[WSBAPT] Deed Clarification
Robin Swanson
robin at securelegallegacy.com
Mon Aug 25 18:21:53 PDT 2025
Robin Swanson:I have a deed that conveys to Mary Smith, an individual,
and John and Joan Smith, a married couple. Does this create a 1/3
interest in each of the three parties or a 50% interest with Mary and
a 50% CP interest with John and Joan?
AI Assistant
The deed in question creates a 50% ownership interest for Mary Smith
as an individual and a 50% community property (CP) interest for John
and Joan Smith, the married couple. Under Washington law, property
acquired during marriage is presumed to be community property unless
there is clear evidence to rebut this presumption. Each spouse in a
marital community owns an undivided one-half interest in the community
property, meaning that John and Joan Smith collectively hold a 50%
interest as community property, with each spouse having an equal,
undivided one-half interest in that 50% share De Elche v. Jacobsen,
95 Wn.2d 237 <https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/3S3J-W9H0-003F-W4F3-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Lyon v. Lyon, 100 Wn.2d 409
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/3S3J-W6Y0-003F-W2B8-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Burgess v. Crossan, 189 Wn. App. 97
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/5GJ3-T2W1-F04M-B181-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 26.16.030
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/statutes-legislation/id/5BB3-VYD1-66P3-2532-00000-00/?context=1530671>.
The legal framework in Washington supports this interpretation.
Community property law dictates that property acquired during marriage
is presumed to belong to the marital community, and each spouse has an
undivided one-half interest in the community property. This principle
applies regardless of how the property is titled, as the character of
the property is determined by its acquisition during the marriage and
not solely by the names on the deed De Elche v. Jacobsen, 95 Wn.2d
237 <https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/3S3J-W9H0-003F-W4F3-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Burgess v. Crossan, 189 Wn. App. 97
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/5GJ3-T2W1-F04M-B181-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 26.16.030
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/statutes-legislation/id/5BB3-VYD1-66P3-2532-00000-00/?context=1530671>.
Additionally, Washington law does not treat the marital community as a
separate legal entity but rather as a partnership between the spouses,
with each spouse holding equal rights to the community property De
Elche v. Jacobsen, 95 Wn.2d 237
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/3S3J-W9H0-003F-W4F3-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Lyon v. Lyon, 100 Wn.2d 409
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/3S3J-W6Y0-003F-W2B8-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Bortle v. Osborne, 155 Wash. 585
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/3RRN-0KM0-003V-74M7-00000-00/?context=1530671>.
Therefore, the deed does not create a 1/3 interest for each of the
three parties. Instead, it allocates a 50% interest to Mary Smith and
a 50% community property interest to John and Joan Smith, with each
spouse holding an undivided one-half interest in their community share
De Elche v. Jacobsen, 95 Wn.2d 237
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/3S3J-W9H0-003F-W4F3-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Lyon v. Lyon, 100 Wn.2d 409
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/3S3J-W6Y0-003F-W2B8-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Burgess v. Crossan, 189 Wn. App. 97
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/5GJ3-T2W1-F04M-B181-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 26.16.030
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/statutes-legislation/id/5BB3-VYD1-66P3-2532-00000-00/?context=1530671>.
Content supporting AI-generated response:
[image: CaselawCaution]
<https://plus.lexis.com/shepards/?pdshepid=urn%3acontentItem%3a7XWR-C481-2NSD-K1FX-00000-00&pdischatbotdoc=true&passagetext=LiBUaGUgbGVnaXNsYXR1cmUsIGluIGRlZmluaW5nIGNvbW11bml0eS4qb3BlcnR5IGluIENvbmZsaWN0IG9mIExhd3MgMjMtMjQgKDE5NTIpLg%3d%3d>
De Elche v. Jacobsen, 95 Wn.2d 237
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/3S3J-W9H0-003F-W4F3-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| WA Supreme Court Cases from 1854 | Cases | Washington | Dec 31,
1980
[image: CaselawCaution]
<https://plus.lexis.com/shepards/?pdshepid=urn%3acontentItem%3a7XWN-P951-2NSD-K4XB-00000-00&pdischatbotdoc=true&passagetext=YSBzdXJ2aXZpbmcgc3BvdXNlIHJldGFpbnMgYXQgbGVhc3QgaGFsZi4qdWlzaGVkIGJ5IHRoZSBkZWF0aCBvZiB0aGUgb3RoZXIgc3BvdXNlLg%3d%3d>
Lyon v. Lyon, 100 Wn.2d 409
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/3S3J-W6Y0-003F-W2B8-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| WA Supreme Court Cases from 1854 | Cases | Washington | Oct 13,
1983
[image: CaselawReferenced]
<https://plus.lexis.com/shepards/?pdshepid=urn%3acontentItem%3a5GHK-8R01-DXC8-74RG-00000-00&pdischatbotdoc=true&passagetext=WzEtNV0gwrYxMyBIb3dldmVyLCDigJxbaV1udGVyZXN0cyBpbiBjb21tby4qIG5vdCBhZGRyZXNzIHRoZSBwZXJ0aW5lbnQgaXNzdWUgZWl0aGVyLg%3d%3d>
Burgess v. Crossan, 189 Wn. App. 97
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/5GJ3-T2W1-F04M-B181-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| WA Court of Appeals Cases from 1969 | Cases | Washington | Jul 27,
2015
[image: StatutePositive]
<https://plus.lexis.com/shepards/?pdshepid=urn%3acontentItem%3a805F-R5M1-2NSD-N2D6-00000-00&pdischatbotdoc=true&passagetext=UHJvcGVydHkgbm90IGFjcXVpcmVkIG9yIG93bmVkLCBhcyBwcmVzYy4qdXJpdHkgYWdyZWVtZW50IG9yIGJpbGwgb2Ygc2FsZSwgaWYgYW55Lg%3d%3d>
Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 26.16.030
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/statutes-legislation/id/5BB3-VYD1-66P3-2532-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| WA - Annotated Revised Code of Washington | Codes | Washington
[image: CaselawCaution]
<https://plus.lexis.com/shepards/?pdshepid=urn%3acontentItem%3a7XWV-V871-2NSD-N2F9-00000-00&pdischatbotdoc=true&passagetext=QSBtYXJpdGFsIGNvbW11bml0eSBpcyBpbiBubyBzZW5zZSBhIGNvci4qdXNlcyBoYXMgYW4gdW5kaXZpZGVkIG9uZS1oYWxmIGludGVyZXN0Lg%3d%3d>
Bortle v. Osborne, 155 Wash. 585
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/3RRN-0KM0-003V-74M7-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| WA Supreme Court Cases from 1854 | Cases | Washington | Feb 24,
1930
Robin Swanson:If I wanted this marital property to be divided into 1/3
shares, how would this deed be conveyed?
AI Assistant
To convey property to Mary Smith, an individual, and John and Joan
Smith, a married couple, with each party receiving an equal 1/3
ownership interest, the deed must comply with Washington's statutory
requirements for property conveyance. The deed should clearly identify
the grantor and grantees, describe the property being conveyed, and
specify the ownership interests of each grantee. In this case, the
deed should state that Mary Smith, John Smith, and Joan Smith each
hold an undivided 1/3 interest as tenants in common, as this form of
ownership allows for unequal or equal shares without survivorship
rights unless otherwise specified Bale v. Allison, 173 Wn. App. 435
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/57R1-RW01-F04M-B0FD-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 64.04.010
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/statutes-legislation/id/6BKX-JHF3-RT92-81YH-00000-00/?context=1530671>.
The deed should include appropriate words of conveyance, such as
"grants and conveys," as required under Washington law. If the grantor
does not wish to provide warranties, a disclaimer of warranties should
be included to avoid any implication of a statutory warranty deed.
Additionally, the deed must be in writing, signed by the grantor, and
acknowledged to meet the requirements of Bale v. Allison, 173 Wn.
App. 435 <https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/57R1-RW01-F04M-B0FD-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 64.04.010
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/statutes-legislation/id/6BKX-JHF3-RT92-81YH-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 64.04.020
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/statutes-legislation/id/5BB3-WDT1-66P3-251B-00000-00/?context=1530671>.
Since John and Joan Smith are a married couple, it is important to
ensure compliance with Washington's community property laws. Under
Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 26.16.030
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/statutes-legislation/id/5BB3-VYD1-66P3-2532-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
both spouses must join in the execution of the deed to convey or
encumber community property. This ensures that the property is
properly conveyed to them as tenants in common with Mary Smith, with
each party holding an equal 1/3 interest Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) §
26.16.030 <https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/statutes-legislation/id/5BB3-VYD1-66P3-2532-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 26.16.095
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/statutes-legislation/id/5BB3-VYD1-66P3-2539-00000-00/?context=1530671>.
In summary, the deed should:
1. Identify the grantor and grantees (Mary Smith, John Smith, and
Joan Smith).
2. Specify that each grantee holds an undivided 1/3 interest as
tenants in common.
3. Include appropriate words of conveyance, such as "grants and conveys."
4. Be signed by the grantor and acknowledged.
5. Include a disclaimer of warranties if no warranties are intended.
6. Ensure compliance with community property laws for the married
couple, John and Joan Smith Bale v. Allison, 173 Wn. App. 435
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/57R1-RW01-F04M-B0FD-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 64.04.010
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/statutes-legislation/id/6BKX-JHF3-RT92-81YH-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 26.16.030
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/statutes-legislation/id/5BB3-VYD1-66P3-2532-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 26.16.095
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/statutes-legislation/id/5BB3-VYD1-66P3-2539-00000-00/?context=1530671>.
Content supporting AI-generated response:
[image: CaselawCaution]
<https://plus.lexis.com/shepards/?pdshepid=urn%3acontentItem%3a57R1-KGK1-DXC8-7540-00000-00&pdischatbotdoc=true&passagetext=SXQgc2hvdWxkIGJlIHBvc3NpYmxlIHRvIHJlbHkgdXBvbiB0aGUgZy4qbmRlZCBvbmUgb2YgdGhlIHNwZWNpYWwgc3RhdHV0b3J5IGZvcm1zLg%3d%3d>
Bale v. Allison, 173 Wn. App. 435
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/57R1-RW01-F04M-B0FD-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| WA Court of Appeals Cases from 1969 | Cases | Washington | Feb 11,
2013
[image: StatutePositive]
<https://plus.lexis.com/shepards/?pdshepid=urn%3acontentItem%3a805G-2VR1-2NSD-R1HB-00000-00&pdischatbotdoc=true&passagetext=RXZlcnkgY29udmV5YW5jZSBvZiByZWFsIGVzdGF0ZSwgb3IgYW55IC4qZSBoZXJlYnkgZGVjbGFyZWQgdG8gYmUgbGVnYWwgYW5kIHZhbGlkLg%3d%3d>
Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 64.04.010
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/statutes-legislation/id/6BKX-JHF3-RT92-81YH-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| WA - Annotated Revised Code of Washington | Codes | Washington
[image: StatutePositive]
<https://plus.lexis.com/shepards/?pdshepid=urn%3acontentItem%3a805G-N5S1-2NSD-P1R4-00000-00&pdischatbotdoc=true&passagetext=>
Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 64.04.020
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/statutes-legislation/id/5BB3-WDT1-66P3-251B-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| WA - Annotated Revised Code of Washington | Codes | Washington
[image: StatutePositive]
<https://plus.lexis.com/shepards/?pdshepid=urn%3acontentItem%3a805F-R5M1-2NSD-N2D6-00000-00&pdischatbotdoc=true&passagetext=UHJvcGVydHkgbm90IGFjcXVpcmVkIG9yIG93bmVkLCBhcyBwcmVzYy4qdXJpdHkgYWdyZWVtZW50IG9yIGJpbGwgb2Ygc2FsZSwgaWYgYW55Lg%3d%3d>
Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 26.16.030
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/statutes-legislation/id/5BB3-VYD1-66P3-2532-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| WA - Annotated Revised Code of Washington | Codes | Washington
[image: StatuteReferenced]
<https://plus.lexis.com/shepards/?pdshepid=urn%3acontentItem%3a805H-JV70-Y87G-C2P3-00000-00&pdischatbotdoc=true&passagetext=V2hlbmV2ZXIgYW55IHBlcnNvbiwgbWFycmllZCwgaW4gYSBzdGF0ZS4qeSBpbiB3aGljaCBzdWNoIHJlYWwgZXN0YXRlIGlzIHNpdHVhdGVkLg%3d%3d>
Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 26.16.095
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/statutes-legislation/id/5BB3-VYD1-66P3-2539-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| WA - Annotated Revised Code of Washington | Codes | Washington
Robin Swanson:Without designated percentages with a married couple,
the presumption is community property with shared ownership, not
separate property ownership?
AI Assistant
In Washington state, when property is conveyed to a married couple
without designated percentages, the presumption is that the property
is community property with shared ownership, rather than separate
property with individual ownership interests. Washington law
establishes a strong presumption that all property acquired during
marriage is community property, regardless of how title is held. This
presumption applies unless there is clear and convincing evidence to
rebut it, such as evidence that the property falls within a separate
property exception (e.g., property acquired by gift, inheritance, or
as separate property before marriage) Dean v. Lehman, 143 Wn.2d 12
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/429S-2BC0-0039-446C-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
In re Marriage of Chumbley, 150 Wn.2d 1
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/499F-G310-0039-44DJ-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
In re Marriage of Kile, 186 Wn. App. 864
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/5FPV-2BG1-F04M-B0BF-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 26.16.030
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/statutes-legislation/id/5BB3-VYD1-66P3-2532-00000-00/?context=1530671>.
The presumption of community property applies even when the property
is held in the names of both spouses or in joint tenancy. Washington
law treats such property as community property unless there is
explicit evidence or agreement to the contrary. For example, Rev.
Code Wash. (ARCW) § 64.28.020
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/statutes-legislation/id/5BB3-WDT1-66P3-253M-00000-00/?context=1530671>
specifically states that interests in common held in the names of both
spouses are presumed to be community property Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW)
§ 64.28.020 <https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/statutes-legislation/id/5BB3-WDT1-66P3-253M-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Burgess v. Crossan, 189 Wn. App. 97
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/5GJ3-T2W1-F04M-B181-00000-00/?context=1530671>.
Additionally, the name on the title or deed does not determine the
character of the property; instead, the source of the funds used to
acquire the property and the intent of the parties are critical
factors in determining whether the property is community or separate
Burgess v. Crossan, 189 Wn. App. 97
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/5GJ3-T2W1-F04M-B181-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
§ 3.01 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS: STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/analytical-materials/id/6868-WW10-R03P-00FJ-00000-00/?context=1530671>.
To rebut the community property presumption, the party asserting that
the property is separate must provide clear, cogent, and convincing
evidence that the property was acquired with separate funds or falls
under a separate property exception. Without such evidence, the
property is presumed to be community property Dean v. Lehman, 143
Wn.2d 12 <https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/429S-2BC0-0039-446C-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
In re Marriage of Chumbley, 150 Wn.2d 1
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/499F-G310-0039-44DJ-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
In re Marriage of Kile, 186 Wn. App. 864
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/5FPV-2BG1-F04M-B0BF-00000-00/?context=1530671>.
Content supporting AI-generated response:
[image: CaselawCaution]
<https://plus.lexis.com/shepards/?pdshepid=urn%3acontentItem%3a7XWX-KV11-2NSD-K00N-00000-00&pdischatbotdoc=true&passagetext=YSBjb21tdW5pdHkgcHJvcGVydHkgaW50ZXJlc3QgbWF5IGJlIGEgcy4qaGUgYmFzaWMgY29tbXVuaXR5IHByb3BlcnR5IHByZXN1bXB0aW9uLg%3d%3d>
Dean v. Lehman, 143 Wn.2d 12
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/429S-2BC0-0039-446C-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| WA Supreme Court Cases from 1854 | Cases | Washington | Feb 8, 2001
[image: CaselawCaution]
<https://plus.lexis.com/shepards/?pdshepid=urn%3acontentItem%3a7XWP-9Y31-2NSD-M4Y5-00000-00&pdischatbotdoc=true&passagetext=SW4gV2FzaGluZ3RvbiwgaXQgaXMgcHJlc3VtZWQgdGhhdCBhc3NldC4qOTMpLiBBcyB0aGlzIGNvdXJ0IGhhcyBleHBsYWluZWQgYmVmb3JlOg%3d%3d>
In re Marriage of Chumbley, 150 Wn.2d 1
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/499F-G310-0039-44DJ-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| WA Supreme Court Cases from 1854 | Cases | Washington | Aug 14,
2003
[image: CaselawCaution]
<https://plus.lexis.com/shepards/?pdshepid=urn%3acontentItem%3a5FR0-15J1-DXC8-73FN-00000-00&pdischatbotdoc=true&passagetext=QmVjYXVzZSBXYXNoaW5ndG9uIGxhdyBmYXZvcnMgY29tbXVuaXR5IC4qIHNjb3BlIG9mIGEgc2VwYXJhdGUgcHJvcGVydHkgZXhjZXB0aW9uLg%3d%3d>
In re Marriage of Kile, 186 Wn. App. 864
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/5FPV-2BG1-F04M-B0BF-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| WA Court of Appeals Cases from 1969 | Cases | Washington | Apr 9,
2015
[image: StatutePositive]
<https://plus.lexis.com/shepards/?pdshepid=urn%3acontentItem%3a805F-R5M1-2NSD-N2D6-00000-00&pdischatbotdoc=true&passagetext=UHJvcGVydHkgbm90IGFjcXVpcmVkIG9yIG93bmVkLCBhcyBwcmVzYy4qdXJpdHkgYWdyZWVtZW50IG9yIGJpbGwgb2Ygc2FsZSwgaWYgYW55Lg%3d%3d>
Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 26.16.030
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/statutes-legislation/id/5BB3-VYD1-66P3-2532-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| WA - Annotated Revised Code of Washington | Codes | Washington
[image: StatuteReferenced]
<https://plus.lexis.com/shepards/?pdshepid=urn%3acontentItem%3a805F-W2Y0-Y87G-B33D-00000-00&pdischatbotdoc=true&passagetext=KDEpIEV2ZXJ5IGludGVyZXN0IGNyZWF0ZWQgaW4gZmF2b3Igb2YgdC4qdWJzZXF1ZW50bHkgY3JlYXRlZCBpbnRlcmVzdHMgaW4gY29tbW9uLg%3d%3d>
Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 64.28.020
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/statutes-legislation/id/5BB3-WDT1-66P3-253M-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| WA - Annotated Revised Code of Washington | Codes | Washington
[image: CaselawReferenced]
<https://plus.lexis.com/shepards/?pdshepid=urn%3acontentItem%3a5GHK-8R01-DXC8-74RG-00000-00&pdischatbotdoc=true&passagetext=SW50ZXJlc3RzIGluIGNvbW1vbiBoZWxkIGluIHRoZSBuYW1lcyBvZi4qb3ZpZGVzIGxpdHRsZSBldmlkZW5jZSBvZiBpdHMgY2hhcmFjdGVyLg%3d%3d>
Burgess v. Crossan, 189 Wn. App. 97
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/5GJ3-T2W1-F04M-B181-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| WA Court of Appeals Cases from 1969 | Cases | Washington | Jul 27,
2015
§ 3.01 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS: STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/analytical-materials/id/6868-WW10-R03P-00FJ-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| Washington Community Property Deskbook (WSBA) | Treatises |
Washington
Robin Swanson:Does a percentage of ownership for each individual
married person rebut the community property presumption?
AI Assistant
In Washington state, specifying a percentage of ownership for each
individual married person in a deed does not, by itself, rebut the
community property presumption. Washington law presumes that property
acquired during marriage is community property, regardless of how
title is held or the names listed on the deed. The presumption can
only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that the property
falls within a separate property exception or that the parties
intended to change the character of the property through a specific,
voluntary act In re Marriage of Watanabe, 199 Wn.2d 342
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/652N-V6B1-JF1Y-B1YV-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Burgess v. Crossan, 189 Wn. App. 97
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/5GJ3-T2W1-F04M-B181-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
In re Estate of Borghi, 141 Wn. App. 294
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/4PYS-22J0-TXFX-X20D-00000-00/?context=1530671>.
The name on a deed or title, or the allocation of ownership
percentages, provides little evidence of the separate or community
character of the property. Courts in Washington look beyond the terms
of the deed to ascertain the true intent of the parties. For example,
a deed specifying ownership percentages does not automatically
establish separate property unless there is direct and positive
evidence of intent to rebut the community property presumption, such
as a written agreement or other documentation evidencing the parties'
intent to treat the property as separate In re Marriage of Watanabe,
199 Wn.2d 342 <https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/652N-V6B1-JF1Y-B1YV-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
In re Estate of Deschamps, 77 Wash. 514
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/3RRR-3GC0-003V-713K-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
In re Estate of Borghi, 167 Wn.2d 480
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/4XMC-XM50-TXFX-Y27K-00000-00/?context=1530671>.
Additionally, Washington law requires clear and convincing proof to
rebut the community property presumption. This could include evidence
that the property was acquired with separate funds or that the parties
executed a valid agreement to designate the property as separate.
Without such evidence, the property will generally be treated as
community property, even if the deed specifies ownership percentages
In re Marriage of Watanabe, 199 Wn.2d 342
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/652N-V6B1-JF1Y-B1YV-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Burgess v. Crossan, 189 Wn. App. 97
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/5GJ3-T2W1-F04M-B181-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
In re Estate of Borghi, 141 Wn. App. 294
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/4PYS-22J0-TXFX-X20D-00000-00/?context=1530671>.
Content supporting AI-generated response:
[image: CaselawCaution]
<https://plus.lexis.com/shepards/?pdshepid=urn%3acontentItem%3a67XW-HTM3-GXF6-853D-00000-00&pdischatbotdoc=true&passagetext=UHJvcGVydHkgdGhhdCBpcyBzZXBhcmF0ZSBhcyBvZiB0aGUgZGF0ZS4qdmVyZWQgdGhlIG9waW5pb24gZm9yIGEgdW5hbmltb3VzIGNvdXJ0Lg%3d%3d>
In re Marriage of Watanabe, 199 Wn.2d 342
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/652N-V6B1-JF1Y-B1YV-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| WA Supreme Court Cases from 1854 | Cases | Washington | Mar 24,
2022
[image: CaselawReferenced]
<https://plus.lexis.com/shepards/?pdshepid=urn%3acontentItem%3a5GHK-8R01-DXC8-74RG-00000-00&pdischatbotdoc=true&passagetext=WzEtNV0gwrYxMyBIb3dldmVyLCDigJxbaV1udGVyZXN0cyBpbiBjb21tby4qIG5vdCBhZGRyZXNzIHRoZSBwZXJ0aW5lbnQgaXNzdWUgZWl0aGVyLg%3d%3d>
Burgess v. Crossan, 189 Wn. App. 97
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/5GJ3-T2W1-F04M-B181-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| WA Court of Appeals Cases from 1969 | Cases | Washington | Jul 27,
2015
[image: CaselawCaution]
<https://plus.lexis.com/shepards/?pdshepid=urn%3acontentItem%3a7XWS-5JC1-2NSD-K0Y8-00000-00&pdischatbotdoc=true&passagetext=WzctMTNdIMK2NyDigJxUaGUgb3duZXJzaGlwIG9mIHJlYWwgcHJvcGVydC4qbXBzIGFscmVhZHkgb3duZWQgYW4gYXBhcnRtZW50IGJ1aWxkaW5nLg%3d%3d>
In re Estate of Borghi, 141 Wn. App. 294
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/4PYS-22J0-TXFX-X20D-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| WA Court of Appeals Cases from 1969 | Cases | Washington | Oct 22,
2007
[image: CaselawCaution]
<https://plus.lexis.com/shepards/?pdshepid=urn%3acontentItem%3a7XWN-PBB1-2NSD-P3MB-00000-00&pdischatbotdoc=true&passagetext=d2hlcmUgcHJvcGVydHkgc3RhbmRpbmcgaW4gdGhlIG5hbWUgb2YgZS4qIG9mIGEgb25lLWhhbGYgaW50ZXJlc3QgaW4gdGhlIHByb3BlcnR5Lg%3d%3d>
In re Estate of Deschamps, 77 Wash. 514
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/3RRR-3GC0-003V-713K-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| WA Supreme Court Cases from 1854 | Cases | Washington | Jan 23,
1914
[image: CaselawCaution]
<https://plus.lexis.com/shepards/?pdshepid=urn%3acontentItem%3a7XXK-85T1-2NSD-R370-00000-00&pdischatbotdoc=true&passagetext=SW4gRGVzY2hhbXBzLCB0aGUgY291cnQgbm90ZWQgdGhhdCBwcmVzdS4qZ2ggdGhleSBsaXN0ZWQgYm90aCBzcG91c2VzIG9uIHRoZSBkZWVkLg%3d%3d>
In re Estate of Borghi, 167 Wn.2d 480
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/4XMC-XM50-TXFX-Y27K-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| WA Supreme Court Cases from 1854 | Cases | Washington | Nov 5, 2009
[image: CaselawCaution]
<https://plus.lexis.com/shepards/?pdshepid=urn%3acontentItem%3a5FR0-15J1-DXC8-73FN-00000-00&pdischatbotdoc=true&passagetext=QmVjYXVzZSBXYXNoaW5ndG9uIGxhdyBmYXZvcnMgY29tbXVuaXR5IC4qIHNjb3BlIG9mIGEgc2VwYXJhdGUgcHJvcGVydHkgZXhjZXB0aW9uLg%3d%3d>
In re Marriage of Kile, 186 Wn. App. 864
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/5FPV-2BG1-F04M-B0BF-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| WA Court of Appeals Cases from 1969 | Cases | Washington | Apr 9,
2015
§ 4.03 Deeds <https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/analytical-materials/id/5C4P-3170-R03M-P1TM-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| LexisNexis® Practice Guide: Washington Real Estate Litigation |
Treatises | Washington
Robin Swanson:Is it common to convey property to a married couple
without any percentage and the name a single person without any
percentage?
AI Assistant
In Washington, it is not uncommon for real estate conveyances to deed
property to a married couple without specifying ownership percentages,
as the law presumes that property acquired during marriage is
community property unless there is clear and convincing evidence to
rebut this presumption. This presumption applies regardless of how the
property is titled or whether ownership percentages are specified In
re Marriage of Martin, 32 Wn. App. 92
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/3S3J-XPM0-003F-W1TW-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
In re Estate of Borghi, 167 Wn.2d 480
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/4XMC-XM50-TXFX-Y27K-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Burgess v. Crossan, 189 Wn. App. 97
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/5GJ3-T2W1-F04M-B181-00000-00/?context=1530671>.
Additionally, when property is conveyed to two or more persons as
tenants in common, the law presumes equal ownership unless the deed
specifies otherwise. This presumption can be rebutted by evidence
showing unequal contributions to the purchase price or other factors
indicating a different intent Cummings v. Anderson, 94 Wn.2d 135
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/3S3J-W9X0-003F-W4S1-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Choice of Ownership Structure of Real Property (WA)
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/analytical-materials/id/662N-2WW1-JS5Y-B0XJ-00000-00/?context=1530671>.
When a single individual is named alongside a married couple in a deed
without specifying ownership percentages, the presumption of equal
ownership among all parties applies unless evidence is presented to
rebut this presumption. For example, in cases of tenancy in common,
the undivided interests of co-tenants are presumed to be equal unless
the deed or other evidence indicates otherwise Cummings v. Anderson,
94 Wn.2d 135 <https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/3S3J-W9X0-003F-W4S1-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Choice of Ownership Structure of Real Property (WA)
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/analytical-materials/id/662N-2WW1-JS5Y-B0XJ-00000-00/?context=1530671>.
This principle applies regardless of whether the co-tenants are
married or unmarried.
In summary, while it is a common practice to deed property without
specifying ownership percentages, the law provides presumptions
regarding ownership that can be rebutted with appropriate evidence.
For married couples, the presumption is typically community property,
while for other co-tenants, the presumption is equal ownership unless
otherwise specified In re Marriage of Martin, 32 Wn. App. 92
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/3S3J-XPM0-003F-W1TW-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Cummings v. Anderson, 94 Wn.2d 135
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/3S3J-W9X0-003F-W4S1-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Choice of Ownership Structure of Real Property (WA)
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/analytical-materials/id/662N-2WW1-JS5Y-B0XJ-00000-00/?context=1530671>.
Content supporting AI-generated response:
[image: CaselawPositive]
<https://plus.lexis.com/shepards/?pdshepid=urn%3acontentItem%3a7XW6-V3K1-2NSD-R00R-00000-00&pdischatbotdoc=true&passagetext=TmF0dXJlIG9mIEFjdGlvbjogSW4gYSBkaXNzb2x1dGlvbiBhY3Rpby4qYWwgcHJvcGVydHkgd2hlbiBubyBzYWxlIGlzIGFudGljaXBhdGVkLg%3d%3d>
In re Marriage of Martin, 32 Wn. App. 92
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/3S3J-XPM0-003F-W1TW-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| WA Court of Appeals Cases from 1969 | Cases | Washington | Jun 1,
1982
[image: CaselawCaution]
<https://plus.lexis.com/shepards/?pdshepid=urn%3acontentItem%3a7XXK-85T1-2NSD-R370-00000-00&pdischatbotdoc=true&passagetext=wrYxMyBCdXQgdGhlIHJ1bGUgc3RhdGVkIGluIERlc2NoYW1wcyBpcyAuKmFzaC4gYXQgMzgzOyBWZXJiZWVrLCAyIFduLiBBcHAuIGF0IDE1OC4%3d>
In re Estate of Borghi, 167 Wn.2d 480
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/4XMC-XM50-TXFX-Y27K-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| WA Supreme Court Cases from 1854 | Cases | Washington | Nov 5, 2009
[image: CaselawReferenced]
<https://plus.lexis.com/shepards/?pdshepid=urn%3acontentItem%3a5GHK-8R01-DXC8-74RG-00000-00&pdischatbotdoc=true&passagetext=WzEtNV0gwrYxMyBIb3dldmVyLCDigJxbaV1udGVyZXN0cyBpbiBjb21tby4qIG5vdCBhZGRyZXNzIHRoZSBwZXJ0aW5lbnQgaXNzdWUgZWl0aGVyLg%3d%3d>
Burgess v. Crossan, 189 Wn. App. 97
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/5GJ3-T2W1-F04M-B181-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| WA Court of Appeals Cases from 1969 | Cases | Washington | Jul 27,
2015
[image: CaselawCaution]
<https://plus.lexis.com/shepards/?pdshepid=urn%3acontentItem%3a7XWW-BTN1-2NSD-R2TG-00000-00&pdischatbotdoc=true&passagetext=V2hlcmUsICBhcyBoZXJlLCB0aGUgY2hhcmFjdGVyIG9mIG93bmVycy4qZWlyIGNvbnRyaWJ1dGlvbnMgdG8gdGhlIHB1cmNoYXNlIHByaWNlLg%3d%3d>
Cummings v. Anderson, 94 Wn.2d 135
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/3S3J-W9X0-003F-W4S1-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| WA Supreme Court Cases from 1854 | Cases | Washington | Aug 7, 1980
Choice of Ownership Structure of Real Property (WA)
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/analytical-materials/id/662N-2WW1-JS5Y-B0XJ-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| Practice Notes | Non-jurisdictional | Jun 26, 2025
Robin Swanson:If there were one married couple and two single people
named on a deed. The married couple would own 50 percent interest and
other two would own 25 percent as tenants in common?
AI Assistant
In Washington State, if a deed names a married couple and two single
individuals without specifying ownership percentages, the ownership is
presumed to be as tenants in common, with each party holding an equal
share unless evidence suggests otherwise. This means that the married
couple would collectively own 50% of the property, and each single
individual would own 25% Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 64.28.020
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/statutes-legislation/id/5BB3-WDT1-66P3-253M-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Cummings v. Anderson, 94 Wn.2d 135
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/3S3J-W9X0-003F-W4S1-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Choice of Ownership Structure of Real Property (WA)
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/analytical-materials/id/662N-2WW1-JS5Y-B0XJ-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
§ 3.02 TENANCY IN COMMON
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/analytical-materials/id/6B6T-6PW0-R03J-S2HY-00000-00/?context=1530671>.
Under Washington law, every interest created in favor of two or more
persons is presumed to be a tenancy in common unless explicitly
declared otherwise, such as a joint tenancy with right of survivorship
Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 64.28.020
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/statutes-legislation/id/5BB3-WDT1-66P3-253M-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 64.28.010
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/statutes-legislation/id/5BB3-WDT1-66P3-253K-00000-00/?context=1530671>.
In a tenancy in common, co-owners are presumed to share equally unless
the deed specifies different ownership percentages or evidence
demonstrates unequal contributions to the purchase price. If unequal
contributions are proven, ownership interests may be adjusted
proportionally to those contributions Cummings v. Anderson, 94 Wn.2d
135 <https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/3S3J-W9X0-003F-W4S1-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Choice of Ownership Structure of Real Property (WA)
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/analytical-materials/id/662N-2WW1-JS5Y-B0XJ-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
§ 3.02 TENANCY IN COMMON
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/analytical-materials/id/6B6T-6PW0-R03J-S2HY-00000-00/?context=1530671>.
Additionally, when a married couple holds property as tenants in
common, their interest is presumed to be community property under
Washington law Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 64.28.020
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/statutes-legislation/id/5BB3-WDT1-66P3-253M-00000-00/?context=1530671>.
This presumption applies unless there is evidence to rebut it, such as
a clear intention to hold the property differently Rev. Code Wash.
(ARCW) § 64.28.020
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/statutes-legislation/id/5BB3-WDT1-66P3-253M-00000-00/?context=1530671>,
Cummings v. Anderson, 94 Wn.2d 135
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/3S3J-W9X0-003F-W4S1-00000-00/?context=1530671>.
Therefore, in the absence of specific language in the deed or evidence
of unequal contributions, the married couple would collectively own
50%, and the two single individuals would each own 25% as tenants in
common.
Content supporting AI-generated response:
[image: StatuteReferenced]
<https://plus.lexis.com/shepards/?pdshepid=urn%3acontentItem%3a805F-W2Y0-Y87G-B33D-00000-00&pdischatbotdoc=true&passagetext=KDEpIEV2ZXJ5IGludGVyZXN0IGNyZWF0ZWQgaW4gZmF2b3Igb2YgdC4qdWJzZXF1ZW50bHkgY3JlYXRlZCBpbnRlcmVzdHMgaW4gY29tbW9uLg%3d%3d>
Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 64.28.020
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/statutes-legislation/id/5BB3-WDT1-66P3-253M-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| WA - Annotated Revised Code of Washington | Codes | Washington
[image: CaselawCaution]
<https://plus.lexis.com/shepards/?pdshepid=urn%3acontentItem%3a7XWW-BTN1-2NSD-R2TG-00000-00&pdischatbotdoc=true&passagetext=V2hlcmUsICBhcyBoZXJlLCB0aGUgY2hhcmFjdGVyIG9mIG93bmVycy4qZWlyIGNvbnRyaWJ1dGlvbnMgdG8gdGhlIHB1cmNoYXNlIHByaWNlLg%3d%3d>
Cummings v. Anderson, 94 Wn.2d 135
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/cases/id/3S3J-W9X0-003F-W4S1-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| WA Supreme Court Cases from 1854 | Cases | Washington | Aug 7, 1980
Choice of Ownership Structure of Real Property (WA)
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/analytical-materials/id/662N-2WW1-JS5Y-B0XJ-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| Practice Notes | Non-jurisdictional | Jun 26, 2025
§ 3.02 TENANCY IN COMMON
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/analytical-materials/id/6B6T-6PW0-R03J-S2HY-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| Washington Real Property Deskbook Series Volume 1&2: Washington
Real Estate Essentials (WSBA) | Treatises | Washington
[image: StatuteReferenced]
<https://plus.lexis.com/shepards/?pdshepid=urn%3acontentItem%3a805H-DR81-2NSD-K3W0-00000-00&pdischatbotdoc=true&passagetext=V2hlcmVhcyBqb2ludCB0ZW5hbmN5IHdpdGggcmlnaHQgb2Ygc3Vydi4qdCBkZXJvZ2F0ZSBmcm9tIHRoZSByaWdodHMgb2YgY3JlZGl0b3JzLg%3d%3d>
Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 64.28.010
<https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/statutes-legislation/id/5BB3-WDT1-66P3-253K-00000-00/?context=1530671>
| WA - Annotated Revised Code of Washington | Codes | Washington
On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 4:43 PM Corrie Bosman <cbosman at sitkalegal.com>
wrote:
> Apologies if this seems like a silly question but the title company does
> not know the answer and neither do I. I have a deed that conveys to Mary
> Smith, an individual, and John and Joan Smith, a married couple. Does this
> create a 1/3 interest in each of the three parties or a 50% interest with
> Mary and a 50% CP interest with John and Joan?
>
>
> Law Office of Corrie Bosman
> Serving clientele in Alaska and Washington
> P.O. Box 1745
> Port Townsend, WA 98368
>
> Alaska: (907) 747-1060
> Port Townsend: (360) 316-1669
>
>
>
> ************************************************
> This e-mail transmission and any attachments that accompany it may
> contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise
> exempt from disclosure under applicable law and is intended solely for
> the use of the individual(s) to whom it was intended to be addressed.
> If you have received this e-mail by mistake, or you are not the
> intended recipient, any disclosure, dissemination, distribution,
> copying or other use or retention of this communication or its
> substance is prohibited. If you have received this communication in
> error, please immediately reply to the author via e-mail that you
> received this message by mistake and also permanently delete the
> original and all copies of this e-mail and any attachments from your
> computer. Thank you.
> ************************************************
> ***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
>
--
Robin Swanson
Secure Legal Legacy, PLLC
**NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments hereto, is for the
sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), any
unauthorized review, use, copying, disclosure or distribution is
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please contact the
sender by reply e-mail immediately and destroy the original and all copies
(including electronic versions) of this message and any of its attachments.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20250825/b560b9f7/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the WSBAPT
mailing list