[WSBAPT] Thorny Heirship Question

Joshua McKarcher josh at mckarcherlaw.com
Wed Dec 8 23:05:36 PST 2021


Jeanne,

I do not believe you can “get to” per capita (for any generational levels you might have in play). This language to me is unequivocally creating one share for each deceased sibling of the decedent, so long as that deceased sibling left at least one surviving descendant: “one equal share for the issue of each deceased sibling who has surviving issue then living.”

It is not one equal share for each descendant of a deceased sibling. It is an equal share for (“the issue,” however many at however many generational levels) of EACH deceased sibling…

If the issue of each deceased sibling are of the same generational level (all are nieces and nephews of decedent), then it is as simple as dividing each deceased sibling’s 1/4th or 1/5th share into an equal number of shares for his or her children.

If there are descendants of deceased siblings in more than one generational level, I still think you take the share of the deceased sibling’s deceased child and divide it equally among the next generation. In this respect, I think you get the same result under representation and per stirpes, unless there is an angle I’m missing.

But if the total number of descendants of siblings is 13 or 14, the quoted language expressly does not follow the approach often associated with representation by which you make the first division of the estate in the first generational level with surviving issue (which eschews a true per stirpes pattern in favor of equality at that first generational level with at least one descendant). Rather, the quoted language seems very clearly to implement a more traditional per stirpes distribution.

Beyond that, I suppose consulting a Montana lawyer may be reasonable, in case there is some law out there that connects the necessary dots here. But it seems like the unadopted child’s burden, not the PR’s.

I have not had occasion to have someone declared the issue of a decedent when they were not the adopted or natural child of the decedent or his/her issue. If this person was not adopted, and there are issue to take the relevant share (i.e., it won’t escheat), then I don’t understand how a step-child would be an heir at law and thus a devisee here. I’m not sure it is the PR’s job to spend Estate assets to figure that out. Rather, it seems it is the step child’s job to establish his or her right to a share under some applicable law. So if the PR sought a ruling that s/he was not an heir and thus not a devisee, and the PR served notice of the motion and hearing on all 13 or 14 people and the stepchild, then he or she could assert whatever rights he or she ha has.

Good luck with all this! Best, Josh

Joshua D. McKarcher
McKarcher Law PLLC
537 6th Street
Clarkston, WA 99403
(509) 758-3345
(509) 758-3314 (fax)
josh at mckarcherlaw.com
www.mckarcherlaw.com<http://www.mckarcherlaw.com>
________________________________
From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> on behalf of Jeanne Dawes <jjdawes at goregrewe.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 3:24 PM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] Thorny Heirship Question

Since I did not get any responses to my long (sorry) email below, I would appreciate a referral to a Montana Attorney who handles heirship matters.  The potential heir in question was born in Havre, MT, and has spent her entire life in MT.  I believe MT law will determine her legal lineage.    She currently resides in Great Falls, MT .

Jeanne

Jeanne J. Dawes
Attorney at Law
Gore & Grewe, P.S.
103 E. Indiana Avenue, Suite A
Spokane, WA 99207-2317
Voice:  509-326-7500
Fax:      509-326-7503
jjdawes at goregrewe.com<mailto:jjdawes at goregrewe.com>

[cid:image001.png at 01D7EC46.55A65930][cid:image002.png at 01D7EC46.55A65930]
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL TRANSMISSION IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL.

From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com On Behalf Of Jeanne Dawes
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2021 4:41 PM
To: 'WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv (wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com)' <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBAPT] Thorny Heirship Question

Dear List Mates:

Testatrix dies leaving, no children, no spouse, but does leave a Will.  In a “special instructions” paragraph directly following the “family” paragraph, she said she is providing for her siblings and identifies 6 siblings, stating that one predeceased beneficiary (PDB) left no issue living or deceased at the time of making the will in 2012.

Testatrix recently passes, and all of her siblings have predeceased her.  Her residue disposition is “(1) one equal share for each of my then living siblings ; (2) one equal share for the issue of each deceased sibling who has surviving issue then living.”  No where in the will does it specify “per stirpes”, “right of representation” or “per capita” distributions with regards to issue of a deceased sibling.  The will does refer to the statute RCW 11.02.005 to define “issue.”

Come to find out PDB (the sibling who predeceased testatrix and left no issue) did actually have 4 children prior to his death said sibling was never married.  3 of the 4 children were adopted.  One child was not.  The unadopted child was born in MT and her birth certificate names the mother and father.  The named father is not PDB, but the mother’s husband.  The child never met the father listed on her birth certificate, and believes that her mother and he were divorced at the time of her birth but is not sure.  MT law presumes that a child born within 300 days of a divorce is presumed to be the child of both divorcing parents.

Testatrix’s estate is valued at just under 1 million.  Using the “Right of Representation” method the estate would be divided 4 or 5 ways, depending on whether PDB’s unadopted child is counted, and she would be the sole recipient of a 1/5 share.  Using the “per capita” method it would be divided equally 13 or 14 ways, depending on whether PDB1’s unadopted child us counted.

Questions:       1) I believe the PR has the discretion to decide if per capita or right of representation was intended by the testatrix (PR is a CPA, not a beneficiary under the will, although her spouse is).  PR was testatrix’s AIF and handled all her affairs for the 4-5 years prior to death.  Do you concur?  If not, I believe the dispositive will language would be interpreted as a per capital distribution to issue of a deceased sibling?  Do you concur?

2) Should the PR petition for a court order adjudicating heirship in this probate, if we cannot get unanimous consent of all beneficiaries to a distribution schedule?

                3)  Should the PR petition the court for an order establishing that the PDB’s unadopted child is not a legal heir due to the presumption she is the child of the father listed on her birth certificate?   One more fascinating tidbit, in an Ancestry DNA test, the unadopted child was identified as a 1st cousin of one of the other beneficiaries, and has been acknowledged by at least one predeceased sibling as PDB’s child (PR’s mother-in-law, who considered adopting the child back in the 1960’s but never did).  If anyone has handled disinheriting a potential beneficiary under these circumstances, or knows of a reason why this would not work, I would love to have a conversation with you.

Jeanne J. Dawes
Attorney at Law
Gore & Grewe, P.S.
103 E. Indiana Avenue, Suite A
Spokane, WA 99207-2317
Voice:  509-326-7500
Fax:      509-326-7503
jjdawes at goregrewe.com<mailto:jjdawes at goregrewe.com>
[cid:image003.jpg at 01D7EC46.55A65930][cid:image004.jpg at 01D7EC46.55A65930]
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL TRANSMISSION IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL.  IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, DO NOT READ, DISTRIBUTE OR REPRODUCE THIS TRANSMISSION (INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS).  IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER BY E-MAIL REPLY.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20211209/c09ba830/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 38000 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20211209/c09ba830/image001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 33452 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20211209/c09ba830/image002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5096 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20211209/c09ba830/image003.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5254 bytes
Desc: image004.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20211209/c09ba830/image004.jpg>


More information about the WSBAPT mailing list