[WSBAPT] Allocation of Estate costs to specific property causing the cost

Tue Apr 28 15:29:11 PDT 2026

I have now come across a similar issue in a case and am wondering if anyone
ended up finding relevant case law on this issue?

A current matter involves a specific gift of a property that has not been
transferred out of the estate, BUT the property taxes are due in two days.
Absent any case law,  I think the consensus was that RCW 11.04.250
would naturally have the expenses allocated to the beneficiary? But I can
see an argument that it would be unfair for the beneficiary to pay the
taxes out of his own pocket before the estate has transferred title to him.
In this case there is no rental income to offset the expenses, so the
beneficiary would have to pay them himself.

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:19 AM Tara <pugetsoundlaw at gmail.com> wrote:

> If there is no agreement or directions from the beneficiary who is
> expected to receive a specific gift and there would be a substantial impact
> on an heir or group of heirs, then this would be a perfect situation for
> the PR to Petition for Instructions.  A PR with nonintervention powers can
> invoke the power of the Court for a specific issue and allow the Court to
> take the lead in determining a potential controversy concerning the
> administration of the Estate before it actually becomes a dispute.  RCW
> 11.96A.020(2) and RCW 11.96A.040(3).
>
>
>
> I like this tool when the PR is in a tough spot or there is likely to be a
> fight on the horizon.  It is transparent and helps shifts some of the risk
> posed by taking a particular action from the PR and places it back in the
> court’s hands.  The Petition for Instructions can lay out the facts,
> propose a course of action and alternatives, and ask the court to enter an
> order endorsing the correct path.  It gives everyone notice and an
> opportunity to object before any perceived damage has been done.  And gets
> the court’s seal of approval in advance for the PR’s actions, which should
> cut off or quell complaints and challenges later.  Heirs will more readily
> accept the negative consequences of a course of action that was directed by
> the court, than one independently decided by and acted on by the PR.  Also,
> it is usually a lower administrative cost to ask for directions from the
> court in advance, rather than respond to challenges for waste or
> mismanagement of the estate later.
>
> 
>
> Tara M. Roberts
>
> Puget Sound Law pllc
>
> roberts at pugetsoundlaw.com
>
>
>
> ******************************
> The information contained in this email may be privileged and confidential
> information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named
> above.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you
> are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of the
> email is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this email in error,
> please notify us immediately and delete the original message and any copies
> you may have.  Thank you.
> ******************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:
> wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] *On Behalf Of *Eric Nelsen
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 19, 2015 9:53 AM
> *To:* WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBAPT] Allocation of Estate costs to specific property
> causing the cost
>
>
>
> Yep--I can understand the equitable argument, and I know it's a common
> practice in administering estates. I just can't find any actual legal
> authority for a PR to allocate expenses in that way, absent agreement of
> the involved beneficiary.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> Eric C. Nelsen
>
> SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
>
> 1320 University St
>
> Seattle WA  98101-2837
>
> phone 206-625-0092
>
> fax 206-625-9040
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [
> mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>] *On Behalf Of *Heather deVrieze
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 19, 2015 9:20 AM
> *To:* WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBAPT] Allocation of Estate costs to specific property
> causing the cost
>
>
>
> Eric,
>
>
>
> I have, without specific statutory authority, but what I see as common
> sense offset expenses related to specific property against income from that
> property. For example, rental property which is gifted to a particular
> beneficiary has rental income, out of the rents taxes, insurance, even
> mortgage payments on that property can be made, with the net rents due to
> the specific beneficiary. If there is no income against which to offset the
> expenses, I think there is an argument to be made that the beneficiary of
> the property owes the cost of those necessary items (property taxes, etc.),
> but if they didn’t have a say (like the new roof) it might be harder to
> argue.
>
>
>
> Heather
>
>
>
>
>
> Heather S. de Vrieze
> *Attorney-at-Law*
>
> *[image: cid:image001.jpg at 01D013C2.30F35160]*
>
> 3909 California Avenue SW
>
> Seattle, WA 98116-3705
>
> (206)938-5500
>
> heatherd at westseattlelaw.com
>
> www.westseattlelaw.com
>
>
>
> *Click here to connect with de Vrieze | Carney on Facebook:   **[image:
> FB Logo]* <https://www.facebook.com/DeVriezeCarney>
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIAL & PRIVILEGED. This e-mail message may contain legally
> privileged and/or confidential information.  If you have received this
> e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies
> of this e-mail message and any attachment.
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [
> mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>] *On Behalf Of *Eric Nelsen
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 18, 2015 5:23 PM
> *To:* WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBAPT] Allocation of Estate costs to specific property
> causing the cost
>
>
>
> I didn't get many responses, but so far no one has come up with any case
> law or theory that avoids the basic rule under Ch. 11.10 RCW, where estate
> expenses and debts simply abate estate property ratably in accordance with
> their classification as gifts. So, I think the authority I thought was out
> there, ain't.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> Eric C. Nelsen
>
> SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
>
> 1320 University St
>
> Seattle WA  98101-2837
>
> phone 206-625-0092
>
> fax 206-625-9040
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [
> mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>] *On Behalf Of *Eric Nelsen
> *Sent:* Friday, November 06, 2015 12:09 PM
> *To:* WSBA Probate & Trust listserve (wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com)
> *Subject:* [WSBAPT] Allocation of Estate costs to specific property
> causing the cost
>
>
>
> I cannot find the authority that I swear is out there--
>
>
>
> Estate expenses (costs of administration, post-death expenses) are
> normally paid from estate assets pursuant to the abatement statutes, RCW
> 11.10.
>
>
>
> But, if the Estate includes an item property that causes specific expenses
> – for example, a house that requires a new roof to prevent new substantial
> damage from leaks during the rainy season, or even just payment of
> delinquent real property taxes – it is permissible to charge those specific
> expenses against that specific property.
>
>
>
> In such a case, if the property is given to a particular heir (by specific
> bequest, or other distribution in kind), that heir's share of the estate is
> therefore charged specially with those expenses.
>
>
>
> Anyone have authority, statutory or case law? Or am I searching for
> something that isn't there?
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> Eric C. Nelsen
>
> SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
>
> 1320 University St
>
> Seattle WA  98101-2837
>
> phone 206-625-0092
>
> fax 206-625-9040
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBAPT mailing list
> WSBAPT at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbapt
>

-- 

Sincerely,

 📦 *WE HAVE MOVED!*  *Our new office address is: 14973 Interurban Ave S,
Suite 200, Tukwila, WA 98168*

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL:  This email (including any attachments) is
intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may
contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the
intended recipient, you are notified that any review, dissemination,
distribution or copying of this email is prohibited. If you have received
this email in error, please immediately notify us by email, facsimile, or
telephone; return the email to us at the email address below; and destroy
all paper and electronic copies.

-- 
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL:  This e-mail (including any attachments) is 
intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may 
contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended 
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the 
intended recipient, you are notified that any review, dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. Attempts to intercept 
this message are in violation of 18 USC 2511(1) of the Electronic 
Communications Privacy Act, which subjects the interceptor to fines, 
imprisonment and/or civil damages. If you have received this e-mail in 
error, please immediately notify us by e-mail, facsimile, or telephone; 
return the e-mail to us at the e-mail address below; and destroy all paper 
and electronic copies. Any settlement offer contained herein is made 
pursuant to Washington ER 408, and without admitting fault or liability on 
the part of this firm’s client(s) or its agents.  IRS CIRCULAR 230 
DISCLAIMER:  To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, I 
inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication 
(including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and 
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the 
Internal Revenue Code; or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to 
another party any transaction or tax-related matter addressed herein. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20260428/f3e9edce/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 7107 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20260428/f3e9edce/image001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7560 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20260428/f3e9edce/image002.png>