<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>Client (H) was PR of spouse’s will which was filed for probate in 2008, It
contained a special needs trust for benefit of H with remainder to T .
Trustee (T) is a daughter of W. </DIV>
<DIV>W’s undivided 1/2 of home was deeded to testamentary trust.</DIV>
<DIV>Home sold in 2008 for over $200,000. T and H signed deed.</DIV>
<DIV>About $100,000 of proceeds was placed in a trust checking account. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>2009 H then purchased Blackacre. T claims funds were used from trust
account for part of purchase.</DIV>
<DIV>Title to blackacre was vested in H’s name only.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>T now claims, 7 years later, that the Trust should be entitled to a
portion of blackacre.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>T never did any annual reports, accountings, never distributed any funds to
the beneficiary who was H for life, and did not insist that the Trust be on the
title to Blackacre, notwithstanding funds from Trust were used to purchase
it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>A CPA agreement existed at W’s death. </DIV>
<DIV>T says that under Norris v. Norris 95 Wn 2d 124, 1980, that H can not
now claim that the CPA prevails over the Will because he accepted a benefit
under the will. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Is there a laches or a statue of limitations defense which can be used
here?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The other thought is that by never giving any benefits to H, T is now hard
pressed to claim that the trust was properly set up, and H really didn’t get any
benefit from the trust and therefore even under Norris, the CPA should
prevail.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thoughts?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Josh</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>