<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">My vague recollection
from 1st year property was that delivery of a deed to the grantee
perfected the conveyance of title. But in a recent case involving
a condo owner that had delivered his properly executed QC Deed (in
lieu of foreclosure) to a lender, lawyers argued and the trial
judge agreed that title had not then transferred to the lender
because it had not recorded that deed (though its agents took
control of the condo). The lender later accepted and recorded a
deed in lieu.<br>
<br>
So, in response to Eric's question to the listserv, even if the
grantee had actual or constructive possession of the deed but had
received it on the condition that it would not be recorded until
after the grantor's death, could it be said that title was not
conveyed until that condition was fulfilled -- the recording of
the deed?<br>
<br>
Note that the case of In re the Estate of O'Brien, 109 Wash.2d
913, 918, 749 P.2d 154 (1988) involved a QC deed "placed in a
safety deposit box which was in the joint names of the
grantor-decedent and the grantee [grantor's sole child], with
equal access by both</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">." Our state supreme court held it to be a valid
testamentary transfer because that was the grantor's intention,
writing:<br>
<br>
"We hold (1) that when it is determined that the proved intent of
the grantor was to pass title upon his or her death, the legal
requirement of “delivery” is satisfied, and (2) that RCW 11.02.090
removes the conveyance from the requirements of the statute
relating to execution of wills, RCW 11.12.020. Our result
satisfies the policy underlying the legal delivery requirement.
This fact, coupled with the philosophy expressed in RCW 11.02.090,
leads to a just result which implements rather than frustrates the
intent of the decedent."<br>
<br>
The O'Brien opinion was criticized in a student law review note:
Susan Tracey Stearns, "Compressing Testamentary Intent into Inter
Vivos Delivery: What Makes a Conveyance Effective?—in re Estate of
O'Brien, 109 Wash.2d 913, 749 P.2d 154 (1988).", 64 Wash. L. Rev.
479 (1989).<br>
<br>
Division II cited the O'Brien opinion as its basis for the
following statement: "Delivery of the deed, along with the
grantor's intent to deliver, is still necessary for the deed to be
operative." Corp. Dissolution of Ocean Shores Park, Inc. v.
Rawson-Sweet, 132 Wn. App. 903, 915, 134 P.3d 1188, 1194 (2006),
rev. denied 159 Wash.2d 1009 (2007).<br>
<br>
Doug Schafer, in Tacoma.<br>
<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">PS. This is my <font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">fo<font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">urth </font></font>attempt to post this. <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">T<font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">hree </font></font>prior attempts
show up i<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">n the
listserv's archives without <font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">content but with <font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">a<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">n </font></font>error message, "An HTML
attachment was scrubbed..." followed by a URL at which <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">my message's H<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">TML code can <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">be viewed. <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">I notice
that<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">,
for s<font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">ome reason, <font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">my previous replies
were with text format of "Wester<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">n<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">"
so no<font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">w <font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">I'm
setting it to "Unicode."</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font><br>
<br>
On 1/23/2017 10:04 AM, Paul Neumiller wrote:<br>
><br>
> I haven’t researched this issue (probably since first year law)
but don’t you have to have “delivery” of the deed to be effective?
What is your fact pattern? Did the PR just find the QD in the
decedent’s drawer (indicating no delivery) or was the QD delivered
to the grantee but just not recorded? It may make a difference
whether the interest passes via the QD or passes in the residual
clause of decedent’s Will.<br>
><br>
> From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">mailto:wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>]
On Behalf Of Eric Reutter<br>
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 9:36 AM<br>
> To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><br>
> Subject: [WSBAPT] Recording a Quit Claim Deed after Death of
Grantor<br>
><br>
> Hello and good morning,<br>
><br>
> I have a simple fact pattern that presents and interesting
procedural question. I am involved in a probate situation where,
before passing away, the decedent had properly executed a quit claim
deed for the decedent’s interest in a home. The decedent, however,
did not record the deed or corresponding REETA/Supplemental REETA
before the decedent’s death.<br>
><br>
> This situation now presents the following question: What is the
procedure for recording a quit claim deed after the grantor had
passed away? (Specifically in regards to the REETA and Supplemental
REETA)<br>
><br>
> My first thought was simply to have the personal representative
sign the REETA and Supplemental REETA on behalf of the decedent. The
representative at the King County Recorder’s Office, however, told
me that they wanted guidance from the DOR before they would be
comfortable with the PR signing off on the Supplemental REETA (they
seemed to have no problem recording the deed itself, or with the PR
signing off on the REETA, but seemed to be uncomfortable with the PR
signing off on the Supplemental REETA).<br>
><br>
> When I spoke with the DOR on the phone, the DOR representative
suggested that I use the inheritance WAC (458-61A-202) on the REETA
so as to avoid the need entirely for the Supplemental REETA. I told
the representative that I did not fully understand that solution, as
the quit claim deed represents an inter-vivos transfer, and that it
seemed inappropriate to me to cite the inheritance WAC for such a
transfer. The DOR agent was unable to give me written confirmation
of this procedure.<br>
><br>
> I would greatly appreciate any guidance on this issue. I have a
few more ideas for how to proceed, but I am curious to see if other
practitioners have seen this issue before and, if so, how they
recorded the quit claim deed.<br>
><br>
> Best regards,<br>
> Eric Reutter, Partner <br>
> J.D., LL.M. Taxation<br>
> 14205 SE 36th Street, Suite 100<br>
> Bellevue, WA 98006<br>
</body>
</html>