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

[Brent Williams-Ruth]

TODDs are uniformly detested by title companies, especially if there is a
sale within 2 years of the date of death. I talk at length with clients who
claim they want a TODD. Then paper my file to protect myself should things
go sideways in the future.

Second, because TODD's are new to Washington there hasn't been much
litigation.

My own opinion - and granted I am getting old and crotchety - is extremely
conservative. If the statute says equal shares you are literally setting
yourself up to be the case study that would need to be litigated when
things go sideways. Would you ultimately win and could you make case law
for it? Potentially. Is it worth the litigation? being rejected by a crabby
county recorder/auditor?

All for what? To avoid probate in a state that has probate that is a breeze
as long as everyone is getting along?

Brent

*Brent Williams-Ruth* (pronouns: he/him)
*Attorney-At-Law*

*Law Offices of Brent Williams-Ruth, **a division of BWR Consulting, PLLC*

*Physical Address: 500 S 336th Street, Suite 214; Federal Way, WA 98003*

*Mailing Address: **PO BOX 3319; Federal Way, WA 98063 *

Office/Scheduling Phone: (253) 285-7751

For All Meetings & Scheduling: info at williams-ruthlaw.com

e-mail <Brent at Williams-RuthLaw.com> / website
<http://www.williams-ruthlaw.com/> / facebook
<http://www.facebook.com/bwrlaw> /


On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 1:29 PM Nichol Fletcher <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
>
> [image: 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
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbapt
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20250814/a28c266f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1381 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20250814/a28c266f/image001.jpg>