[WSBAPT] Estate Planning Qs with regards to Real Property

Wed Sep 2 08:12:37 PDT 2020

Thank you to both Jane and Diane for their suggestions!

Best,
_Mark

On 2020-08-28 10:49, Jane Bitz wrote:
> I think you would only need a Guardianship of the Estate until the
> nieces turn 18 and the other relative could petition for Non-Parental
> Custody.
> 
> If there is an existing Guardianship, the other relative should be
> named by the existing Guardians as the Successor Guardian in the Court
> file.
> 
> Jane.
> 
> Jane G. Bitz
> Of Counsel
> Wolff, Hislop & Crockett, PLLC
> 12209 E. Mission Ave, Suite 5
> Spokane Valley, WA 99206-4824
> (509) 927-9700 x126
> FAX: (509) 777-1800
> 
> 
> THE CONTENTS OF THIS ELECTRONIC MAIL ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTED BY
> THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR OTHER APPLICABLE PROTECTION.  Any
> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly
> prohibited.  If you have received this electronic mail in error,
> PLEASE NOTIFY ME BY E-MAIL, FAX OR TELEPHONE and PROMPTLY DELETE this
> electronic mail.  This mail cannot be modified without express written
> consent of Wolff, Hislop & Crockett, PLLC.  Thank You.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Diane J. Kiepe
> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 3:30 PM
> To: mark at harbingerandassociates.com; WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv
> <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] Estate Planning Qs with regards to Real Property
> 
> Mark,
> 
> One immediate thought that came to my mind is to discuss if there
> should be one trust for both girls and if one trust will distributions
> be based on need, equalization required, etc. etc.
> 
> Second thing that pops into mind is to use precatory language saying
> it is the Testator's strong preference that the Guardian move in but
> you never want to force someone to stay in a house that might not, at
> the time meet the best needs.  What if it really depresses the girls
> for example, to be there without auntie and uncle.
> 
> Lastly, you will want to consider the guardianship of person versus
> funds - if it makes sense to separate those roles or if X is still
> going to be Trustee if not guardian.
> 
> Just a few thoughts
> 
> Diane J. Kiepe
> 
> Diane J. Kiepe
> Douglas Eden
> 717 W. Sprague Ave.
> Suite 1500
> Spokane, WA  99201
> djkiepe at depdslaw.com
> 509-455-5300
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Mark A.
> Morenz-Harbinger
> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 1:48 PM
> To: wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com
> Subject: [WSBAPT] Estate Planning Qs with regards to Real Property
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> Would love to avail myself of the wisdom of the group. Client is
> co-guardian (with his wife) of two great-nieces, who are both minors.
> Their house is not yet fully paid off. There is a relative (X), not a
> natural parent, who is willing to move in-state and be the girls'
> guardians if both of them die.
> 
> This was my thought as to steps:
> 1. LI secondary beneficiary (primary is spouse and all of the rest of
> this only matters if she predeceases him) is to be Relative X, as
> Trustee of Testamentary Trust on Behalf of Grand-Nieces (minors).
> 
> 2a. Upon death, LW&T creates Testamentary Trust; and 2b. LI proceeds
> go to Relative X as Trustee of that Trust.
> 
> 3. Testamentary Trust terms say that i) Relative X must i) move into
> home; and ii) use LI proceeds first to pay off mortgage, then for
> benefit of Grand-Nieces.
> 
> [4. In separate process Relative X will also petition Court to be
> Guardian. We cannot just use a DPOA for this since that statute is
> only available to natural parents.]
> 
> 5. Testamentary Trust terms also direct, either if Relative X cannot
> physically move in to the home, or guardianship petition somehow
> fails, or upon the girls both reaching a certain age, that the house
> shall be sold for the benefit of the girls.
> 
> 6. Relative X is also named UTMA property custodian in case it is 
> necessary.
> 
> MY QUESTIONS:
> √ ...Does this approach cover the bases, or is there a gap in my
> reasoning here? I originally was so worried about due-on-sale clauses
> that I thought an RLT would be needed, but, upon further review of 12
> US §1701j-3, now feel like the LW&T handles it.
> 
> √...Further, am I right in thinking that, regardless of how it plays
> out, that the LI proceeds will be protected under 48.18.410?
> 
> I know the devil's in the details and much depends on drafting, and if
> anyone has some testamentary trust language I'll take it; but mostly I
> just wanted to make sure there were no gaps that I had missed.
> 
> Thanks so much!
> 
> Best,
> _Mark
> 
> --
> Mark A. Morenz-Harbinger, Attorney-at-Law HARBINGER LAW, PLLC // "See 
> Success"
> Ph: (360) 932-3987 // Fx: 866-501-8913
> 4040 Wheaton Way, Suite 203, Bremerton, WA 98310-3565
> 
> *~~> PLEASE VISIT out NEW WEBSITE at www.harbingerandassociates.com
> 
> NOTICE: HARBINGER LAW, PLLC  is a general civil law solo practitioner
> serving the Seattle South Sound, Kitsap Peninsula area. This
> electronic mail transmission is for the use of the named individual or
> entity to which it is directed and may contain information that is
> privileged or confidential. It is not to be transmitted to or received
> by anyone other than the named addressee (or a person authorized to
> deliver it to the named addressee). It is not to be copied or
> forwarded to any unauthorized persons. If you have received this
> electronic mail transmission in error, delete it from your system
> without copying or forwarding it, and without opening the
> attachment(s), if any, and notify the sender of the error by replying
> via email or by calling Mark Harbinger at (513) 364-0119 (collect), so
> that our address record can be corrected. Nothing in this email is to
> be considered to create an attorney-client relationship and all
> advisory comments are meant to be generic, unless a signed engagement
> letter along with the accompany retainer has been fully paid.
> 
> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not
> restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing
> attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and
> others.*** _______________________________________________
> WSBAPT mailing list
> WSBAPT at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbapt
> 
> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not
> restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing
> attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and
> others.*** _______________________________________________
> WSBAPT mailing list
> WSBAPT at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbapt