[WSBAPT] Intestate Inheritance with "kindred of the half blood"

[Mike Winslow]

First, I think you are confusing terms between half siblings and step siblings. The steps have no claim because they are not blood relatives. The half sibs do because they share one parent with the decedent.
See Section 6.4 of the WSBA Probate desk book. The discussion about ancestral property (which you raised below) is also interesting. 
 
Michael A. Winslow
1204 Cleveland Ave.
Mount Vernon, WA 98273
Ph. 360-336-3321
Em. Mike at winslegal.com
 
This message is from an attorney, so it’s confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, it’s too late to stop reading this message, but you may not use it for any improper purpose. Huge Disclaimer available upon request.
 
From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Karl Flaccus
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 11:48 AM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv
Subject: [WSBAPT] Intestate Inheritance with "kindred of the half blood"
 
If a person dies intestate without children or spouse, and the intestate’s parents are deceased, the heirs are the deceased’s siblings, whether those siblings are full siblings or half siblings.  RCW 11.04.035.  So a person might die with a twin who survives, for example, and that surviving twin has to share her brother’s inheritance with 9 step siblings a thousand miles away who she’s never met.  This seems odd, but that’s the law.   
 
There is an exception to this if the property is traceable to the twins’ parent (ancestor) who is not the parent of the step-children, in which case those traceable funds go only to the twin and not to the step-sibs.  RCW 11.04.035.  Ok, that makes sense. 
 
Going back to the first paragraph above: I know this is not the law, but it seems to me it would make more sense if an intestate’s estate (that is not traceable to one parent or another) would go 50% to mom’s children and 50% to dad’s children.  In the case of a twin with 9 step-siblings, under this proposal the twin would get 55% and each step-child would get 5%.   If the twin had 3 step siblings instead of 9, the twin would receive 62.5%, and 12.5% would go to each step sibling.
 
Wouldn’t that make more sense?  
 
Karl 
FLACCUS LAW
7010 35th Ave. N.E.
Seattle, Washington  98115
206 523-0297
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20190220/d0dc514a/attachment.html>