/baa1fc26/logocc8df2.png>