[WSBAPT] Deed Clarification
Eric Nelsen
eric at sayrelawoffices.com
Tue Aug 26 09:24:18 PDT 2025
With respect and without personal animosity to the poster, who I am sure is in good faith trying to usefully contribute to the discussion:
I object vehemently to AI garbage being posted to our listserv. The “AI assistant” is not accurate, does not provide actual analysis, and delivers frequently wrong information in a confident tone, even when “citing” real cases.
Nothing in DeElche, Lyon, Burgess, Bortle, or RCW 26.16.030 actually hold, or even particularly support a holding, that a deed conveyance to “A, an individual, and B and C, husband and wife” automatically and conclusively results in a 50-50 split between A and the marital community of B and C. (I put “citing” in quotes because the AI text generator does nothing like actual citation; it is incapable of actual analysis. It simply generates text that is statistically related to the input query.)
DeElche holds that a judgment against one spouse for that spouse’s tort liability, where that tort was demonstrably not committed for the benefit of the marital community, is satisfied first from the spouse’s separate property but, if that is insufficient, the tortfeasor’s share of community property may also be attached. It says nothing about deeds. It says nothing about how property is held, other than reciting the most basic premises of community property and explaining the history of why community property was once exempt from attachment under these circumstances.
Lyon holds that a joint tenancy with right of survivorship arises between A and the marital community of B and C, when the deed conveyance is to “A and B, as joint tenants with right of survivorship” and B has a pre-existing three-prong community property agreement with C. The deed to “A and B” established the 50-50 ownership; not a deed to “A, and B and C.” As a matter of Washington public policy, a community property agreement is favored over joint tenancy, and accordingly upon the death of B, C inherited the entire 50% community interest in the property and the JTWROS was severed by that transfer. Again, this was not a deed to “A and B&C”, but the interaction between a deed to A and B and a CPA between B and C.
Burgess holds that a lease tenancy held by B and C is community property and not tenant-in-common separate leaseholds, and that when B caused a nuisance justifying eviction, the unlawful detainer operated to the evict them both, not just B. (In the case, C “offers no reason why she would not be responsible for [B’s] acts under this circumstance” so a possible distinction under DeElche was not addressed.) Again: this case says nothing about the deed scenario in question, and simply applies basic community property rules.
Bortle is really off-target—it is an old case, long superseded by statute, holding that a wrongful death action cannot be pursued against the tortfeasor, or his surviving spouse, after he has died.
RCW 26.16.030 addresses the management and control of community property. It says nothing particularly relevant about how community property title is held.
This AI pseudo-analysis is toxic to actual analysis, immensely time-consuming and frustrating to verify, and I think it makes us all worse lawyers. PLEASE do not post this crap. I just spent 45 minutes dealing with slop that was probably generated in 5 minutes.
Useful listserv discussions will not survive the introduction of massive volumes of AI garbage.
Sincerely,
Eric
Eric C. Nelsen
Sayre Law Offices, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA 98144-3909
206-625-0092
eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com>
From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Robin Swanson
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2025 6:22 PM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] Deed Clarification
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?
[https://dwo1mpb0q4lec.cloudfront.net/aiDockIcon.png] 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:
[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
[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
[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
[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
[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?
[https://dwo1mpb0q4lec.cloudfront.net/aiDockIcon.png] 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:
[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
[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
[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
[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
[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?
[https://dwo1mpb0q4lec.cloudfront.net/aiDockIcon.png] 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:
[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
[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
[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
[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
[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
[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?
[https://dwo1mpb0q4lec.cloudfront.net/aiDockIcon.png] 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:
[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
[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
[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
[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
[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
[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?
[https://dwo1mpb0q4lec.cloudfront.net/aiDockIcon.png] 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:
[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
[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
[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
[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?
[https://dwo1mpb0q4lec.cloudfront.net/aiDockIcon.png] 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:
[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
[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
[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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20250826/51c90c11/attachment.html>
More information about the WSBAPT
mailing list