[WSBAPT] Intestacy, Virtual Representation, and Committed Intimate Relationship

Fri Nov 13 13:39:35 PST 2026

I tend to side with the minors where I can. The adults had a chance to
avoid ambiguity.

Mark C. McClure

*Managing Attorney *Law Office of Mark McClure, PS

*"Why Retire With Debt?"*1103 West Meeker Street, #101
Kent, WA 98032
Office:  253.631.6484
Email: Mark at McClureLawGroup.com
*Notice of Unavailability:*

*TBD*

*CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:* This email contains legal stuff. If you are not
the intended recipient you could get into a lot of trouble if you read it,
and even more trouble if you tell someone else about it. So, the best thing
to do is ignore it and forget you ever saw it. Thank you.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2026, 1:15 PM Eric Nelsen <eric at sayrelawoffices.com> wrote:

> The tricky bit is that in a CIR, “community-like” property is not
> automatically divided 50-50. Instead, the probate court has to (A) identify
> what assets are “community-like” and then (B) make an *equitable division*
> between the decedent and the surviving CIR partner. That does not require a
> 50-50 split, and the case law is regrettably sparse about how to even
> perform an equitable division between a deceased person and a survivor.
>
>
>
> In most CIR cases the division is between two living people, and the
> appellate opinions suggest that the equitable factors as in a divorce
> should be followed. But those factors just don’t work when one person is
> deceased. Per RCW 26.09.080(4)
> <https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=26.09.080> and case law,
> the court normally needs to consider the economic circumstances of each
> person going forward, and award of the family home depending on whether
> there are minor children residing there. The equitable considerations
> between a decedent’s heirs’ inheritance interest and a survivor seem a lot
> different from that.
>
>
>
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1417+31st+Ave+South+%0D%0A+Seattle+WA+98144-3909?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> Eric C. Nelsen
>
> Sayre Law Offices, PLLC
>
> 1417 31st Ave South
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1417+31st+Ave+South+%0D%0A+Seattle+WA+98144-3909?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> Seattle WA 98144-3909
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1417+31st+Ave+South+%0D%0A+Seattle+WA+98144-3909?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> 206-625-0092
>
> eric at sayrelawoffices.com
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <
> wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> *On Behalf Of *Mark McClure - McClure
> Law Group
> *Sent:* Friday, November 13, 2026 11:40 AM
> *To:* WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBAPT] Intestacy, Virtual Representation, and Committed
> Intimate Relationship
>
>
>
> Quick question about CIR Laws, the surviving CIR partner would normally
> have a ½ interest in the property acquired during the CIR relationship as
> if it were community property, but not a community property interest in the
> whole; correct?  Then wouldn’t the children have the interest in the other
> ½ portion of that acquired property?
>
>
>
> I can see the adult child waiving the interest in favor of his mother, but
> I do not see how the 11 year old could or that a PGAL would (or should).
>
>
>
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1103+West+Meeker+Street,+%23101+%0D%0AKent,+WA+98032+%0D%0A+Office:+253?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> Or am I getting this wrong?
>
> *Mark C. McClure* *| *
> *Managing Attorney  *Law Office of Mark McClure, PS
>
> *"Why Retire With Debt?" *1103 West Meeker Street, #101
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1103+West+Meeker+Street,+%23101+%0D%0AKent,+WA+98032+%0D%0A+Office:+253?entry=gmail&source=g>
> Kent, WA 98032
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1103+West+Meeker+Street,+%23101+%0D%0AKent,+WA+98032+%0D%0A+Office:+253?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> Office:
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1103+West+Meeker+Street,+%23101+%0D%0AKent,+WA+98032+%0D%0A+Office:+253?entry=gmail&source=g>
> 253
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1103+West+Meeker+Street,+%23101+%0D%0AKent,+WA+98032+%0D%0A+Office:+253?entry=gmail&source=g>.631.6484
> (Leave Msg - Will be returned within 24 hours)
> Email: Mark at McClureLawGroup.com
> Web: www.McClureLawGroup.com <http://www.mcclurelawgroup.com/>
>
> *Notice of Unavailability:*  *TBD*
>
> ***NOTE** All visits must be scheduled in advance for access to the
> building.  Call *253-631-6484 * to schedule.*
>
> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:* This email contains legal stuff. If you are not
> the intended recipient you could get into a lot of trouble if you read it,
> and even more trouble if you tell someone else about it. So, the best thing
> to do is ignore it and forget you ever saw it. Thank you.
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <
> wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> *On Behalf Of *Diane Kiepe
> *Sent:* Friday, November 13, 2026 10:18 AM
> *To:* WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBAPT] Intestacy, Virtual Representation, and Committed
> Intimate Relationship
>
>
>
> I have drafted a stipulated motion and order where an attorney served as
> the GAL for a minor and the judge had no problem signing off on it without
> requiring all formal steps. Alas, that was a long time ago and times are
> changing.  It did cost a bit extra but, it made my client feel better.
>
>
>
> In my opinion, the adult child can serve as virtual rep in my opinion but
> I would have the TEDRA spell out that the Agreement is reached* in
> consideration of avoiding litigation* under Washington's CIR laws which
> potentially would result in nothing to otherse.
>
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/200+N.+Mullan+Rd.,+Suite+203+%0D%0A+Spokane+Valley,+WA+99206?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> Diane Kiepe, J.D., LL.M. Taxation
>
> Kiepe Estate and Probate, PLLC
>
> diane at kiepelaw.com
>
> 200 N. Mullan Rd., Suite 203
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/200+N.+Mullan+Rd.,+Suite+203+%0D%0A+Spokane+Valley,+WA+99206?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> Spokane Valley, WA
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/200+N.+Mullan+Rd.,+Suite+203+%0D%0A+Spokane+Valley,+WA+99206?entry=gmail&source=g>
> 99206
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/200+N.+Mullan+Rd.,+Suite+203+%0D%0A+Spokane+Valley,+WA+99206?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> 509-808-2087
>
> Confidentiality Notice: This page and any accompanying documents contain
> information that is confidential, privileged, or exempt from disclosure
> under applicable law and is intended for the exclusive use of the
> addressee. This information is private and protected by law. If you are not
> the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
> copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information in any
> manner is strictly prohibited.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2026 at 4:13 PM David Faber <david at faberfeinson.com>
> wrote:
>
> List,
>
>
> Client's long-term (but unmarried) partner of more than 20 years died
> intestate with about $300k in assets and two children, one of whom is a
> minor (11 years old). Decedent's mother and elder child, who is of the age
> of majority, is in agreement that everything should be treated as community
> property of the surviving parent, but of course the 11 year old is
> incompent to sign a TEDRA to that effect. RCW 11.96A.120(4) is unambiguous
> that my client cannot act as virtual representative of the minor because of
> the inherent conflict of interest, but I read section (5) as potentially
> allowing the elder sibling to stand as virtual representative (each child's
> interest is substantially identical with regard to the question of whether
> the surviving parent has superior claim to intestate assets, and there is
> no conflict of interest as between them). Is my read correct? Is there any
> alternative approach you think I should consider?
>
>
>
> I'd love to avoid the cumbersome process of appointing a GAL and then
> going through the process of arguing against the child having a beneficial
> claim on the deceased parent's estate if at all possible, of course.
>
>
>
> Thank you!
>
>
> Best,
>
> David J. Faber
>
> Faber Feinson PLLC
>
> 800 Polk Street, Suite B
>
> Port Townsend, WA 98368
> (360) 379-4110
>
>
>
> *** NOTICE: ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION - PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL.
> This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
> information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that
> you have received this communication in error, please do not print,
> copy, retransmit, disseminate, or otherwise use the information. Also,
> please indicate to the sender that you have received this communication in
> error, and destroy the copy you received.***
>
> ***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
>
> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not
> restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing
> attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and
> others.***
> _______________________________________________
> WSBAPT mailing list
> WSBAPT at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbapt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20261113/0cbb3f42/attachment.html>