[WSBAPT] WSBAPT Digest, Vol 78, Issue 12

[John J. Sullivan]

Roger:

Ahhh. I misspoke. It’s the term “issue” I often specifically define in wills and RLTs. 

I’m not saying it overrides the intestacy statute (e.g., in a pretermitted heir situation). I’m just controlling the definition under the will/RLT. Mostly I’m talking about the provision to avoid escheat - if spouse and all the descendants are gone, for example. Also “issue of descendants.”  I also use a defined term for “descendent” where the client wants it. 

Fortunately, I have not had to litigate it, but I don’t see why a broad default provision in a will must include what we used to call “illegitimate” grandchildren or nieces and nephews just because the statutory term “issue” is redefined. 

John J. Sullivan

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 10, 2021, at 2:08 PM, Roger Hawkes <Roger at law-hawks.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks, John.  I would like to review any briefings and pleadings contesting the issue of whether disinheriting a 'class' of bio descendants by categorical designation would actually work in Washington.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of John J. Sullivan
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 12:03 PM
> To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] WSBAPT Digest, Vol 78, Issue 12
> 
> The default provision in my wills and RLTs specifically state that I intend to exclude any relative not mentioned. I also ask clients whether they want “heir” limited to those born in “wedlock” so to speak. 
> 
> But in my research it appears not mentioning an heir in WA only matters if the heir is pretermitted, not merely omitted. In the case I looked at last week the discovered heir was born before the will and known to the testator. 
> 
> John J. Sullivan . 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Mar 10, 2021, at 11:38 AM, Roger Hawkes <Roger at law-hawks.com> wrote:
>> 
>> So..with increasing bio heirs popping up because of dna services, would it work to disinherit all such heirs even without names and any knowledge?  Something like "I specifically disinherit any biological heirs of mine who I have not mentioned in this Will, especially those I have never known."
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com 
>> <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of jcrspicatto at gmail.com
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 10:28 AM
>> To: wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com
>> Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] WSBAPT Digest, Vol 78, Issue 12
>> 
>> Jeff,
>> 
>> All intestate heirs must be listed in the Petition and given notice.  
>> They have standing to challenge the validity of a Will that 
>> disinherits them; the
>> 4 month statute of limitations to do so only starts when they are given
>> notice of the probate proceeding.   Listing them in the Petition as
>> disinherited but intestate heirs, is an allegation of such by your client.
>> That allegation becomes res judicata, claims preclusion only if they are alleged and given notice.  See In re Little, 127 Wn App 915, 113 P 3rd 505 (Div 1, 2005).
>> 
>> Jenny Rydberg, JD
>> 206-550-5491
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ws