<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">I urge colleagues who
sometimes advise multiple members of a family to read the
cautionary COA Div. II opinion filed today (link below). Attorney
Wynne had prepared a QC Deed for a dying client to convey property
to son #1. Later, son #2 successfully challenged QC Deed as void
due to son #1's undue influence. Then son #1 sued Wynne for
malpractice.<br>
<br>
Among other thoughts that came to mind when reading the opinion --
would a TOD deed now be more likely to be upheld than a QC deed
against son #2's the claim of undue influence by son #1. The
undue influence test for transfers that take effect at death is
much more lax than for transfers that take effect during the
transferor's life. So now that TOD deeds are permitted, would the
attorney be committing malpractice by preparing a QD Deed instead
of a TOD deed for his dying client?<br>
<br>
As explained by COA Div. I in Estate of Wm. Ross Taylor (2014,
unpub., slip at 11) </font><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><a
href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjBhZLbpZ3eAhXH5J8KHaHCC_cQFjAAegQIABAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.courts.wa.gov%2Fopinions%2Fpdf%2F682229.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0qh8yARogv5QImf21Divcz"
data-cthref="/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjBhZLbpZ3eAhXH5J8KHaHCC_cQFjAAegQIABAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.courts.wa.gov%2Fopinions%2Fpdf%2F682229.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0qh8yARogv5QImf21Divcz">
<div style="display:inline-block" class="TbwUpd"><cite
class="iUh30">https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/682229.pdf</cite></div>
</a></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><span></span><br>
<br>
"When a challenged gift is testamentary in nature, the challenger
bears the burden of proving the existence of undue influence. In
re Estate of Melter, 167 Wn. App. 285, 299, 273 P.3d 991 (2012);
White v. White, 33 Wn. App. 364, 370- 71, 655 P.2d 1173 (1982).
But when the challenged gift is inter vivos—a present gift made
during the donor's lifetime—and the person attacking the gift
establishes that a confidential relationship existed between the
donor and the donee, the burden shifts from the challenger to the
donee to show the absence of undue influence. Melter, 167 Wn. App.
at 296. The rationale for the difference in burdens is the
increased skepticism with which society views inter vivos gifts as
opposed to testamentary transfers. A testamentary transfer is
revocable; that is, a will can be changed. But a gift is
irrevocable."<br>
</font><br>
New Division II Unpublished Opinions as of Tuesday, October 23<br>
Oct. 23, 2018 - 50685-8 - Bradford Balint, Et Ux., Appellant V.
Michael Wynne, Et Ux., Respondents <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=506858MAJ">http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=506858MAJ</a><br>
<br>
Doug Schafer, in Tacoma.<br>
</body>
</html>