<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=utf-8">
<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:"Segoe UI Emoji";
panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 3;}
@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;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
.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" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Eric,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">You are a gentleman and a scholar. Thank you.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">I follow all that interesting commentary, and I’m in favor of giving those interests via trust or will whenever possible. [Friday morning edit, since I wrote most of the
below last night: Jeff, if there is a disgruntled son involved, I might put it in the LLC agreement (with wife’s signature waiving her CP interest, if any; see below) AND (in the body of) a codicil, but
<u>not</u> as tangible personal property (TPP) – definitely cannot be passed via a TPP memo since it is an intangible equity interest. Maybe the will says something like I believe I have in made a valid disposition of my equity interest in ABC LLC under RCW
11.02.091 and the LLC’s agreement. However, if for any reason the equity interest becomes part of my probate estate, I give it to [LLC member].” How can it hurt, right? Heck, the wife’s will could say something similar like “I believe my spouse has made a
valid disposition of his equity interest (etc.) . . . but if not, then I give my interest in the equity in ABC LLC to [LLC member].” Now the disgruntled son has a lot more to beat than “judges never heard of this 11.02.091 baloney before” reticence. Even if
both spouses die in the same car accident.]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">But [aside from Jeff’s situation] forgive me if I believe that the same court that decided
<i>Rathbone</i> would approve quite readily a <u>well-drafted</u> (and otherwise valid) LLC agreement that thoughtfully recites the members’ desires not to do business with anyone else as consideration for entering into the arrangement and to provide a simple
manner of leaving the surviving member with the ownership interest to dispose of at death as he wishes,
<u>if</u>, of course, the spouses who are getting nothing from the deal signed off on it after having opportunity to consider their release of any community interest, etc. (Lawyers obtain such spousal waivers for other provisions lawyers put into LLC agreements
all the time; nothing special there.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">In fact, I would bet that (at least simpler) LLC agreements have accomplished just what is being discussed without being challenged (thus no case law), because such ease
is one of the entire points of the LLC form of entity.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">None of this means it magically
<u>solves</u> or <u>changes</u> tax issues, community property issues, and other issues that can arise under any plan, however “documented.” But I think a court would be hard pressed to twist the plain meaning of this particular statute to disqualify what I
describe above.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Rather, I expect that a document may one day be disapproved that someone uncarefully drafts
<u>thinking</u> and <u>hoping</u> “too cleverly by half” that it meets the requirements of this statute when it somehow otherwise violates public policy or is so grossly inconsistent with even the broadest meaning of the statute that it simply cannot be permitted
by 9 justices looking at it. (A contract cannot just do whatever it wishes: it still must have consideration, for example. Even a “deed of gift” is a particular thing, not just
<u>any</u>thing declaring itself a deed of gift when it just plain isn’t.) <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">E.g., imagine a twentysomething named Jimmy trying to enforce a “unilateral contract” signed only by Uncle Josh – and in the presence of nobody except Nephew Jimmy – that
purported to give Nephew Jimmy $20,000 [or even a car or ring, to address the TPP concept mentioned this morning] if Jimmy sits vigil with his dying uncle for the final 72 hours of his uncle’s life. It’s a contract! Maybe it’s valid apart from testamentary
form and formalities. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">To my view, a court could easily disallow that “unilateral contract” as against public policy and as being not the
<u>kind</u> of “contract” the legislature ever possibly intended, reading the statute in context (or perhaps “textually”). Such a court would
<u>not</u> make hash of the statute in holding that – unlike the LLC agreement described above – the proffered “unilateral contract” is much more akin to an unwitnessed will that happens magically to benefit the only person who was there at its making.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">But I really doubt it will happen to a thoughtfully drafted LLC agreement among sophisticated and counselled parties that simply wish to arrange their business affairs as
my hypothetical LLC members do. There is no reason both much be “okay” or “no good.” At least in my reading of things.
</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif">😉</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Fun! (Well, for me? Only? I hope not . . . )
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><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 <wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Eric Nelsen<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, July 7, 2022 5:37 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBAPT] Transferring LLC Units<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Huh! Since you pointed it out I faintly remember this statute coming up a while back. I searched and found an email in an exchange last September I had with Karen Boxx. Here was my response, stealing Reutlinger’s erudition to avoid having
to come up with my own (note that I have now managed to completely forget about this statute at least twice in the last 10 months):<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Honestly I hadn’t remembered that RCW 11.02.091 even existed. But when I re-read it and went back to read commentary on it, I remembered why I never remember it: no one seems to be really certain how far its effectiveness is intended to
go, so I decided a while back never to rely on it. (Though now I’m going to try to keep it in mind in litigation if I need to defend a document being challenged on the basis that it’s not a testamentary instrument.) There are also literally zero published
cases addressing it, so far as I can find; and the cases citing its predecessor RCW 11.02.090 don’t help much either.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The problem I see with RCW 11.02.091 is that, read literally and expansively, it would completely abrogate the need to ever obey the formalities for a will; and using it in the LLC context is pushing that envelope in a way that I wouldn’t
want a client to rely upon.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here is the commentary in Reutlinger’s <i>Washington Law of Wills and Intestate Succession</i> (3d ed. 2018), Ch. 8.K.3:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Clearly the statute's broad language and the ability of the maker to designate beneficiaries by contemporaneous or subsequent instrument has
the potential to render the statute virtually limitless, and in fact commentators on the equivalent Uniform Probate Code provision have been uncertain just how far toward eliminating the need for formal wills it was intended to go. The language caused one
writer to "wonder what wills are for. It begins to look like all that is necessary is to get a third party into the act, as an agent, custodian, contracting party, or issuer, and the whole law of wills is displaced."462 Another was more cautious, suggesting
that the section "might prove to be a very important provision of the Code. On the other hand, it could be viewed as adding nothing to existing case law . If courts will respect various intra-family agreements which the section may invite, the provision could
have very significant impact. By offering courts a broad alternative to the probate route for effectuating expressions calling for transfers at death, the draftsmen may have created a form of competition for wills which might serve to assure that probate procedures
will be and remain as simple as possible."463<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">What the Washington courts will make of the section remains to be seen, but few limitations are expressed.464 Although, as indicated, some commentators
seem to see the section as potentially displacing the entire law of wills by the simple expediency of execution of a contract,465 neither case law thus far nor the originally expressed intention of the Uniform Probate Code warrants an overly expansive reading
of the statute or the writing of a premature obituary for the formal will.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Even if RCW 11.02.091 supersedes much of the case law respecting what are usually classified (and approved) as "will substitutes," and its further
options or refinements remain to be seen, a note of caution might well be inserted here. In the words of the dissenting judge in a case of a will substitute that failed:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">“I cannot escape the conviction that Mr. Murphy's plan has failed, not because it was in any way legally deficient, but simply because it was unprecedented. If he was guilty
of any lapse in its preparation, it was merely in not taking sufficient account of the fact that the legal mind is invincibly hostile to the new, the strange, and the unfamiliar.”466<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">462 James N. Zartman, An Illinois Critique of the Uniform Probate Code, 1970 U. Ill. L.F. 413.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">463 Richard V. Wellman, The Uniform Probate Code: Blueprint for Reform in the 70's, 2 Conn. L. Rev. 453, 485-86 (1970).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">464 Apparently the only case to deal with the statute head-on to date is an unpublished one, but it is instructive in its demonstration that
an instrument transferring property at death still must comply with the requirements either of an inter vivos nonprobate instrument or of a will. In In re Estate of Phillips, 93 Wn. App. 1030, No. 16947-2-III, 1998 WL 855506 (Dec. 10, 1998) (unpublished),
the court found that a purported trust was invalid as either an inter vivos or a testamentary trust because it did not comply with the requirements for either. The court rejected the contention that RCW 11.02.091 validated the instrument, because apart from
the question of testamentary formalities, it was not effective inter vivos as it did not pass any present interest to the trustee; and as a testamentary trust it had to comply with the statute of wills.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Professor Price has opined that the statute could validate an otherwise-invalid community property agreement. John R. Price, The Transmission
of Wealth at Death in a Community Property Jurisdiction, 50 Wash. L. Rev. 277 (1975). But cf. Tom Graafstra, Recent Developments—Probate Law & Procedure, 51 Wash. L. Rev. 451, 462 n.35 (1976).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">465 See Price, 50 Wash. L. Rev. at 284-85.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">466 In re Murphy's Estate, 193 Wash. 400, 424, 75 P.2d 916 (1938) (Robinson, J., dissenting).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eric<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eric C. Nelsen<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sayre Law Offices, PLLC<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1417 31st Ave South<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Seattle WA 98144-3909<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">206-625-0092<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:eric@sayrelawoffices.com">eric@sayrelawoffices.com</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="background:aqua;mso-highlight:aqua">Covid-19 Update -
</span></b>All attorneys are working remotely during regular business hours and are available via email and by phone. Videoconferencing also is available. Signing of estate planning documents can be completed and will be handled on a case-by-case basis. Please
direct mail and deliveries to the Seattle office.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> <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>Joshua McKarcher<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, July 7, 2022 4:06 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <<a href="mailto:wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBAPT] Transferring LLC Units<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Eric,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">I am loathe ever to disagree with you – it feels riskier than taking a fiduciary assignment! -- but may I offer
</span><a href="https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=11.02.091"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=11.02.091</span></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">
into evidence, and particularly (2)(c)and (3) “contract”.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">I think LLC agreements may be among the primary kinds of agreements this statute is aimed at. Others can fight the validity of the LLC agreement on ordinary contract-validity
grounds, but I don’t think they can assert the transfer to the other member is invalid because it is testamentary.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Open to other views.
</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif">😉</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">All my best, Josh</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> <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><a href="mailto:Jeff@bellanddavispllc.com">Jeff@bellanddavispllc.com</a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, July 7, 2022 4:46 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv' <<a href="mailto:wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBAPT] Transferring LLC Units<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is all very interesting. The problem I have is I did not do the “older” member’s estate plan. They are married, most likely have and CPA, so if older member dies first that person’s Will would not be probated. That member also has
children who think the other member is a “gold digger.” I am trying to get copies of what EP documents they have to see what can be done. However, what happens if you sign an operating agreement like a Will? How will that insure the transfer is made. Would
it not be better to do a separate “Buy-Sell” for a nominal sum?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jeff<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">W. Jeff Davis</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">BELL & DAVIS PLLC</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><br>
P.O. Box 510</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">720 E. Washington Street, Suite 105<br>
Sequim WA 98382<br>
Phone: (360) 683.1129 <br>
Fax: (360) 683.1258 <br>
email: </span><a href="mailto:jeff@bellanddavispllc.com"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">jeff@bellanddavispllc.com</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><br>
</span><a href="http://www.bellanddavispllc.com/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:blue">www.bellanddavispllc.com</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><br>
<br>
The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this
e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at </span><a href="mailto:info@bellanddavispllc.com"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:blue">info@bellanddavispllc.com</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">
or call 360.683.1129.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> <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>Eric Nelsen<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, July 7, 2022 3:31 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <<a href="mailto:wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBAPT] Transferring LLC Units<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’m against having such a provision in the LLC documents, and agree that it would have to be executed with testamentary formalities in order to be valid.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My analysis has been that an ownership interest in an LLC is an asset, just like a stock share. In every other instance of a non-probate transfer of an asset at death, there is an enabling statute that provides for survivorship: bank accounts,
transfer on death deeds, pay-on-death accounts, etc. There is no enabling statute in the LLC rules that authorizes survivorship of an ownership interest. Therefore, it would have to be a testamentary disposition, and so must meet the formalities of a will.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">At most, I have included in the LLC agreement a right of first refusal, mandatory buy-back, or some other mechanism for the deceased individual’s share to be purchased or otherwise cashed out from their Estate. Those are merely restrictions
on transfer, and so aren’t testamentary and would be valid (assuming no violation of the common-law prohibition against restraints on alienation).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eric<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eric C. Nelsen<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sayre Law Offices, PLLC<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1417 31st Ave South<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Seattle WA 98144-3909<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">206-625-0092<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:eric@sayrelawoffices.com">eric@sayrelawoffices.com</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="background:aqua;mso-highlight:aqua">Covid-19 Update -
</span></b>All attorneys are working remotely during regular business hours and are available via email and by phone. Videoconferencing also is available. Signing of estate planning documents can be completed and will be handled on a case-by-case basis. Please
direct mail and deliveries to the Seattle office.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> <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><a href="mailto:Jeff@bellanddavispllc.com">Jeff@bellanddavispllc.com</a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, July 7, 2022 2:33 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv' <<a href="mailto:wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [WSBAPT] Transferring LLC Units<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Listmates:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Two member LLC. They are not related and each is married (to different people). They want a deceased member’s Units to go to the surviving member. I know it can be done with a Will. But can members enter into an agreement, or better
yet, amend the operating agreement to say that a deceased member’s units go to the surviving member. If you do it that way, must the agreement be signed like a Will?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Your thoughts.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jeff Davis<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">W. Jeff Davis</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">BELL & DAVIS PLLC</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><br>
P.O. Box 510</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">720 E. Washington Street, Suite 105<br>
Sequim WA 98382<br>
Phone: (360) 683.1129 <br>
Fax: (360) 683.1258 <br>
email: </span><a href="mailto:jeff@bellanddavispllc.com"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">jeff@bellanddavispllc.com</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><br>
</span><a href="http://www.bellanddavispllc.com/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:blue">www.bellanddavispllc.com</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><br>
<br>
The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this
e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at </span><a href="mailto:info@bellanddavispllc.com"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:blue">info@bellanddavispllc.com</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">
or call 360.683.1129.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> </b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>