[WSBAPT] Transfer on Death Deed - Concurrent Beneficiary Interests Question

[Mark Anderson]

I agree that the client can anticipate future practical challenges regarding the disposition of real property if the property is to be held by two or more people as tenants-in-common.

One way to accomplish the client's objectives would be to execute two Transfer on Death Deeds – one of them transfers a 70% interest in the property in the other transfers a 30% interest in the property.

Another way to accomplish the client's objectives might be to create an LLC in which one beneficiary owns a 70% membership interest, and the other beneficiary owns a 30% membership interest.  The TODD would transfer the property into the LLC.  The ultimate disposition of the property within be controlled by the LLC operating agreement.

Mark B. Anderson
ANDERSON LAW FIRM PLLC
821 Dock Street, Suite 209, PMB 4-12
Tacoma, Washington 98402
+1 253-327-1750
+1 253-327-1751 (fax)
marka at mbaesq.com<mailto:marka at mbaesq.com>
www.mbaesq.com<http://www.mbaesq.com/>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This transmission is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the individual named recipient. It may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other confidentiality protection. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, be advised that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender via e-mail or by telephone at (253) 327-1750 that you have received the message in error, and then delete it. Thank you.

From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Ann Manley
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2025 1:53 PM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] Transfer on Death Deed - Concurrent Beneficiary Interests Question

How would that work on a practical level if there is unequal ownership with regards to selling or managing the property? Sounds like a huge headache.

Ann Manley, Esq.
The Manley Law Firm, P.S., Inc.
PO Box 16324
Seattle, WA 98116
(206)292-3064 / (206)292-3914 fax
www.manleyfirm.com<http://www.manleyfirm.com>

The Manley Law Firm practice areas include Bankruptcy*, Estate Planning, Auto Accidents, Civil Litigation, Construction, Commercial and Contract Law, Personal injury, Small Business, Unemployment Claims, Wage Loss and Compensation claims

* The Manley Law Firm is a Debt Relief Agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.

This email and any files transmitted with it are privileged, confidential, and intended solely to whom they are addressed. Any unauthorized use, copying, review or disclosure is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender.


On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 1:29 PM Nichol Fletcher <nfletcher at crandall-law.com<mailto:nfletcher at crandall-law.com>> wrote:
Hello,

I have a client who wants to leave unequal interests in real estate to two beneficiaries (70% and 30%, respectively) via a transfer on death deed. I am trying to figure out whether this is allowed under the Washington Uniform Real Property Transfer on Death Act.

RCW 64.80.100(1)(c) provides that where a TODD makes a bequest of concurrent interests, those interests are “transferred to the beneficiaries in equal and undivided shares with no right of survivorship”. However, the structure of 64.80.100, along with the comments to the model Uniform Real Property Transfer on Death Act (published 2009 by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws), give me the impression that this is a default rule that can be overridden by express language in the deed to the contrary. Specifically, the model act refers to this section as a “default” rule, and states generally that the transferor of a transfer on death deed “may select any form of ownership, concurrent or successive, absolute or conditional, contingent or vested, valid under state law…”, citing the general restatement rule of giving the “maximum effect allowed by law” to the grantor’s intent.

I have not found any caselaw on the issue, and the question does not appear to be addressed in the legislative history or the secondary sources I have access to. Beyond the model act commentary and other (generally cursory and informal) impressions published online, which have conflicting interpretations, I haven’t been able to find much guidance. Has anyone dealt with this before? Any input is appreciated!

Thank you!

Nichol A Fletcher, Attorney at Law
Tel: (509) 223-3200   Email: nfletcher at crandall-law.com<mailto:nfletcher at crandall-law.com>
[Small Mountain logo]<https://crandall-law.com/>North Cascades Law Group<https://crandall-law.com/>
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

***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<mailto:WSBAPT at lists.wsbarppt.com>
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbapt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20250814/d9dc0a59/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1381 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20250814/d9dc0a59/image001.jpg>