<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)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@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:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.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="font-size:11.0pt">Kerry raises a good point re <u>
Sloans</u>—a suit <b><i>based on a creditor claim</i></b> has to be filed as a civil action and not as a TEDRA action. The creditor claim process, which by definition deals with claims of a monetary amount owed to the claimant by the decedent during life and
would be a charge against the estate generally, is in essence the same lawsuit that a creditor would have had against the decedent had s/he lived. It was basically a breach of contract claim with a remedy of money damages and a money judgment. (Also, note
that in Sloans, even though the holding was that the plaintiff had been wrong to file a TEDRA action rather than a civil suit, the error was harmless because superior court was still the proper court and had subject matter jurisdiction, and there was no prejudice
to the estate.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">And a CIR division of property is
<b><i>also</i></b> a matter that could be brought as a civil action I think, as I said. And Kerry may be right that it is the
<b><i>safer</i></b> course compared to TEDRA. But I also think that TEDRA is a possibility, because a CIR claim is not subject to the creditor claim process and is not bound by the same limitations. A decedent in a CIR did not owe money to the survivor during
life; s/he co-owned property in which her/his equitable interest is mixed with the survivor's equitable interest. The purpose of a CIR action is to equitably divide property acquired by a CIR couple that, had they been married, would have been characterized
as community property. At the end of the case, the court says, in effect, "of all the property that would have been community had they been married, the property listed on Exhibit A now belongs solely to person A, the property listed on Exhibit B now belongs
solely to person B." It is entirely an equitable action, has to do with specific property, did not arise as a cause of action during the decedent's life, and will not result in a money judgment to be paid by the estate as a general debt of the decedent. So
the creditor claim process does not apply.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Sloans</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> is a great case for getting into some of the probate procedure weeds, but it is not a CIR case; the opposing parties there were two alternative beneficiaries
to a house who would receive it under certain conditions in the decedent's Will. Under an agreement between the two of them, one got to use the house on condition of paying certain expenses. When that beneficiary died, the other beneficiary filed a creditor
claim in her estate, alleging that the expenses had not been paid pursuant to the agreement. When the claim was rejected, the plaintiff filed suit as a TEDRA action, when it should have been filed as an ordinary civil action (though as I said, the error was
deemed harmless).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">In contrast, as discussed in <u>
Olver</u> where both parties to the CIR died simultaneously in a car crash, the question of equitable division between them is an
<i>inventory</i> issue: what portion of the property belongs to each of the estates? The entire proceeding below was conducted within the framework of the competing probate administrations and contradiction of an inventory, where one estate asserted whole ownership
of property titled in that decedent's name, and the other estate contested it because despite being titled in one person's name, it all had been acquired during the relationship and the other had a community-like interest. See also
<u>Langeland</u>, at p. 329 paragraph 28, confirming that once a trial court determines that property is CIR property, it must make a fair and equitable division of the property between the decedent and the survivor.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">As an inventory issue—a determination what belongs to the estate and what doesn't—I believe this qualifies as a matter resolvable in TEDRA, based on
<u>Olver</u> and <u>Langeland</u>, and RCW 11.96A.030(2)(a):<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">(2)
<span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">"Matter" includes any issue, question, or dispute involving:</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">(a)
<span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">The determination of any class of</span> creditors, devisees, legatees, heirs, next of kin, or
<span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">other persons interested</span> in an estate, trust, nonprobate asset, or
<span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">with respect to any other asset or property interest passing at death</span>;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">If an Estate needs to determine what property interest passes at death, and the decedent's interest is based on CIR where a division of property is required in order to separate out the survivor's interest,
that seems to be a "determination of [a] class of...other persons interested...with respect to [a] property interest passing at death." The CIR survivor, while not an heir, could be a "party" to a TEDRA action within the meaning of RCW 11.96A.030(5)(i):<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">(5)
<span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">"Party" or "parties" means each of the following persons who has an interest in the subject of the particular proceeding</span> and whose name and address are known to, or are reasonably ascertainable by,
the petitioner:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">....<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">(f) The surviving spouse or surviving domestic partner of a decedent with respect to his or her interest in the decedent's property;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">(g) A guardian ad litem;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">(h) A creditor;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in;background:white"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">(i)
<span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">Any other person who has an interest in the subject of the particular proceeding</span>;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Admittedly, this same logic could be extended further to a partition action, or to any situation where ownership of a particular item of property is contested between an Estate and someone else. The application
of TEDRA in such cases is perhaps more uncertain. The specific scenario of CIR is so closely related to marital relationships and analogized to community property issues that it falls very close to the normal realm of probate jurisdiction. And certainly, the
court in <u>Olver</u> appears to have treated it that way, though the parties also appear to have cooperated a fair amount in pushing the matter toward a resolution by the court, and did not do much procedural nitpicking.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">But I think even partition or other contested-ownership-of-property issues might actually be resolvable in TEDRA rather than a civil action—a probate court has a fair amount of power to address competing interests
in property. As a function of determining what property the probate has in rem jurisdiction over, the probate court may need to settle competing interests in the same property. The court necessarily has to have the power to determine the boundaries of its
own jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Eric<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Eric C. Nelsen<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Sayre Law Offices, PLLC<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">1417 31st Ave South<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Seattle WA 98144-3909<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">206-625-0092<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><a href="mailto:eric@sayrelawoffices.com">eric@sayrelawoffices.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;background:aqua;mso-highlight:aqua">Covid-19 Update -
</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">All attorneys are working remotely during regular business hours and are available via email and by phone; please call the Seattle office. Videoconferencing also is available. Signing of estate planning documents can
be completed and will be handled on a case-by-case basis; please call the Seattle office.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">MAIL AND DELIVERIES can be received at the Seattle office. For any other needed arrangements, please call the Seattle office.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><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><span style="font-size:11.0pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Kerry Richards<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:57 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBAPT] PR Duty to Respond to Potential Creditors?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Dear List serve:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">I would add to what Eric has indicated some additional thoughts. First of all, under
<b>Sloans v. Berry, 189 Wn. App. 368(2015),</b> a claim by a surviving CIR spouse would entail a civil lawsuit and cannot proceed under TEDRA. That case stands for the proposition that the surviving spouse must first perfect the claim with a civil lawsuit.
It is well worth reading. In addition, examination of <b>Estate of Borghi 141 Wn. App. 294(2007)</b> is also going to be instructive. Add to that some consideration of the which is going to limit if not eliminate self-serving testimony from the surviving
CIR spouse. Finally, for a substantive look at considerations for the court in awarding any property out of the estate to the surviving CIR spouse look at
<b>Connell v. Francisco 127 Wn. 2d 339(1995).</b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Yours truly,<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Kerry A. Richards, Attorney<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#002060"><img border="0" width="130" height="42" style="width:1.3541in;height:.4375in" id="Picture_x0020_2" src="cid:image001.png@01D65AB2.65BE7EF0"></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#002060"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">The Law Offices of Michael W. Bugni & Associates, PLLC</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">11300 Roosevelt Way NE, Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98125<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#BF7000">EMAIL:</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">
</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><a href="mailto:krichards@lawgate.net">krichards@lawgate.net</a></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#6D0065"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#BF7000">TEL:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#002060">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">206-365-5500<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#BF7000">WEB:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#002060">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><a href="http://www.lawgate.net/"><span style="color:black;text-decoration:none">www.lawgate.net</span></a></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#002060"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;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>Eric Nelsen<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 15, 2020 11:14 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBAPT] PR Duty to Respond to Potential Creditors?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Others answered on the creditor notice issue and I agree with them.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">On the CIR issue, the non-spouse partner has no statutory right to notice because the case law is clear that when a statute says "spouse or domestic partner" it means only a lawful spouse or a
state-registered domestic partner, and not a committed intimate partner. That said, the PR is going to have to deal with the CIR partner, so it's probably a good idea to at least keep open a channel of communication and provide courtesy copies of documents
that seem relevant.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">A CIR partner's claim to an equitable division of "community-like" property is not subject to the creditor claim process; it is more of an inventory issue. The PR ultimately has to take a stance,
in the inventory, on what property belonged to the decedent. Because the CIR survivor does not inherit, the CIR survivor will be intensely interested in determining what belongs to the decedent and what belongs to the survivor.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">That said--with a CIR relationship and substantial assets involved, there is a reasonable likelihood that some kind of transaction between the partners during life could be construed as a general
debt owing to the survivor that <i>would</i> be subject to the creditor claim process. So the CIR survivor is likely a "reasonably ascertainable creditor" and it might be best, in most circumstances, to serve them with the Notice to Creditors and foreclose
that possibility.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">The full duties re equitable division of community-like property when one partner is deceased aren't spelled out in case law yet, but I generally think that the PR should evaluate what assets are
community-like, and if possible work with the surviving CIR partner to determine an equitable division. It's clear that the Estate must determine an equitable division as part of the inventory process. If they can't agree on an equitable division, then the
PR may need to start a TEDRA to get court approval of a proposed division.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Note that "equitable division" has not been well-defined yet, in the context where one of the CIR partners is deceased. The normal factors for equitable division are drawn by analogy from the divorce
statute, which has a lot of factors looking to the financial situation and prospects of each spouse going forward. Obviously those factors, which are central in a divorce "equitable division," aren't present for the deceased party to a CIR division. (This
situation doesn't arise in divorces because a divorce action terminates automatically at death and, the parties remain married, and the inheritance statutes will govern transfer of property from the decedent.)</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">The legal procedure also isn't settled yet, I don't think. I haven't had to do this yet, but my preliminary thought is that it should be equally valid to address in either of two ways: by a TEDRA
action as an inventory issue, or by a standard "division of CIR property" lawsuit as any family lawyer would do. TEDRA is probably a faster method, but if there are a lot of disputed assets and a need for extensive discovery then perhaps the standard litigation
track would provide more room and time for addressing all issues.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Some relevant cases:</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Olver v. Fowler</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> 161 Wn.2d 655, 168 P.3d 348 (2007)</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">In re Estate of Langeland</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> (<u>Drown v. Boone</u>), 177 Wn.App. 315, 312 P.3d 657 (2013),
<u>review denied</u>, 180 Wn.2d 1009 (2014), and second appeal after remand decisions,
<u>In re Estate of Langeland</u>, 195 Wn.App. 74, 380 P.3d 573 (2016)</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Sincerely,</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Eric</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Eric C. Nelsen</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Sayre Law Offices, PLLC</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">1417 31st Ave South</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Seattle WA 98144-3909</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">206-625-0092</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:eric@sayrelawoffices.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">eric@sayrelawoffices.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black;background:aqua">Covid-19 Update -
</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">All attorneys are working remotely during regular business hours and are available via email and by phone; please call the Seattle office. Videoconferencing also is available. Signing of estate planning
documents can be completed and will be handled on a case-by-case basis; please call the Seattle office.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">MAIL AND DELIVERIES can be received at the Seattle office. For any other needed arrangements, please call the Seattle office.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><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><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">
<a href="mailto:wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> <<a href="mailto:wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Nicholas Pleasants<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, July 14, 2020 6:43 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [WSBAPT] PR Duty to Respond to Potential Creditors?</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Hello fellow probate practitioners,</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">I have a couple probate hypotheticals for consideration.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">First situation: Let’s say a creditor was provided Notice to Creditors, the 4-months since publication has passed and the 30-days from delivery to creditor has passed. Now creditor sends a letter
asking for a copy of the Notice to Creditors. I don’t want to restart the RCW 11.40.030 clock, giving them another month to respond. Does PR have a duty to respond to this potential creditor at all?</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Second situation: Let’s say decedent may have been in a meretricious relationship. Is the non-spouse partner entitled to any notice of the probate? Let’s say non-spouse is not mentioned in the
Will at all, not a co-owner of decedent’s real property, but possibly there is some tangible personal property owned together. How about notice to creditors as a potential claimant? Obviously PR does not want to encourage potential claimant, and only wants
to provide notice as strictly required by statute. Also wondering whether non-spouse partner has any right to request special notice?</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">I realize that second situation is a bit trickier, as the interplay between Committed Intimate Relationship doctrine and Probate is interesting. I am curious from a notice standpoint what responses
you might advise PR to give in these situations. Thanks in advance for any experience you can share.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Best,</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Nick</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#2B6AA4">Nicholas Pleasants</span></b><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Pleasants Law Firm, P.S.<br>
2300 130th Ave NE, Suite A-101<br>
Bellevue, WA 98005-1755<br>
(425) 615-7070 tel/fax<br>
</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:nick@pleasantslaw.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#00006A">nick@pleasantslaw.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;color:black">The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged and is confidential information intended only for the use of the recipient, or any employee or agent responsible to deliver it
to the intended recipient. Any unauthorized use, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;color:black">If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the original message and all attachments from your electronic files.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>