[WSBAPT] Living Trust issue
Roger Hawkes
Roger at law-hawks.com
Sat Apr 22 08:18:24 PDT 2023
Thanks, all. This is a law school refresher course😊 I believe there is an ‘estate’ the moment some human passes away.
From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Joshua McKarcher
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2023 8:08 AM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] Living Trust issue
Given this exchange yesterday, and because further delay is unhelpful at this point, below is my promised reasoning for Bruce and Phil, or anyone else who cares, if they have not blacklisted me as spam yet . . . 😉. . .
I start with two questions that indicate what my elaboration below aims at.
Phil, what is your reasoning for why no “estate” exists anywhere until a PR is appointed (or a small estate affidavit is signed) somewhere? I see no evidence for that position. (My reasoning is below, as I promised earlier this week.) (Another way of asking this after your reply this morning: Are you sure that Terry’s definition, from section 2203 about the estate tax, is a definition limited to one kind of federal tax and not just a common sense definition reflecting Western law generally, which might be persuasive to a court or other authority analyzing this question?)
And, second, how is it “fraudulent” if a bank deposits an unendorsed check (or maybe one endorsed by “executor as defined under IRS Code 2203,” which is my way of jesting after your reply to Terry, not literal) with full truthful disclosure by a lawyer that it is property of a decedent’s estate, the proper fiduciary for which is our client? (Again, my reasoning is below.)
The rest of this tome I drafted as I had time this week . . .
I asserted long ago in this thread that, in effect, “An ‘estate’ exists, even if there is no PR appointed – so, how about using your IOLTA to deposit a check payable to Estate of Decedent, if the dots connect from that decedent’s estate to the trust regarding which you represent the trustee.”
Why? Because I have until this thread thought it completely uncontroversial that:
-- a decedent’s “estate” at the moment of death consists of her real and personal property that is subject to probate in one or more jurisdictions worldwide;
-- her “trust estate” is her real and personal property subject to disposition by her trust agreement, if one exists; and
-- her “nonprobate” estate or assets, at the moment of death, are the assets (that were part of her lifetime estate) that “transform” from being part of her lifetime estate to being part of neither estate previously described, but become some other person’s by operation of applicable law and her valid agreements with banks, life insurers, IRA custodians, etc. (Or, if they do eventually, upon being claimed, become part of either of the two estates previously described, it is later and by virtue of applicable law and/or her valid agreements.)
And, just to get it out of the way up front, I have considered it uncontroversial that an unprobated pour-over will – which can be filed for $20 post-mortem with our superior courts, and which can be admitted in evidence in some state court proceedings – is still a “will” (as defined in the RCW) and may be accorded whatever legal effect some third party wishes to accord it in a particular circumstance, even if not formally proved/probated or formally used to obtain Letters Testamentary.
So, I have always considered that, at the moment of death, the three categories above come into being (or are “created” or “take on meaning,” pick your phrase) as a matter of law, even if each is a legal fiction useful for applying laws and rules to the “fictional thing” (like unincorporated associations or accidental general partnerships that exist and can be “acted upon,” whether anyone realizes it exists or not). This concept of an “estate” applies in US bankruptcy law, general insolvency law, the law of decedents’ estates, and other similar regimes for “administering assets of a person or entity.”
The “probate estate” seems to me to be subject to subdivision, such as if the assets comprising it are subject to administration in 2+ states’ courts. A “[StateName] probate estate” takes on legal meaning – and the court-appointed PR is entitled to take “possession” of the probate estate subject to that state’s laws – if a state court appoints an administrator or PR of the portion of the “probate estate” that is subject to that state’s laws.
But that single state court proceeding does not necessarily implicate or affect the remainder of the worldwide “estate” that is not part of the “[StateName] probate estate” subject to the state court proceeding.
Or, a state’s laws may allow that a “small estate affidavit” may provide protection to or require the holder of an asset who relies on the statements in the affidavit to hand over an asset to the affiant.
That can be wonderful and helpful. But note that the small estate affidavit statute is permissive, not mandatory. It is aimed at forcing third parties to turn over property they refuse to; and giving protection to third parties who do so. It is not mandatory upon those third parties; they can hand over property at their own risk if they wish to.
And, regardless, sometimes the small estate affidavit would be untruthful to sign.
Imagine a probate proceeding in StateXYZ court for real property titled individually there, but a $1,500 bank deposit that is later discovered in the decedent’s home state of Washington, where everything else was successfully funded to the RLT, negating the need for probate in Washington of the pour-over will.
Do we really want the Washington trustee, in order to collect the $1,500 deposit to sign a small estate affidavit when the statute requires the affiant – our client! – to state that administration is not pending in any jurisdiction, when one is in StateXYZ? See RCW 11.62.010(2) (“shall state”) and sub (e) (no petition pending or granted anywhere). I assume not.
If a third party hands over property (even, say, this bank holding $1,500) to a person named as nominated PR in a valid “will” presented to them, because the third party satisfies itself that that same person is the current trustee of the trust to which the asset is ultimately owed under the pour-over will, then I know of no law that makes it illegal for that third party to hand over that asset to that third party voluntarily. They simply are liable for doing so because they don’t have a small estate affidavit or Letters Testamentary in-hand.
And I have had credit unions and banks do just that. Because I connect dots and practically depose my own clients in these matters before I “do” these things.
Perhaps that shocks some on this chain, but it’s absolutely happened with Big Bad Banks. And to the harm of absolutely nobody, and upon the misrepresentations or fraud of nobody.
(Indeed, I’ve even had that occur with two California financial institutions, one of which provided its own affidavit that did NOT require untruthful statements and was very well drafted. It was shockingly reasonable. “Yay banks!” That’s a little joke for anyone still reading.)
A properly executed, self-proved pour-over will that is unprobated, is a perfectly useful document to third parties that satisfy themselves that the lawyer and “nominated PR who is acting trustee” working with them are legit. A document that is well written, logical, looks like the trust document, is dated the same date maybe, etc. etc., can pass a sniff test that other wills and associated trusts manifestly do not.
And so I persist: I still assert that a check payable to “Estate of Decedent” or “Decedent” may be legitimately negotiated (and maybe even endorsed “executor” per Terry; or just not endorsed at all, as I have noted) by a person accepting the risk of acting with respect to estate property because they are acting according to their fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries and are mindful of their duty to apply the funds properly.
And I’m having a hard time understanding where the problem “is” or at least “should be” if:
-- a well-regarded, 100+-year-old bank accepts for deposit to my IOLTA account an unendorsed check (totally unexceptional in my experience, but my banker’s known me since childhood; and Heather’s obviously permitted it for years, so I’m not the only one who finds this unexceptional based on actual experience);
-- the money is attributed in my IOLTA records to a “matter” on which my firm represents a client;
-- I am willing to take the risk that it is proper to receive it, credit it, and distribute it accordingly in connection with the representation;
-- the check goes fully collected (not just available, a distinction my staff and lawyers monitor closely); and
-- the funds are applied properly (i.e., distributed to the parties to whom entitled).
If the client or the lawyer are acting outside the authority of the relevant documents, that is on them, and they should and will be held responsible.
But that is a separate matter and analysis from whether funds payable to “Estate of Decedent” or “Decedent” can be deposited and held in the IOLTA account of the lawyer hired by the one person on the planet (who is nominated PR under the will and sole trustee of the RLT to which the will pours over) to administer the (probate and trust) estates of Decedent.
If I’m dumb enough to deposit that check without confirming all the dots are connected to my client, then the rules will hold me accountable, as they should.
For example, Phil had used earlier in this thread the example of the three children of a decedent who died intestate. (Jenna, our original poster, did not have an intestate decedent, but a trustee who I “think” or “assume” was also the nominated PR under an unprobated pour-over will. But Phil’s example is apt, so let’s consider it.)
In Phil’s example, I would no more deposit a check payable to Estate of Decedent or Decedent for 1 of the 3 kids without 1 of them having retained me and having obtained Letters of Administration or having signed a small estate affidavit (and having full support of the two other siblings, having given 10-day notice, etc.).
(Perhaps a mild irony: I am the guy who tells PR/trustee clients that sending one of the beneficiaries to sign a vehicle inheritance affidavit is convenient but improper, because – like the “no pending probate” problem noted above for Washington small estate affidavits – most of the time the affiant collecting the vehicle would be lying to sign the blasted thing, because one or more statements is untrue. I tell them I do not advise people to lie or sign such things, and I encourage them to do it the right way. But I also turn around and deposit their unendorsed $75 insurance refund checks in my IOLTA if their bank won’t take it! But, back to Phil’s example . . . )
I would no more tell 1 of the 3 to move all the decedent’s tangible personal property to a secret storage shed and lock it up. Both would be improper, even under my (let’s say, “permissive”) standards.
But I submit that if one of the 3 kids presumed to act upon the decedent's assets by "doing things" pre-appointment, innocently or otherwise, they would reasonably be said to have presumed to act at their own risk upon the property of the decedent's (generic, worldwide, lowercase “e”) “estate.”
So, with deep respect for both Phil and Bruce, nothing I’ve seen (yet) persuades me that a decedent’s “estate” does not exist without the appointment of a PR or the signing of a small estate affidavit. Even if those things happen 99% of the time, so be it; but the “1% cases” are not invalid just because they’re rare or seem slightly “riskier.”
And, of course, often it ends up not mattering that these people described above “act upon” estate assets without formal court appointment . . . because it ends up being perfectly agreeable to all parties interested in the decedent’s estate (whether testate or intestate). The actor’s pre-appointment acts are in effect “ratified” after the actor-PR’s appointment.
Or, they are “ratified” by the consent (usually in the form of receipts, releases, etc.) following disclosure to all beneficiaries of the probate or trust estate’s inventory, receipts (including my renegade IOLTA deposits 😉), expenses, tax filings, ending balances, and proposed distributions.
Lastly, but not really as evidence but just theory, I would go as far as to say it is one totally expected and normal use of an IOLTA account in such properly vetted situations.
The detailed rules governing IOLTA accounts exist to make otherwise unusual transactions work for the better of our legal (and economic and other) systems. Consider the oddity of a litigant’s settlement funds being received, held, and distributed by the adverse party’s perhaps-despised lawyer. I bet that feels unusual to the litigant. Fine. These are unusual situations we lawyers are called upon and authorized to handle – with careful documentation and laser focus on the receipt and application of the funds.
The IOLTA rules exist to ensure that extensive documentation -- and heightened respect for things like "collected" vs. "available" funds -- are given careful heed by those -- we lawyers -- who "know better" and had better know what they are doing, but who can lawfully facilitate proper outcomes for clients and parties in “unusual” situations in which non-lawyers cannot. Please note that here the word “unusual” refers to it being unusual to non-lawyers. These things are perfectly “usual” to us, but that is largely the point: we are trained, vetted, licensed, and regulated in ways that ensure we will be disciplined if we do in wrongful ways these things that are “unusual to non-lawyers,” like holding third parties’ funds in our IOLTA accounts. Or in a way that does not heed the proper receipt and application of the funds, which are what IOLTA rules focus upon.
All my very 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<mailto:josh at mckarcherlaw.com>
www.mckarcherlaw.com<http://www.mckarcherlaw.com/>
From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> On Behalf Of Joshua McKarcher
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 10:33 PM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] Living Trust issue
1. My bank has done number 1 for years and has operated in the region for decades successfully and has offered IOLTA accounts to clients all along. I don’t know what else to tell you here, except it sounds like Heather’s bank did this for years as well until recently.
2. I have never advised a client to endorse a check as PR or anything else.
3. I don’t accept or deposit checks falsely endorsed. I do agree to deposit checks to my IOLTA for clients related to matters on which I advise them.
If I get audited by WSBA as a result of this thread, I will let you know how it goes.
Best, Josh
From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> On Behalf Of Philip N. Jones
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 9:41 PM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] Living Trust issue
Three questions:
Will a bank accept an unendorsed check being deposited to an IOLTA account? That would greatly surprise me.
Can an attorney ethically advise a client to endorse a check as PR when the client has not been appointed PR? That would greatly surprise me.
Can an attorney accept and deposit such a check? That would greatly surprise me.
Phil Jones
Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> on behalf of Joshua McKarcher <josh at mckarcherlaw.com<mailto:josh at mckarcherlaw.com>>
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 6:24:09 PM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] Living Trust issue
I owe an update on this thread (which I have been working on), but, given this quick exchange today and the word “fruadulent,” I feel compelled to respond to say I cannot see how it is fraudulent NOT to endorse a check and for the depositor’s bank simply to accept that check for deposit to their lawyer-client’s IOLTA account – so long as the bank and its client (i.e., my firm, if I’m the lawyer depositing to my IOLTA) are (as the bank and I must) accept all liability resulting from the wrongful receipt or application of the funds.
But every IOLTA deposit is theoretically subject to dispute. And we have very clear rules about how to handle that if a dispute arises.
And IOLTA funds are often (entirely?), as the rules contemplate, third-party property. This is an issue, in my view, of the lawyer’s judgment, knowledge of his client and the matter, the bank’s comfort and trust of their lawyer-client, the kind and size of check, and other relevant factors that are mostly “risk analysis” factors we all deal with every day.
But if all heirs-at-law are beneficiaries of the trust to which the unprobated will pours over, and the one serving as trustee and nominated PR under the will is also my client (on a “matter”) and has a check payable to Estate of Decedent or even simply Decedent – but does not otherwise have need to probate the pour-over will – then I have found nothing in IOLTA rules or ethical rules (at least so far this week) that makes it wrong in any way for the lawyer to deposit the check to his or her IOLTA account (if the bank agrees to accept it, which the bank is 100% not obligated to do; see, e.g., Heather’s bank’s change of heart).
It is then the lawyer’s (and his client’s) obligation to account for the receipt of those funds; and then to apply those funds properly. In my example that would be by ensuring the funds end up with the beneficiaries entitled to the trust’s assets by virtue of the unprobated (but perhaps filed) will that nominates my client as PR and pours over to the trust of which that PR is also trustee.
(The point there: I am not depositing funds subject to administration by someone else who is not my client on a “matter.” Not at all.)
I can expand more later re my position that Western law supports the idea that a decedent’s gross, worldwide, generic, lowercase “e” estate consists of all property worldwide that is individually titled and subject to various jurisdictions’ individual probate or administration statutes.
That (generic, worldwide, lowercase “e”) “estate” property is all the decedent’s property (1) not titled to a trust and (2) not subject to nonprobate transfer under contract and other applicable law (such as IRAs, TODs/PODs, life insurance with beneficiary designations).
Assets that comprise that generic, worldwide “estate” could be subject to 15 different jurisdictions’ probate laws. Imagine real property parcels in 15 different states (and poor planning, ha ha!). That could result in 15 state probate court proceedings technically “titled” In re Estate of Decedent, but that simply creates 15 separate “sub-estates,” each consisting of the property subject to each separate state’s probate laws.
But what if the HOME state has no real property and NOTHING requiring Letters Testamentary for administration? Is there really no estate in the home state? Until this exchange, I never would have dreamed our profession would argue, “Yes, there is no estate in that home state until a PR is appointed there or a small estate affidavit is signed and filed there.”
I respectfully suggest that Western law generally (and Washington law specifically) will not likely bear out that there is simply “no estate” anywhere until a court-appointed PR is appointed somewhere. There is indeed no “Estate of Decedent under Case No. XYZ123 in Washington Superior Court for County ABC,” but there is an “estate” – property that belongs to someone deceased that needs to be received and applied properly and efficiently and sensibly.
Of course the will could be probated, or a small estate affidavit could be presented, but if a payor of $35 in insurance premium refunds (payable to Estate of Decedent) or $75 of federal income tax refund money (payable to Decedent) does not WANT the protection/indemnity provided to them by acceptance and retention of the small estate affidavit, then I just do not believe lawyers are committing fraud by depositing either check to their IOLTA accounts with no endorsement by anyone.
And the following is NOT a “justification” in any way, so proving this wrong does not prove my assertions wrong, but test the assertion against what IOLTA rules are about: a lawyer could use his IOLTA account all day long to deposit checks properly endorsed by his/her client respecting a matter on which the lawyer advises the client -- and NOT APPLY THE FUNDS correctly. Or perhaps he knows/suspects the client-endorser RECEIVED the funds improperly. I believe the law would support the position that it is the receipt and application of client trust/IOLTA funds, not the endorsement of checks, that the law regulates or intends to regulate.
And, please do not forget: nothing I’m advocating relieves anyone involved of liability and accountability – or even documentation obligation – for the receipt and application of those funds. I maintain 100% obligation and accountability for every little check like this. And I have 0% problem with that, because of how I screen and choose my clients.
All my very best regards, and have a great weekend everyone! 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<mailto:josh at mckarcherlaw.com>
www.mckarcherlaw.com<http://www.mckarcherlaw.com/>
From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> On Behalf Of Philip N. Jones
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 12:29 PM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] Living Trust issue
I don’t see any ethical issues, except one:
Who is going to endorse the check, and how are they going to endorse it? We can’t ethically advise our client to sign as PR when the client is not a PR.
Some attorneys say to their clients, “I can’t ethically advise you to do X. Wink. Wink.” Knowing full well that the attorney just gave the client an idea of what to do. And the attorney can then use “plausible deniability” to claim that he/she did not advise the client to do X.
But in this case, the attorney will be placing the funds in his/her IOLTA account. Difficult to plausibly deny that the attorney participated in an action that might be viewed as fraudulent.
Phil Jones
Philip N. Jones
Duffy Kekel LLP
900 S.W. Fifth Ave. Suite 2500
Portland, OR 97204
pjones at duffykekel.com<mailto:pjones at duffykekel.com>
(503) 226-1371 – office
(503) 853-1482 – cell
(503) 226-3574 - fax
From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> On Behalf Of Timothy Lehr
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 12:03 PM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] Living Trust issue
Wondering if there would be any ethical violations/issues with depositing the check in an attorney trust account and re-issuing to the trust? This was just off the top of my head and I have not looked into any issues that might be involved, so don’t quote me on the above as a proper or ethical solution…
Timothy C. Lehr
Attorney & Partner
[cid:image001.jpg at 01D974F2.FC4B9620]
p: 360.855.0131
e: timothy at stileslaw.com<mailto:timothy at stileslaw.com>
w: www.stileslaw.com<http://www.stileslaw.com/>
NOTICE: The information contained in this email is proprietary and/or confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are hereby notified to : (i) delete the email and all copies; (ii) not disclose, distribute or use the email in any manner; (iii) notify the sender immediately. Thank you.
From: Philip N. Jones <pjones at duffykekel.com<mailto:pjones at duffykekel.com>>
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 2:39 PM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] Living Trust issue
That’s because I grew up in Lake Forest Park and drank the water (literally, out of a well).
Phil Jones
Philip N. Jones
Duffy Kekel LLP
900 S.W. Fifth Ave. Suite 2500
Portland, OR 97204
pjones at duffykekel.com<mailto:pjones at duffykekel.com>
(503) 226-1371 – office
(503) 853-1482 – cell
(503) 226-3574 - fax
From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> On Behalf Of Roger Hawkes
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 2:25 PM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] Living Trust issue
Phil; you clearly have good genes on one side at least.
From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> On Behalf Of Philip N. Jones
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2023 5:48 PM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] Living Trust issue
This is a problem we all run into constantly.
I doubt a bank will open an estate account without Letters Testamentary.
Does the client happen to have an account that is joint with Mom? Perhaps you could deposit the check to that account, but some banks will not let you do that if they know that Mom has died (and the check, after all, is made out to her estate). Some people suggest using a night deposit slot so that there won’t be a teller to ask questions, but I am told that the banks scrutinize such deposits just like any other.
Is client on good terms with a bank teller who might look the other way and deposit the check to an account in the name of the trust? Or in the name of Client/Child?
This check might be particularly difficult to deposit since it is made out to the estate. Might be a little bit easier if it were made out to Mom.
Be careful about advising Client to endorse the check and writing “personal representative” under her signature. Client is not a personal representative, and you don’t want Client to do anything fraudulent.
I have now run out of ideas. And none of the above ideas are very good ones.
If it gives you any comfort, I had the exact same problem a couple of months ago when my Mom died. She was 101 and had covered the Roosevelt White House as a cub reporter.
Welcome to modern banking,
Phil Jones
Philip N. Jones
Duffy Kekel LLP
900 S.W. Fifth Ave. Suite 2500
Portland, OR 97204
pjones at duffykekel.com<mailto:pjones at duffykekel.com>
(503) 226-1371 – office
(503) 853-1482 – cell
(503) 226-3574 - fax
From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> On Behalf Of Jenna Brozik
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2023 5:30 PM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBAPT] Living Trust issue
Hello list mates,
Client’s mother passed away and the mother had a living trust. Client is the Trustee of the Living Trust and only beneficiary. All assets were titled in the Living Trust. However, client received a check in the mail after mother passed away. Apparently the mother overpaid her healthcare premium and the company issued her a check for the overpayment. The check is made out to the Estate. Client called to ask company to make it out to Living Trust. Company has refused. Company has refused to reissue the check under any name.
Should client just open up a bank account under the Estate to get this check deposited? No probate is necessary in this case. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Jenna Brozik
Managing Attorney
PRINZ & BROZIK PLLC
445 S. Grand Avenue
Pullman, WA 99163
509-338-0908 Telephone
509-338-3527 Facsimile
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20230422/748d20c7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5086 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20230422/748d20c7/image001.jpg>
More information about the WSBAPT
mailing list