<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I apologize for the lack of clarity, I hope this helps. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Both sons survived beyond the 120 hr limitation. One son died approx. 40 days after T, the other son is still living.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">T’s will specifically bequested the bulk of T’s estate to the still living son. The Will’s residuary clause leaves T’s estate to both, if both survive T. If a son did not survive T, the deceased son’s share would
go to the deceased son’s issue, if deceased son had no issue then the deceased son’s share would lapse and merge into the living son’s share leaving the living son as the sole beneficiary.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I don’t think the will is ambiguous, I do think it failed to embody T’s intent by not addressing what was an unlikely event. The reality of the natural construction is the absurd result that the former spouse
shares directly in T’s estate, albeit indirectly through the deceased’s sons estate. I think this construction misses the testator’s intent. It is my understanding that the courts paramount obligation is to determine T’s intent and to give it effect, and the
rules of construction prohibiting extrinsic evidence from being admitted where a will is unambiguous are “subordinate” to that obligation.
<i>In re Riemcke’s Estate</i>, 80 Wn.2d 722, 727 (1972). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><b><span style="color:#1F497D">Matthew R. Johnson|</span></b><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D"> </span></b><b><span style="color:#1F497D">Attorney at Law</span></b><span style="color:#222222"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1F497D">Gravis Law, PLLC<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1F497D">P.O. Box 182 | 350 E. Main St.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1F497D">Dayton, WA 99328</span><span style="color:#222222"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1F497D">509-382-2030 (office)<br>
509-952-2947 (cell)</span><span style="color:#222222"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><u><span style="color:#0563C1"><a href="https://www.gravislaw.com/" target="_blank"><span style="color:blue">Website </span></a></span></u><span style="color:#1F497D">- <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pub/matthew-r-johnson/2b/997/87a" target="_blank">LinkedIn</a></span><span style="color:#222222"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span><span style="color:#222222"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1F497D">NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (EPCA), 18 U.S.C., Sec. 2510 - 2522, is confidential and privileged. This email
is solely for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. Receipt by anyone other than the individual recipient(s) is NOT a waiver of attorney-client privilege. Any violation of the ECPA is subject to the penalties stated therein.
If you have received this message in error, please notify me immediately by reply e-mail to </span><u><span style="color:#222222;background:#FFFFCC"><a href="mailto:matt@gravislaw.com"><span style="color:blue">matt@gravislaw.com</span></a></span></u><span style="color:#1F497D"> and
immediately delete the original message.</span><span style="color:#222222"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Eric Nelsen<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 20, 2015 3:52 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBAPT] X-Spouse as unintended direct beneficiary<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I'm not sure I follow the scenario, but I'm guessing:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">T and ex-spouse had two sons. First son predeceased T without issue. Second son did in fact survive T long enough to inherit but died shortly thereafter. So, it's really the son's Estate distribution we are talking
about now: and the son's sole heir by intestacy is his surviving parent, T's ex-spouse. Son has no living issue so parents inherit.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">If that's the case, then it is what it is and ex-spouse inherits. The problem is the Will that contains "if son survives" language but didn't specify a long enough time period for survival to make it emotionally
"valid" that the son did in fact survive to inherit T's estate.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Possible avenues to challenge:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Does language of the Will clearly avoid the 120-hour survival requirement under RCW 11.05A -- see .060(2). If in fact the son died within 120 hours such that it might make a difference.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Can you make an argument under the totality of the Will provisions that the intent of the Testator -- T -- would be to prefer intestacy to T's heirs, as opposed to intestacy as to T's son's heirs. This is really
only feasible if the Will language is sufficiently ambiguous.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Other than that, I got nothin'.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D">Eric<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D">Eric C. Nelsen<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D">SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D">1320 University St<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D">Seattle WA 98101-2837<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D">phone 206-625-0092<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D">fax 206-625-9040<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">
<a href="mailto:wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> [<a href="mailto:wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">mailto:wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Matt Johnson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 20, 2015 3:09 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [WSBAPT] X-Spouse as unintended direct beneficiary<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The situation:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Divorced T died leaving entire estate two T’s two sons on the conditioned that they survive T. If either son predeceased T without issue, that son’s gift shall lapse and all interest shall go to the surviving son.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">One son technically survived T, but died intestate shortly thereafter with no issue and no spouse. The result is T’s x-spouse is now substituted in the deceased son’s place as the sole beneficiary of his estate. The language of T’s will
strongly indicates no intention to give anything to T’s x-spouse, and although x-spouse is not technically a direct beneficiary that is the reality of the situation.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Question: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I can’t seem to find any authority in any state directly on point. If anyone has come across a similar situation or could point me in a direction, I would greatly appreciate it.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><b><span style="color:#1F497D">Matthew R. Johnson|</span></b><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D"> </span><span style="color:#1F497D">Attorney at Law</span></b><span style="color:#222222"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1F497D">Gravis Law, PLLC<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1F497D">P.O. Box 182 | 350 E. Main St.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1F497D">Dayton, WA 99328</span><span style="color:#222222"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1F497D">509-382-2030 (office)<br>
509-952-2947 (cell)</span><span style="color:#222222"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><u><span style="color:#0563C1"><a href="https://www.gravislaw.com/" target="_blank"><span style="color:blue">Website </span></a></span></u><span style="color:#1F497D">- <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pub/matthew-r-johnson/2b/997/87a" target="_blank">LinkedIn</a></span><span style="color:#222222"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span><span style="color:#222222"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#1F497D">NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (EPCA), 18 U.S.C., Sec. 2510 - 2522, is confidential and privileged. This email
is solely for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. Receipt by anyone other than the individual recipient(s) is NOT a waiver of attorney-client privilege. Any violation of the ECPA is subject to the penalties stated therein.
If you have received this message in error, please notify me immediately by reply e-mail to </span><u><span style="color:#222222;background:#FFFFCC"><a href="mailto:matt@gravislaw.com"><span style="color:blue">matt@gravislaw.com</span></a></span></u><span style="color:#1F497D"> and
immediately delete the original message.</span><span style="color:#222222"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>