[WSBAPT] Unusual Codicil Distribution Scheme Question

[Ryan Castle]

Thank you to all who responded!

On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 9:43 AM Eric Nelsen <eric at sayrelawoffices.com> wrote:

> When I’m looking to protect a PR, I have two standard avenues: either
> everyone agrees to a resolution (TEDRA agreement), or I petition the court
> for an order approving the PR’s intended act. I agree that a TEDRA
> agreement between beneficiaries 1-5 is the best solution. But if everyone
> can’t agree, then the PR could have the vote performed by beneficiaries
> 1-4, and then petition the court for an order confirming the will has been
> properly followed and instructing the PR to give beneficiary 5 $X or Y% or
> whatever, pursuant to the vote. Give notice and an opportunity to be heard
> to the people opposing the decision, and let them have their day in court.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> Eric C. Nelsen
>
> Sayre Law Offices, PLLC
>
> 1417 31st Ave South
>
> Seattle WA 98144-3909
>
> 206-625-0092
>
> eric at sayrelawoffices.com
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <
> wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> *On Behalf Of *Ryan Castle
> *Sent:* Friday, February 7, 2025 9:13 AM
> *To:* WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> *Subject:* [WSBAPT] Unusual Codicil Distribution Scheme Question
>
>
>
> OK this would make a good bar exam question maybe:
>
>
>
> I represent a PR in a large WA testate estate. PR is daughter of deceased.
> No spouse. PR just appointed by court, no bond, nonintervention. Decedent
> executed valid Will with attorney representation. Then years later decedent
> executed valid codicil without assistance of attorney (!!!). The Codicil
> has a horrible distribution scheme that reads:
>
>
>
> Beneficiary 5 "to receive an amount agreed upon by" PR (also
> Beneficiary1), Beneficiary 2, Beneficiary 3, and Beneficiary 4 "by
> mutual decision. PR (Beneficiary 1) is the tie breaker."
>
>
>
> Beneficiary 5's gift would come out of residuary, thereby reducing gifts
> of other residuary beneficiaries listed in Will. Of the "voting" benes,
> only bene 4 is a residuary beneficiary. My concern obviously is the
> discretion given to my client PR who has fiduciary duties to
> estate/beneficiaries. I am inclined to advise that my client simply "vote"
> to follow the original will distribution scheme in order to adhere to her
> fiduciary duties. The other "voting" beneficiaries seem inclined to do the
> same but unsure at this point.
>
>
>
> Any advice on how to handle this horribly drafted clause to protect my
> client? Best if they all simply abstain from voting, assuming they all
> agree to do that? I assume the "voting" Benes should document their
> decision via TEDRA Agreement?
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Ryan Castle (he/him)
>
> Castle Law Firm, PLLC
>
> Managing Attorney
>
> T: 360-592-3504
>
> 1313 E. Maple St., Suite 790
>
> Bellingham, WA 98225
>
> https://ryancastlelawfirm.com/
>
>
>
>
> ***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
>


-- 

Ryan Castle (he/him)
Castle Law Firm, PLLC
Managing Attorney
T: 360-592-3504
1313 E. Maple St., Suite 790
Bellingham, WA 98225
https://ryancastlelawfirm.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20250211/06995a89/attachment.html>