[WSBARP] WSBARP Digest, Vol 53, Issue 22
Stephen Whitehouse
swhite8893 at aol.com
Wed Feb 20 12:04:29 PST 2019
Annie, Being old school, I think the answer is a clear no, and any attempt would be unethical. I suspect there are ethical opinions on the subject. Having said that, it is getting harder and harder these days to predict what judges would do.
Steve
Stephen WhitehouseWhitehouse & Nichols, LLPP.O. Box 1273601 W. Railroad Ave.Shelton, Wa. 98584360-426-5885
swhite8893 at aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: wsbarp-request <wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com>
To: wsbarp <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Sent: Wed, Feb 20, 2019 12:00 pm
Subject: WSBARP Digest, Vol 53, Issue 22
Send WSBARP mailing list submissions to
wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
wsbarp-owner at lists.wsbarppt.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of WSBARP digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Disclosed A/C Privileged Information (Annie Fitzsimmons)
2. Disposition of Human Remains (Aliza Allen)
3. Re: Unusual disposition of human remains (!) (Bickel, Dwight)
4. Re: Disclosed A/C Privileged Information (nestor at pplsweb.com)
5. Re: Disposition of Human Remains (Kerry Richards)
6. Re: Unusual disposition of human remains (!) (Eric Nelsen)
7. Re: Unusual disposition of human remains (!) (Roger Hawkes)
8. Re: Unusual disposition of human remains (!) (Vincent DePillis)
9. Re: Unusual disposition of human remains (!) (Kathleen Hopkins)
10. Re: Unusual disposition of human remains (!) (Kathleen Hopkins)
11. Best practice - Conveying into new trust (marc holmeslawgroup.com)
12. Insurance Bad Faith (Steve Nicol)
13. Re: Best practice - Conveying into new trust (Lewis, Brian L.)
14. Re: Insurance Bad Faith (Nathan Arnold)
15. Re: Best practice - Conveying into new trust (nestor at pplsweb.com)
16. Re: Best practice - Conveying into new trust (John McCrady)
17. Re: Best practice - Conveying into new trust
(marc holmeslawgroup.com)
18. Re: Best practice - Conveying into new trust (Jeanne Dawes)
19. Re: Best practice - Conveying into new trust (John McCrady)
20. FW: Mining in eastern Washington (Elizabeth [Lisa] M. Carney)
21. Re: Best practice - Conveying into new trust (nestor at pplsweb.com)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 14:38:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Annie Fitzsimmons <atfitz at comcast.net>
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: [WSBARP] Disclosed A/C Privileged Information
Message-ID: <1480745616.46973.1550615930888 at connect.xfinity.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
One party inadvertently sends a copy of attorney client protected communications to the other party. Can a copy of those communications be used in future litigation?
Thanks - Annie
Annette T. Fitzsimmons P.S.
P.O. Box 65578
Tacoma, WA 98464
253-460-2988/866-290-8362(fax)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190219/3bfa78f2/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 23:16:56 +0000
From: Aliza Allen <Aliza at allenlawgroupllc.com>
To: "wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Disposition of Human Remains
Message-ID:
<CY4PR08MB2406F3BC0DD62050F0D033D4C67C0 at CY4PR08MB2406.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
For those attorneys who may run into these sorts of questions/issues in the future, I recommend you or your clients give Char Barrett a call. Char is a funeral director and specializes in at home and/or green funerals. She works with families who want non-traditional funeral arrangements and is a wonderful resource for end of life planning when it includes something different or unique. Char is committed to empowering people and their families to have the end of life experience they want.
See here for a link to Char's website: https://www.asacredmoment.com/
Aliza C Allen, J.D.
Real Estate Law|General Counsel Services
Allen Law PLLC
1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 940
Seattle, Wa 98101
P:? 206-315-6192? Fax: 206-515-2084
E:? aliza at allenlawgroupllc.com
www.allenlawgroupllc.com
The information contained in this e-mail, including attachments, is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 USC Sec. 2510-2521, is confidential and may also be subject to the attorney-client privilege.? The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom the email is addressed.? If you are not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the transmitted document(s) to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissimilation, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. ?
-----Original Message-----
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 12:00 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: WSBARP Digest, Vol 53, Issue 21
Send WSBARP mailing list submissions to
wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
wsbarp-owner at lists.wsbarppt.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of WSBARP digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Charlotte NC lawyer (Roger Hawkes)
2. Unusual disposition of human remains (!) (Sarah Jael Dion)
3. Re: Unusual disposition of human remains (!) (Kary Krismer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 23:00:10 +0000
From: Roger Hawkes <Roger at law-hawks.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Charlotte NC lawyer
Message-ID:
<MWHPR16MB1469D6506B9AB3FEBEA66478E9630 at MWHPR16MB1469.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Thanks, Ron.
Roger Hawkes, WSBA 5173
Hawkes Law Firm, P.S.
19944 Ballinger Way NE, Suite #100
Shoreline, WA 98155
www.hawkeslawfirm.com<http://www.hawkeslawfirm.com/>
206 367 5000 Office
206 367 4005 Fax
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Ronald L. Coleman
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 11:58 AM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Charlotte NC lawyer
Roger,
Contact Jami Farris in Charlotte. She or someone in her firm should be able to assist your client with the real estate matter.
Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP
401 S. Tryon St., Ste. 3000
Charlotte, NC 28202
704-335-9008<tel:704-335-9008>
Ron
Ronald L. Coleman
Direct 253-238-5129 - rcoleman at dpearson.com<mailto:rcoleman at dpearson.com>
Davies Pearson, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
920 Fawcett Avenue / PO Box 1657, Tacoma, WA 98401
253-620-1500 | Fax 253-238-5158 | www.dpearson.com<http://www.dpearson.com>
Download vCard<http://www.dpearson.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Ronald_1584702.vcf> | View Profile<http://www.dpearson.com/people/ronald-l-coleman>
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Roger Hawkes
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 5:19 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv
Cc: Business Law Section
Subject: [WSBARP] Charlotte NC lawyer
Client is asking for referral to a lawyer in or near Charlotte, NC, for a real estate related matter. Who do you know?
This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. secs. 2510-2521, and is legally privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, the reader is hereby notified that any unauthorized review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail or call the sender at (800) 439-1112, and destroy all copies of the original message.
IRS regulations require us to advise you that, unless otherwise specifically noted, any federal tax advice in this communication (including any attachments, enclosures, or other accompanying materials) was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties; furthermore, this communication was not intended or written to support the promotion or marketing of any of the transactions or matters it addresses. Please call us for additional information.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190218/f0236b14/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 17:37:37 -0800
From: Sarah Jael Dion <sarah at dionlaw.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>, "KCBA
Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Discussion List"
<realpropertyprobatetrustlaw at lists.kcba.org>
Subject: [WSBARP] Unusual disposition of human remains (!)
Message-ID: <9288B6A6-0F85-4B2B-84CF-CF9EB2881E77 at dionlaw.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi all-
I am looking for thoughts? I am trying to advise an estate planning client about the feasibility of carrying out a rather unusual plan for disposition of his remains. He would like his skull to be preserved for his children, as kind of a last vestige of his corporeal existence. His urge to do this sounds strange, but he is a very interesting, kind and smart guy. He does not want to create criminal or other legal problems for anyone who agrees to assist with this plan. I am trying to identify for him the potential legal obstacles to having his skull separated from his body and given to someone to clean and preserve it. (Luckily, he has NOT asked me to help with figuring out who would be willing to carry this plan out for him.)
I?ve been looking through the RCWs and while it seems clear that a person has a right to control disposition of their remains (RCW 68.50.160), it remains vague to me the process by which a person could have anything other than autopsy, burial or cremation take place. His skull would not qualify as an anatomical gift, unless it was given for "transplantation, therapy, research, or education.? RCW 68.04.010(3). So it must be human remains. There are all kinds of penalties scattered throughout the section on human remains, for stealing them, for digging them up once buried, etc.
There is one sentence in the RCWs that seems promising? RCW 68.50.100(1) states that ?[t]he right to dissect a dead body shall be limited to cases specially provided by statute or by the direction or will of the deceased.? (Emphasis added.)
Does anyone have insight into this situation? Many thanks in advance if you have made it this far! Also, yes, I now know all about Ted Williams. :)
Sarah Jael Dion
Dion Law PLLC
206-550-4005
sarah at dionlaw.com
www.dionlaw.com
This message is private or privileged. If you are not the person for whom this message is intended, please notify me immediately and delete the message. Please do not copy or send this message to anyone else.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190218/4d9cb597/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 17:59:22 -0800
From: Kary Krismer <Krismer at comcast.net>
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Unusual disposition of human remains (!)
Message-ID: <4658dbed-6057-38da-3dfb-a2a3655e656c at comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
I've only read news articles on this, but apparently Washington now recognizes something call human composting.? I don't think that process contemplates what your client wants, but perhaps at the end of the process what they want would be somehow easier?????
Here's one such article.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/washington-could-become-first-state-legalize-human-composting-n952421
Kary L. Krismer
206 723-2148
On 2/18/2019 5:37 PM, Sarah Jael Dion wrote:
> Hi all-
>
> I am looking for thoughts? I am trying to advise an estate planning
> client about the feasibility of carrying out a rather unusual plan for
> disposition of his remains. He would like his skull to be preserved
> for his children, as kind of a last vestige of his corporeal
> existence. His urge to do this sounds strange, but he is a very
> interesting, kind and smart guy. He does not want to create criminal
> or other legal problems for anyone who agrees to assist with this
> plan. I am trying to identify for him the potential legal obstacles to
> having his skull separated from his body and given to someone to clean
> and preserve it. (Luckily, he has NOT asked me to help with figuring
> out who would be willing to carry this plan out for him.)
>
> I?ve been looking through the RCWs and while it seems clear that a
> person has a right to control disposition of their remains (RCW
> 68.50.160), it remains vague to me the process by which a person could
> have anything other than autopsy, burial or cremation take place. His
> skull would not qualify as an anatomical gift, unless it was given for
> "transplantation,?therapy, research, or education.? RCW 68.04.010(3).
> So it must be human remains. There are all kinds of penalties
> scattered throughout the section on human remains, for stealing them,
> for digging them up once buried, etc.
>
> There is one sentence in the RCWs that seems promising? RCW
> ?68.50.100(1) states that ?[t]he right to dissect a?dead body shall be
> limited to cases specially provided by statute or by the?direction _or
> will of the deceased_.? (Emphasis added.)
>
> Does anyone have insight into this situation? Many thanks in advance
> if you have made it this far! Also, yes, I now know all about Ted
> Williams. :)
>
> Sarah Jael Dion
>
> Dion Law PLLC
> 206-550-4005
> sarah at dionlaw.com <mailto:sarah at dionlaw.com> www.dionlaw.com
>
> This message is private or privileged. If?you are not the person for
> whom this?message is intended, please notify me?immediately and delete
> the message.?Please do not copy or send this?message to anyone else.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not
> restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing
> attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and
> others.***
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190218/448cd5da/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.*** _______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
End of WSBARP Digest, Vol 53, Issue 21
**************************************
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 23:45:50 +0000
From: "Bickel, Dwight" <Dwight.Bickel at fntg.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>, "KCBA
Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Discussion List"
<realpropertyprobatetrustlaw at lists.kcba.org>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Unusual disposition of human remains (!)
Message-ID:
<MWHPR0701MB3690FC9FF29103E6ECCCDAFF8B7C0 at MWHPR0701MB3690.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
The most macabre legal question I?ve seen on this real property listserve.
________________________________
NOTICE: The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are hereby notified to: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190219/a8ec59e9/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 15:50:44 -0800
From: <nestor at pplsweb.com>
To: "'Annie Fitzsimmons'" <atfitz at comcast.net>, "'WSBA Real Property
Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Disclosed A/C Privileged Information
Message-ID: <01a101d4c8ad$ee9ed0f0$cbdc72d0$@pplsweb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Check out these cases and see if they are still good law. Sitterson v. Evergreen School District a 2008 case and Harris v. Drake, 152 Wash.2d 480, 495, 99 P.3d 872
Nestor Gorfinkel, Attorney at Law
Licensed in Washington & Florida
Florida Civil-Law (International) Notary
ATTENTION - This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at the phone numbers provided herein and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by the sender.
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Annie Fitzsimmons
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 2:39 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: [WSBARP] Disclosed A/C Privileged Information
One party inadvertently sends a copy of attorney client protected communications to the other party. Can a copy of those communications be used in future litigation?
Thanks - Annie
Annette T. Fitzsimmons P.S.
P.O. Box 65578
Tacoma, WA 98464
253-460-2988/866-290-8362(fax)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190219/9b8ef51f/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 23:58:38 +0000
From: Kerry Richards <krichards at lawgate.net>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Disposition of Human Remains
Message-ID:
<21980BEE920FC6469223FE0B14ADF987A64ABF at exchange.seattle.lawgate.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dear Sarah:
The information from Aliza is quite good. I encourage you to use her suggested resource. In addition, there is a very good book out there in paperback, entitled "Stiff, The Curious Life of Human Cadavers", by Mary Roach. It is very insightful, contains some cutting edge ideas on how we treat and manage the bodies of loved ones after they have died. I recommend the book.
Yours Truly,
Kerry A. Richards, Attorney
The Law Offices of Michael W. Bugni & Associates, PLLC
11300 Roosevelt Way NE, Suite 300,?Seattle, WA 98125
EMAIL: krichards at lawgate.net
TEL: 206-365-5500
WEB: www.lawgate.net
-----Original Message-----
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Aliza Allen
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 3:17 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: [WSBARP] Disposition of Human Remains
For those attorneys who may run into these sorts of questions/issues in the future, I recommend you or your clients give Char Barrett a call. Char is a funeral director and specializes in at home and/or green funerals. She works with families who want non-traditional funeral arrangements and is a wonderful resource for end of life planning when it includes something different or unique. Char is committed to empowering people and their families to have the end of life experience they want.
See here for a link to Char's website: https://www.asacredmoment.com/
Aliza C Allen, J.D.
Real Estate Law|General Counsel Services
Allen Law PLLC
1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 940
Seattle, Wa 98101
P:? 206-315-6192? Fax: 206-515-2084
E:? aliza at allenlawgroupllc.com
www.allenlawgroupllc.com
The information contained in this e-mail, including attachments, is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 USC Sec. 2510-2521, is confidential and may also be subject to the attorney-client privilege.? The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom the email is addressed.? If you are not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the transmitted document(s) to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissimilation, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. ?
-----Original Message-----
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 12:00 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: WSBARP Digest, Vol 53, Issue 21
Send WSBARP mailing list submissions to
wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
wsbarp-owner at lists.wsbarppt.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of WSBARP digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Charlotte NC lawyer (Roger Hawkes)
2. Unusual disposition of human remains (!) (Sarah Jael Dion)
3. Re: Unusual disposition of human remains (!) (Kary Krismer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 23:00:10 +0000
From: Roger Hawkes <Roger at law-hawks.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Charlotte NC lawyer
Message-ID:
<MWHPR16MB1469D6506B9AB3FEBEA66478E9630 at MWHPR16MB1469.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Thanks, Ron.
Roger Hawkes, WSBA 5173
Hawkes Law Firm, P.S.
19944 Ballinger Way NE, Suite #100
Shoreline, WA 98155
www.hawkeslawfirm.com<http://www.hawkeslawfirm.com/>
206 367 5000 Office
206 367 4005 Fax
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Ronald L. Coleman
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 11:58 AM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Charlotte NC lawyer
Roger,
Contact Jami Farris in Charlotte. She or someone in her firm should be able to assist your client with the real estate matter.
Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP
401 S. Tryon St., Ste. 3000
Charlotte, NC 28202
704-335-9008<tel:704-335-9008>
Ron
Ronald L. Coleman
Direct 253-238-5129 - rcoleman at dpearson.com<mailto:rcoleman at dpearson.com>
Davies Pearson, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
920 Fawcett Avenue / PO Box 1657, Tacoma, WA 98401
253-620-1500 | Fax 253-238-5158 | www.dpearson.com<http://www.dpearson.com>
Download vCard<http://www.dpearson.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Ronald_1584702.vcf> | View Profile<http://www.dpearson.com/people/ronald-l-coleman>
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Roger Hawkes
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 5:19 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv
Cc: Business Law Section
Subject: [WSBARP] Charlotte NC lawyer
Client is asking for referral to a lawyer in or near Charlotte, NC, for a real estate related matter. Who do you know?
This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. secs. 2510-2521, and is legally privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, the reader is hereby notified that any unauthorized review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail or call the sender at (800) 439-1112, and destroy all copies of the original message.
IRS regulations require us to advise you that, unless otherwise specifically noted, any federal tax advice in this communication (including any attachments, enclosures, or other accompanying materials) was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties; furthermore, this communication was not intended or written to support the promotion or marketing of any of the transactions or matters it addresses. Please call us for additional information.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190218/f0236b14/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 17:37:37 -0800
From: Sarah Jael Dion <sarah at dionlaw.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>, "KCBA
Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Discussion List"
<realpropertyprobatetrustlaw at lists.kcba.org>
Subject: [WSBARP] Unusual disposition of human remains (!)
Message-ID: <9288B6A6-0F85-4B2B-84CF-CF9EB2881E77 at dionlaw.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi all-
I am looking for thoughts? I am trying to advise an estate planning client about the feasibility of carrying out a rather unusual plan for disposition of his remains. He would like his skull to be preserved for his children, as kind of a last vestige of his corporeal existence. His urge to do this sounds strange, but he is a very interesting, kind and smart guy. He does not want to create criminal or other legal problems for anyone who agrees to assist with this plan. I am trying to identify for him the potential legal obstacles to having his skull separated from his body and given to someone to clean and preserve it. (Luckily, he has NOT asked me to help with figuring out who would be willing to carry this plan out for him.)
I?ve been looking through the RCWs and while it seems clear that a person has a right to control disposition of their remains (RCW 68.50.160), it remains vague to me the process by which a person could have anything other than autopsy, burial or cremation take place. His skull would not qualify as an anatomical gift, unless it was given for "transplantation, therapy, research, or education.? RCW 68.04.010(3). So it must be human remains. There are all kinds of penalties scattered throughout the section on human remains, for stealing them, for digging them up once buried, etc.
There is one sentence in the RCWs that seems promising? RCW 68.50.100(1) states that ?[t]he right to dissect a dead body shall be limited to cases specially provided by statute or by the direction or will of the deceased.? (Emphasis added.)
Does anyone have insight into this situation? Many thanks in advance if you have made it this far! Also, yes, I now know all about Ted Williams. :)
Sarah Jael Dion
Dion Law PLLC
206-550-4005
sarah at dionlaw.com
www.dionlaw.com
This message is private or privileged. If you are not the person for whom this message is intended, please notify me immediately and delete the message. Please do not copy or send this message to anyone else.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190218/4d9cb597/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 17:59:22 -0800
From: Kary Krismer <Krismer at comcast.net>
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Unusual disposition of human remains (!)
Message-ID: <4658dbed-6057-38da-3dfb-a2a3655e656c at comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
I've only read news articles on this, but apparently Washington now recognizes something call human composting.? I don't think that process contemplates what your client wants, but perhaps at the end of the process what they want would be somehow easier?????
Here's one such article.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/washington-could-become-first-state-legalize-human-composting-n952421
Kary L. Krismer
206 723-2148
On 2/18/2019 5:37 PM, Sarah Jael Dion wrote:
> Hi all-
>
> I am looking for thoughts? I am trying to advise an estate planning
> client about the feasibility of carrying out a rather unusual plan for
> disposition of his remains. He would like his skull to be preserved
> for his children, as kind of a last vestige of his corporeal
> existence. His urge to do this sounds strange, but he is a very
> interesting, kind and smart guy. He does not want to create criminal
> or other legal problems for anyone who agrees to assist with this
> plan. I am trying to identify for him the potential legal obstacles to
> having his skull separated from his body and given to someone to clean
> and preserve it. (Luckily, he has NOT asked me to help with figuring
> out who would be willing to carry this plan out for him.)
>
> I?ve been looking through the RCWs and while it seems clear that a
> person has a right to control disposition of their remains (RCW
> 68.50.160), it remains vague to me the process by which a person could
> have anything other than autopsy, burial or cremation take place. His
> skull would not qualify as an anatomical gift, unless it was given for
> "transplantation,?therapy, research, or education.? RCW 68.04.010(3).
> So it must be human remains. There are all kinds of penalties
> scattered throughout the section on human remains, for stealing them,
> for digging them up once buried, etc.
>
> There is one sentence in the RCWs that seems promising? RCW
> ?68.50.100(1) states that ?[t]he right to dissect a?dead body shall be
> limited to cases specially provided by statute or by the?direction _or
> will of the deceased_.? (Emphasis added.)
>
> Does anyone have insight into this situation? Many thanks in advance
> if you have made it this far! Also, yes, I now know all about Ted
> Williams. :)
>
> Sarah Jael Dion
>
> Dion Law PLLC
> 206-550-4005
> sarah at dionlaw.com <mailto:sarah at dionlaw.com> www.dionlaw.com
>
> This message is private or privileged. If?you are not the person for
> whom this?message is intended, please notify me?immediately and delete
> the message.?Please do not copy or send this?message to anyone else.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not
> restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing
> attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and
> others.***
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190218/448cd5da/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.*** _______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
End of WSBARP Digest, Vol 53, Issue 21
**************************************
***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***
_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:20:01 +0000
From: Eric Nelsen <Eric at sayrelawoffices.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Unusual disposition of human remains (!)
Message-ID:
<57DC2058F333E340877E551711127784FDAFFD at SBS2011.SayreLawOffices.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I have nothing helpful to offer but can't resist mentioning: About 10 years ago I was living in a Mexican tourist town and talking with a Canadian guy who, when he found out I was a lawyer, became very excited because he was looking for help in figuring out how he could get his business startup properly licensed in the U.S. He wanted to start a business that made musical instruments out of the bones of human remains, as family heirlooms. He got the idea apparently from a musician who wanted one of his leg bones turned into a flute to leave as a gift to his kids. Of course I told him I was on vacation and really couldn't help, plus there was international law involved, blah blah blah....exit stage right. Nice guy though; he wasn't nearly as persistent as some about trying to get free cocktail-party advice.
Sincerely,
Eric
Eric C. Nelsen
SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA 98144-3909
phone 206-625-0092
fax 206-625-9040
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Sarah Jael Dion
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 5:38 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv; KCBA Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Discussion List
Subject: [WSBARP] Unusual disposition of human remains (!)
Hi all-
I am looking for thoughts- I am trying to advise an estate planning client about the feasibility of carrying out a rather unusual plan for disposition of his remains. He would like his skull to be preserved for his children, as kind of a last vestige of his corporeal existence. His urge to do this sounds strange, but he is a very interesting, kind and smart guy. He does not want to create criminal or other legal problems for anyone who agrees to assist with this plan. I am trying to identify for him the potential legal obstacles to having his skull separated from his body and given to someone to clean and preserve it. (Luckily, he has NOT asked me to help with figuring out who would be willing to carry this plan out for him.)
I've been looking through the RCWs and while it seems clear that a person has a right to control disposition of their remains (RCW 68.50.160), it remains vague to me the process by which a person could have anything other than autopsy, burial or cremation take place. His skull would not qualify as an anatomical gift, unless it was given for "transplantation, therapy, research, or education." RCW 68.04.010(3). So it must be human remains. There are all kinds of penalties scattered throughout the section on human remains, for stealing them, for digging them up once buried, etc.
There is one sentence in the RCWs that seems promising- RCW 68.50.100(1) states that "[t]he right to dissect a dead body shall be limited to cases specially provided by statute or by the direction or will of the deceased." (Emphasis added.)
Does anyone have insight into this situation? Many thanks in advance if you have made it this far! Also, yes, I now know all about Ted Williams. :)
Sarah Jael Dion
Dion Law PLLC
206-550-4005
sarah at dionlaw.com<mailto:sarah at dionlaw.com>
www.dionlaw.com<http://www.dionlaw.com>
This message is private or privileged. If you are not the person for whom this message is intended, please notify me immediately and delete the message. Please do not copy or send this message to anyone else.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190220/1d68b1ab/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:57:07 +0000
From: Roger Hawkes <Roger at law-hawks.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Unusual disposition of human remains (!)
Message-ID:
<CY4PR16MB14624D07D88FD95111651C82E97D0 at CY4PR16MB1462.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
So................why were you living in a Mexican tourist town? Which one?
Roger Hawkes, WSBA 5173
Hawkes Law Firm, P.S.
19944 Ballinger Way NE, Suite #100
Shoreline, WA 98155
www.hawkeslawfirm.com<http://www.hawkeslawfirm.com/>
206 367 5000 Office
206 367 4005 Fax
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Eric Nelsen
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 4:20 PM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Unusual disposition of human remains (!)
I have nothing helpful to offer but can't resist mentioning: About 10 years ago I was living in a Mexican tourist town and talking with a Canadian guy who, when he found out I was a lawyer, became very excited because he was looking for help in figuring out how he could get his business startup properly licensed in the U.S. He wanted to start a business that made musical instruments out of the bones of human remains, as family heirlooms. He got the idea apparently from a musician who wanted one of his leg bones turned into a flute to leave as a gift to his kids. Of course I told him I was on vacation and really couldn't help, plus there was international law involved, blah blah blah....exit stage right. Nice guy though; he wasn't nearly as persistent as some about trying to get free cocktail-party advice.
Sincerely,
Eric
Eric C. Nelsen
SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA 98144-3909
phone 206-625-0092
fax 206-625-9040
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Sarah Jael Dion
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 5:38 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv; KCBA Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Discussion List
Subject: [WSBARP] Unusual disposition of human remains (!)
Hi all-
I am looking for thoughts- I am trying to advise an estate planning client about the feasibility of carrying out a rather unusual plan for disposition of his remains. He would like his skull to be preserved for his children, as kind of a last vestige of his corporeal existence. His urge to do this sounds strange, but he is a very interesting, kind and smart guy. He does not want to create criminal or other legal problems for anyone who agrees to assist with this plan. I am trying to identify for him the potential legal obstacles to having his skull separated from his body and given to someone to clean and preserve it. (Luckily, he has NOT asked me to help with figuring out who would be willing to carry this plan out for him.)
I've been looking through the RCWs and while it seems clear that a person has a right to control disposition of their remains (RCW 68.50.160), it remains vague to me the process by which a person could have anything other than autopsy, burial or cremation take place. His skull would not qualify as an anatomical gift, unless it was given for "transplantation, therapy, research, or education." RCW 68.04.010(3). So it must be human remains. There are all kinds of penalties scattered throughout the section on human remains, for stealing them, for digging them up once buried, etc.
There is one sentence in the RCWs that seems promising- RCW 68.50.100(1) states that "[t]he right to dissect a dead body shall be limited to cases specially provided by statute or by the direction or will of the deceased." (Emphasis added.)
Does anyone have insight into this situation? Many thanks in advance if you have made it this far! Also, yes, I now know all about Ted Williams. :)
Sarah Jael Dion
Dion Law PLLC
206-550-4005
sarah at dionlaw.com<mailto:sarah at dionlaw.com>
www.dionlaw.com<http://www.dionlaw.com>
This message is private or privileged. If you are not the person for whom this message is intended, please notify me immediately and delete the message. Please do not copy or send this message to anyone else.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190220/23363d57/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 01:11:52 +0000
From: Vincent DePillis <vdepillis at rp-lawgroup.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Unusual disposition of human remains (!)
Message-ID:
<BYAPR17MB2856114B06EF4BCE917B39C9EB7D0 at BYAPR17MB2856.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Ok, maybe I will pay the extra 25 bucks to stay a member.
Vincent B. DePillis
(Licensed in Washington)
Real Property Law Group, PLLC
1326 Fifth Avenue, Suite 654
Seattle, WA 98101
206.909.5655
vdepillis at rp-lawgroup.com<mailto:vdepillis at rp-lawgroup.com>
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Eric Nelsen
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 4:20 PM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Unusual disposition of human remains (!)
I have nothing helpful to offer but can't resist mentioning: About 10 years ago I was living in a Mexican tourist town and talking with a Canadian guy who, when he found out I was a lawyer, became very excited because he was looking for help in figuring out how he could get his business startup properly licensed in the U.S. He wanted to start a business that made musical instruments out of the bones of human remains, as family heirlooms. He got the idea apparently from a musician who wanted one of his leg bones turned into a flute to leave as a gift to his kids. Of course I told him I was on vacation and really couldn't help, plus there was international law involved, blah blah blah....exit stage right. Nice guy though; he wasn't nearly as persistent as some about trying to get free cocktail-party advice.
Sincerely,
Eric
Eric C. Nelsen
SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA 98144-3909
phone 206-625-0092
fax 206-625-9040
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Sarah Jael Dion
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 5:38 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv; KCBA Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Discussion List
Subject: [WSBARP] Unusual disposition of human remains (!)
Hi all-
I am looking for thoughts- I am trying to advise an estate planning client about the feasibility of carrying out a rather unusual plan for disposition of his remains. He would like his skull to be preserved for his children, as kind of a last vestige of his corporeal existence. His urge to do this sounds strange, but he is a very interesting, kind and smart guy. He does not want to create criminal or other legal problems for anyone who agrees to assist with this plan. I am trying to identify for him the potential legal obstacles to having his skull separated from his body and given to someone to clean and preserve it. (Luckily, he has NOT asked me to help with figuring out who would be willing to carry this plan out for him.)
I've been looking through the RCWs and while it seems clear that a person has a right to control disposition of their remains (RCW 68.50.160), it remains vague to me the process by which a person could have anything other than autopsy, burial or cremation take place. His skull would not qualify as an anatomical gift, unless it was given for "transplantation, therapy, research, or education." RCW 68.04.010(3). So it must be human remains. There are all kinds of penalties scattered throughout the section on human remains, for stealing them, for digging them up once buried, etc.
There is one sentence in the RCWs that seems promising- RCW 68.50.100(1) states that "[t]he right to dissect a dead body shall be limited to cases specially provided by statute or by the direction or will of the deceased." (Emphasis added.)
Does anyone have insight into this situation? Many thanks in advance if you have made it this far! Also, yes, I now know all about Ted Williams. :)
Sarah Jael Dion
Dion Law PLLC
206-550-4005
sarah at dionlaw.com<mailto:sarah at dionlaw.com>
www.dionlaw.com<http://www.dionlaw.com>
This message is private or privileged. If you are not the person for whom this message is intended, please notify me immediately and delete the message. Please do not copy or send this message to anyone else.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190220/b5d87a76/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 02:10:30 +0000
From: Kathleen Hopkins <khopkins at rp-lawgroup.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Unusual disposition of human remains (!)
Message-ID: <61070C56-89EC-4C22-8315-57E6A5E7022B at rp-lawgroup.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Ha!
sent on iphone, apologies for typos!
Kathleen J. Hopkins
Real Property Law Group, PLLC
1326 Fifth Ave., Suite 654
Seattle, WA 98101
p & f: (206)625-0404
khopkins at rp-lawgroup.com<mailto:khopkins at rp-lawgroup.com>
This communication is attorney-client privileged.
On Feb 19, 2019, at 5:22 PM, Vincent DePillis <vdepillis at rp-lawgroup.com<mailto:vdepillis at rp-lawgroup.com>> wrote:
Ok, maybe I will pay the extra 25 bucks to stay a member.
Vincent B. DePillis
(Licensed in Washington)
Real Property Law Group, PLLC
1326 Fifth Avenue, Suite 654
Seattle, WA 98101
206.909.5655
vdepillis at rp-lawgroup.com<mailto:vdepillis at rp-lawgroup.com>
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> On Behalf Of Eric Nelsen
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 4:20 PM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Unusual disposition of human remains (!)
I have nothing helpful to offer but can't resist mentioning: About 10 years ago I was living in a Mexican tourist town and talking with a Canadian guy who, when he found out I was a lawyer, became very excited because he was looking for help in figuring out how he could get his business startup properly licensed in the U.S. He wanted to start a business that made musical instruments out of the bones of human remains, as family heirlooms. He got the idea apparently from a musician who wanted one of his leg bones turned into a flute to leave as a gift to his kids. Of course I told him I was on vacation and really couldn't help, plus there was international law involved, blah blah blah....exit stage right. Nice guy though; he wasn't nearly as persistent as some about trying to get free cocktail-party advice.
Sincerely,
Eric
Eric C. Nelsen
SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA 98144-3909
phone 206-625-0092
fax 206-625-9040
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Sarah Jael Dion
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 5:38 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv; KCBA Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Discussion List
Subject: [WSBARP] Unusual disposition of human remains (!)
Hi all-
I am looking for thoughts? I am trying to advise an estate planning client about the feasibility of carrying out a rather unusual plan for disposition of his remains. He would like his skull to be preserved for his children, as kind of a last vestige of his corporeal existence. His urge to do this sounds strange, but he is a very interesting, kind and smart guy. He does not want to create criminal or other legal problems for anyone who agrees to assist with this plan. I am trying to identify for him the potential legal obstacles to having his skull separated from his body and given to someone to clean and preserve it. (Luckily, he has NOT asked me to help with figuring out who would be willing to carry this plan out for him.)
I?ve been looking through the RCWs and while it seems clear that a person has a right to control disposition of their remains (RCW 68.50.160), it remains vague to me the process by which a person could have anything other than autopsy, burial or cremation take place. His skull would not qualify as an anatomical gift, unless it was given for "transplantation, therapy, research, or education.? RCW 68.04.010(3). So it must be human remains. There are all kinds of penalties scattered throughout the section on human remains, for stealing them, for digging them up once buried, etc.
There is one sentence in the RCWs that seems promising? RCW 68.50.100(1) states that ?[t]he right to dissect a dead body shall be limited to cases specially provided by statute or by the direction or will of the deceased.? (Emphasis added.)
Does anyone have insight into this situation? Many thanks in advance if you have made it this far! Also, yes, I now know all about Ted Williams. :)
Sarah Jael Dion
Dion Law PLLC
206-550-4005
sarah at dionlaw.com<mailto:sarah at dionlaw.com>
www.dionlaw.com<http://www.dionlaw.com>
This message is private or privileged. If you are not the person for whom this message is intended, please notify me immediately and delete the message. Please do not copy or send this message to anyone else.
***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***
_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com>
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190220/d2b1ed75/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 02:11:10 +0000
From: Kathleen Hopkins <khopkins at rp-lawgroup.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Unusual disposition of human remains (!)
Message-ID: <160FAB5E-AF37-4FA4-A128-E02A4A05EDFA at rp-lawgroup.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hmmm, remind me not to accept any musical instrument gifts
sent on iphone, apologies for typos!
Kathleen J. Hopkins
Real Property Law Group, PLLC
1326 Fifth Ave., Suite 654
Seattle, WA 98101
p & f: (206)625-0404
khopkins at rp-lawgroup.com<mailto:khopkins at rp-lawgroup.com>
This communication is attorney-client privileged.
On Feb 19, 2019, at 5:08 PM, Roger Hawkes <Roger at law-hawks.com<mailto:Roger at law-hawks.com>> wrote:
So?????.why were you living in a Mexican tourist town? Which one?
Roger Hawkes, WSBA 5173
Hawkes Law Firm, P.S.
19944 Ballinger Way NE, Suite #100
Shoreline, WA 98155
www.hawkeslawfirm.com<http://www.hawkeslawfirm.com/>
206 367 5000 Office
206 367 4005 Fax
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> On Behalf Of Eric Nelsen
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 4:20 PM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Unusual disposition of human remains (!)
I have nothing helpful to offer but can't resist mentioning: About 10 years ago I was living in a Mexican tourist town and talking with a Canadian guy who, when he found out I was a lawyer, became very excited because he was looking for help in figuring out how he could get his business startup properly licensed in the U.S. He wanted to start a business that made musical instruments out of the bones of human remains, as family heirlooms. He got the idea apparently from a musician who wanted one of his leg bones turned into a flute to leave as a gift to his kids. Of course I told him I was on vacation and really couldn't help, plus there was international law involved, blah blah blah....exit stage right. Nice guy though; he wasn't nearly as persistent as some about trying to get free cocktail-party advice.
Sincerely,
Eric
Eric C. Nelsen
SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA 98144-3909
phone 206-625-0092
fax 206-625-9040
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Sarah Jael Dion
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 5:38 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv; KCBA Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Discussion List
Subject: [WSBARP] Unusual disposition of human remains (!)
Hi all-
I am looking for thoughts? I am trying to advise an estate planning client about the feasibility of carrying out a rather unusual plan for disposition of his remains. He would like his skull to be preserved for his children, as kind of a last vestige of his corporeal existence. His urge to do this sounds strange, but he is a very interesting, kind and smart guy. He does not want to create criminal or other legal problems for anyone who agrees to assist with this plan. I am trying to identify for him the potential legal obstacles to having his skull separated from his body and given to someone to clean and preserve it. (Luckily, he has NOT asked me to help with figuring out who would be willing to carry this plan out for him.)
I?ve been looking through the RCWs and while it seems clear that a person has a right to control disposition of their remains (RCW 68.50.160), it remains vague to me the process by which a person could have anything other than autopsy, burial or cremation take place. His skull would not qualify as an anatomical gift, unless it was given for "transplantation, therapy, research, or education.? RCW 68.04.010(3). So it must be human remains. There are all kinds of penalties scattered throughout the section on human remains, for stealing them, for digging them up once buried, etc.
There is one sentence in the RCWs that seems promising? RCW 68.50.100(1) states that ?[t]he right to dissect a dead body shall be limited to cases specially provided by statute or by the direction or will of the deceased.? (Emphasis added.)
Does anyone have insight into this situation? Many thanks in advance if you have made it this far! Also, yes, I now know all about Ted Williams. :)
Sarah Jael Dion
Dion Law PLLC
206-550-4005
sarah at dionlaw.com<mailto:sarah at dionlaw.com>
www.dionlaw.com<http://www.dionlaw.com>
This message is private or privileged. If you are not the person for whom this message is intended, please notify me immediately and delete the message. Please do not copy or send this message to anyone else.
***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***
_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com>
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190220/88a4b476/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 16:51:30 +0000
From: "marc holmeslawgroup.com" <marc at holmeslawgroup.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Best practice - Conveying into new trust
Message-ID:
<CY4PR15MB1670997256989956E90E4D0BBD7D0 at CY4PR15MB1670.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I've seen quit claim, bargain and sale, special warranty, and statutory warranty deeds used to convey property into a trust and am trying to decide which to use and whether to ask the title company for an endorsement for the new "insured."
Any opinion on which is most appropriate form of deed and whether a title endorsement is even necessary. I vaguely recall that this sort of conveyance won't disturb continuity of coverage under either an ALTA Standard or ALTA Homeowner's policy.
Marc Holmes, JD
Holmes Law Group PLLC
2303 W. Commodore Way, Suite 306
Seattle, WA 98199
marc at holmeslawgroup.com<mailto:marc at holmeslawgroup.com>
(206) 357-4224 (ofc)
(206) 849-0853 (cell)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190220/c892f1b7/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:04:25 +0000
From: Steve Nicol <nicolste13 at msn.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Insurance Bad Faith
Message-ID:
<BYAPR08MB4488322716E4F75E42318F37C27D0 at BYAPR08MB4488.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I?m looking for a firm that practices insurance bad faith?the case is failure to pay a loss on an apartment complex.
Thanks!
Steve Nicol
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190220/c152ead8/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:09:53 +0000
From: "Lewis, Brian L." <Lewis at ryanlaw.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Best practice - Conveying into new trust
Message-ID: <d45176872ee74bed96809c9c9e148ad3 at MAIL13.rsc.ryanlaw.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Marc,
Under the 2006 ALTA policy, the definition of "insured" generally includes grantor trusts so the endorsement is not necessary. Under older policies (1992 and 1970 ALTA policy forms), the best practice is to get the additional insured endorsement. Any of the forms of deeds should work, and I would think a QCD should be fine.
Brian L. Lewis
Member
Ryan, Swanson & Cleveland, PLLC
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 | Seattle WA 98101-3034
Direct 206.654.2206 | Direct Fax 206.652.2906
Lewis at ryanlaw.com<mailto:Lewis at ryanlaw.com> | www.ryanswansonlaw.com<http://www.ryanswansonlaw.com>
.
[Ryan Swanson and Cleveland Logo]<http://www.ryanswansonlaw.com/>
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of marc holmeslawgroup.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 8:52 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Best practice - Conveying into new trust
I've seen quit claim, bargain and sale, special warranty, and statutory warranty deeds used to convey property into a trust and am trying to decide which to use and whether to ask the title company for an endorsement for the new "insured."
Any opinion on which is most appropriate form of deed and whether a title endorsement is even necessary. I vaguely recall that this sort of conveyance won't disturb continuity of coverage under either an ALTA Standard or ALTA Homeowner's policy.
Marc Holmes, JD
Holmes Law Group PLLC
2303 W. Commodore Way, Suite 306
Seattle, WA 98199
marc at holmeslawgroup.com<mailto:marc at holmeslawgroup.com>
(206) 357-4224 (ofc)
(206) 849-0853 (cell)
--
CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail and its attachments are confidential and
may
be protected by the attorney/client privilege, work product
doctrine, or
other nondisclosure protection. If you believe that it has
been sent to
you in error, you may not read, disclose, print, copy,
store or
disseminate the e-mail or any attachments or the information
in them. If
you have received this communication in error, please
notify this firm
immediately by reply to this communication or by
calling toll free
800-458-5973 or if International collect
at (206) 464-4224.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190220/fe46e258/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:25:03 +0000
From: Nathan Arnold <nathan at jjalaw.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Insurance Bad Faith
Message-ID:
<BN6PR22MB0228E3B76C223CA8E8CB5813B27D0 at BN6PR22MB0228.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Steve, I?d be happy to do a free consultation with the potential client. Please have them email me. -Nate
Nathan J. Arnold
Johnston Jacobowitz & Arnold, PC
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Steve Nicol
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 9:04 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Insurance Bad Faith
I?m looking for a firm that practices insurance bad faith?the case is failure to pay a loss on an apartment complex.
Thanks!
Steve Nicol
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190220/6ee2581e/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 09:18:31 -0800
From: <nestor at pplsweb.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Best practice - Conveying into new trust
Message-ID: <00b601d4c940$4e4a7760$eadf6620$@pplsweb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I typically use a Special Warranty Deed. I don't think you need an
endorsement since the Trust or estate planning entity will be insured after
the policy date. See paragraph 2 of the HO policy for definitions.
Nestor Gorfinkel, Attorney at Law
Licensed in Washington & Florida
Florida Civil-Law (International) Notary
ATTENTION - This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message
may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are
not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard
copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you
have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by return
e-mail or by telephone at the phone numbers provided herein and delete this
message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded
message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of
this message or any attachments may not have been produced by the sender.
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
On Behalf Of marc holmeslawgroup.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 8:52 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Best practice - Conveying into new trust
I've seen quit claim, bargain and sale, special warranty, and statutory
warranty deeds used to convey property into a trust and am trying to decide
which to use and whether to ask the title company for an endorsement for the
new "insured."
Any opinion on which is most appropriate form of deed and whether a title
endorsement is even necessary. I vaguely recall that this sort of
conveyance won't disturb continuity of coverage under either an ALTA
Standard or ALTA Homeowner's policy.
Marc Holmes, JD
Holmes Law Group PLLC
2303 W. Commodore Way, Suite 306
Seattle, WA 98199
<mailto:marc at holmeslawgroup.com> marc at holmeslawgroup.com
(206) 357-4224 (ofc)
(206) 849-0853 (cell)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190220/a4ed4b0a/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 09:39:17 -0800
From: John McCrady <j.mccrady at pstitle.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Best practice - Conveying into new trust
Message-ID:
<A8106026B40C9544A17DC5E44A2003EE022F56216879 at PSTMAILV.pstitle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>From a title insurance perspective, it probably doesn't matter what type of deed you use, provided the trust is a "Living Trust" created for estate planning purposes.
In the 2006 Owner's Policy the definition of "Insured" includes "...a trustee or beneficiary of a trust created by a written instrument established by the insured named in Schedule A for estate planning purposes."
In the Alta Homeowner's Policy the insured ("You") is defined: (3) the trustee or successor trustee of Your Trust or any Estate Planning Entity created for You to whom or to which You transfer Your Title after the Policy Date; (4) the beneficiaries of Your Trust upon Your death; or
Since these definitions are not dependent on continuation of warranty provisions a quit claim deed would not jeopardize coverage.
If the trust is not an estate planning trust, I would use a Statutory Warranty Deed and request an endorsement from the client's Title Insurer.
John McCrady
Counsel
Puget Sound Title Company
5350 Orchard Street West
University Place WA 98467
253-476-5721
j.mccrady at pstitle.com
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of marc holmeslawgroup.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 8:52 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Best practice - Conveying into new trust
I've seen quit claim, bargain and sale, special warranty, and statutory warranty deeds used to convey property into a trust and am trying to decide which to use and whether to ask the title company for an endorsement for the new "insured."
Any opinion on which is most appropriate form of deed and whether a title endorsement is even necessary. I vaguely recall that this sort of conveyance won't disturb continuity of coverage under either an ALTA Standard or ALTA Homeowner's policy.
Marc Holmes, JD
Holmes Law Group PLLC
2303 W. Commodore Way, Suite 306
Seattle, WA 98199
marc at holmeslawgroup.com<mailto:marc at holmeslawgroup.com>
(206) 357-4224 (ofc)
(206) 849-0853 (cell)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190220/d428f860/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 17
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:52:38 +0000
From: "marc holmeslawgroup.com" <marc at holmeslawgroup.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Best practice - Conveying into new trust
Message-ID:
<CY4PR15MB167073E3675CC54F90945B03BD7D0 at CY4PR15MB1670.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Thanks for the responses Brian, Nestor, and John.
Marc Holmes, JD
Holmes Law Group PLLC
2303 W. Commodore Way, Suite 306
Seattle, WA 98199
marc at holmeslawgroup.com<mailto:marc at holmeslawgroup.com>
(206) 357-4224 (ofc)
(206) 849-0853 (cell)
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of John McCrady
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 11:39 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Best practice - Conveying into new trust
>From a title insurance perspective, it probably doesn't matter what type of deed you use, provided the trust is a "Living Trust" created for estate planning purposes.
In the 2006 Owner's Policy the definition of "Insured" includes "...a trustee or beneficiary of a trust created by a written instrument established by the insured named in Schedule A for estate planning purposes."
In the Alta Homeowner's Policy the insured ("You") is defined: (3) the trustee or successor trustee of Your Trust or any Estate Planning Entity created for You to whom or to which You transfer Your Title after the Policy Date; (4) the beneficiaries of Your Trust upon Your death; or
Since these definitions are not dependent on continuation of warranty provisions a quit claim deed would not jeopardize coverage.
If the trust is not an estate planning trust, I would use a Statutory Warranty Deed and request an endorsement from the client's Title Insurer.
John McCrady
Counsel
Puget Sound Title Company
5350 Orchard Street West
University Place WA 98467
253-476-5721
j.mccrady at pstitle.com<mailto:j.mccrady at pstitle.com>
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of marc holmeslawgroup.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 8:52 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBARP] Best practice - Conveying into new trust
I've seen quit claim, bargain and sale, special warranty, and statutory warranty deeds used to convey property into a trust and am trying to decide which to use and whether to ask the title company for an endorsement for the new "insured."
Any opinion on which is most appropriate form of deed and whether a title endorsement is even necessary. I vaguely recall that this sort of conveyance won't disturb continuity of coverage under either an ALTA Standard or ALTA Homeowner's policy.
Marc Holmes, JD
Holmes Law Group PLLC
2303 W. Commodore Way, Suite 306
Seattle, WA 98199
marc at holmeslawgroup.com<mailto:marc at holmeslawgroup.com>
(206) 357-4224 (ofc)
(206) 849-0853 (cell)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190220/919d1731/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 18
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 18:28:03 +0000
From: Jeanne Dawes <jjdawes at goregrewe.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Best practice - Conveying into new trust
Message-ID:
<BYAPR05MB4472A72C66D607F0568F9EFAAC7D0 at BYAPR05MB4472.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
John, I typically use a Statutory Warranty Deed for properties because typically I don't know whether they are insured, or when they were insured, or under what ALTA policy they were insured (a lot of times is may be under a much older policy). My thought is that if the living trust is not insured under the Grantor's existing policy the Trust would have a claim against the Grantor under the statutory warranties, and the Grantor would then have a claim against their title insurance policy, if they have one and it is a covered claim. If the property was not insured, then the Trust would just deal with the issue, it is unlikely it would bring a claim against the original grantor. Does it make good sense to continue using the Statutory Warranty Deed when transferring property to grantor trusts?
Jeanne
Jeanne J. Dawes
Attorney at Law
Gore & Grewe, P.S.
103 E. Indiana Avenue, Suite A
Spokane, WA 99207-2317
Voice: 509-326-7500
Fax: 509-326-7503
jjdawes at goregrewe.com<mailto:jjdawes at goregrewe.com>
[cid:7029b209-7d72-4ff3-a3f4-7f0f7da9282c]
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL TRANSMISSION IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL.
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of John McCrady
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 9:39 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Best practice - Conveying into new trust
>From a title insurance perspective, it probably doesn't matter what type of deed you use, provided the trust is a "Living Trust" created for estate planning purposes.
In the 2006 Owner's Policy the definition of "Insured" includes "...a trustee or beneficiary of a trust created by a written instrument established by the insured named in Schedule A for estate planning purposes."
In the Alta Homeowner's Policy the insured ("You") is defined: (3) the trustee or successor trustee of Your Trust or any Estate Planning Entity created for You to whom or to which You transfer Your Title after the Policy Date; (4) the beneficiaries of Your Trust upon Your death; or
Since these definitions are not dependent on continuation of warranty provisions a quit claim deed would not jeopardize coverage.
If the trust is not an estate planning trust, I would use a Statutory Warranty Deed and request an endorsement from the client's Title Insurer.
John McCrady
Counsel
Puget Sound Title Company
5350 Orchard Street West
University Place WA 98467
253-476-5721
j.mccrady at pstitle.com<mailto:j.mccrady at pstitle.com>
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of marc holmeslawgroup.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 8:52 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBARP] Best practice - Conveying into new trust
I've seen quit claim, bargain and sale, special warranty, and statutory warranty deeds used to convey property into a trust and am trying to decide which to use and whether to ask the title company for an endorsement for the new "insured."
Any opinion on which is most appropriate form of deed and whether a title endorsement is even necessary. I vaguely recall that this sort of conveyance won't disturb continuity of coverage under either an ALTA Standard or ALTA Homeowner's policy.
Marc Holmes, JD
Holmes Law Group PLLC
2303 W. Commodore Way, Suite 306
Seattle, WA 98199
marc at holmeslawgroup.com<mailto:marc at holmeslawgroup.com>
(206) 357-4224 (ofc)
(206) 849-0853 (cell)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190220/a0edf60e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 9460 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190220/a0edf60e/image002-0001.jpg>
------------------------------
Message: 19
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 10:49:23 -0800
From: John McCrady <j.mccrady at pstitle.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Best practice - Conveying into new trust
Message-ID:
<A8106026B40C9544A17DC5E44A2003EE022F5621689D at PSTMAILV.pstitle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Yes I agree with you; use the Statutory Warranty Deed and leave that bridge un-burned.
John McCrady
Counsel
Puget Sound Title Company
5350 Orchard Street West
University Place WA 98467
253-476-5721
j.mccrady at pstitle.com
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Jeanne Dawes
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 10:28 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Best practice - Conveying into new trust
John, I typically use a Statutory Warranty Deed for properties because typically I don't know whether they are insured, or when they were insured, or under what ALTA policy they were insured (a lot of times is may be under a much older policy). My thought is that if the living trust is not insured under the Grantor's existing policy the Trust would have a claim against the Grantor under the statutory warranties, and the Grantor would then have a claim against their title insurance policy, if they have one and it is a covered claim. If the property was not insured, then the Trust would just deal with the issue, it is unlikely it would bring a claim against the original grantor. Does it make good sense to continue using the Statutory Warranty Deed when transferring property to grantor trusts?
Jeanne
Jeanne J. Dawes
Attorney at Law
Gore & Grewe, P.S.
103 E. Indiana Avenue, Suite A
Spokane, WA 99207-2317
Voice: 509-326-7500
Fax: 509-326-7503
jjdawes at goregrewe.com<mailto:jjdawes at goregrewe.com>
[cid:image001.jpg at 01D4C909.F0D72FF0]
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL TRANSMISSION IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL.
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> On Behalf Of John McCrady
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 9:39 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Best practice - Conveying into new trust
>From a title insurance perspective, it probably doesn't matter what type of deed you use, provided the trust is a "Living Trust" created for estate planning purposes.
In the 2006 Owner's Policy the definition of "Insured" includes "...a trustee or beneficiary of a trust created by a written instrument established by the insured named in Schedule A for estate planning purposes."
In the Alta Homeowner's Policy the insured ("You") is defined: (3) the trustee or successor trustee of Your Trust or any Estate Planning Entity created for You to whom or to which You transfer Your Title after the Policy Date; (4) the beneficiaries of Your Trust upon Your death; or
Since these definitions are not dependent on continuation of warranty provisions a quit claim deed would not jeopardize coverage.
If the trust is not an estate planning trust, I would use a Statutory Warranty Deed and request an endorsement from the client's Title Insurer.
John McCrady
Counsel
Puget Sound Title Company
5350 Orchard Street West
University Place WA 98467
253-476-5721
j.mccrady at pstitle.com<mailto:j.mccrady at pstitle.com>
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of marc holmeslawgroup.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 8:52 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBARP] Best practice - Conveying into new trust
I've seen quit claim, bargain and sale, special warranty, and statutory warranty deeds used to convey property into a trust and am trying to decide which to use and whether to ask the title company for an endorsement for the new "insured."
Any opinion on which is most appropriate form of deed and whether a title endorsement is even necessary. I vaguely recall that this sort of conveyance won't disturb continuity of coverage under either an ALTA Standard or ALTA Homeowner's policy.
Marc Holmes, JD
Holmes Law Group PLLC
2303 W. Commodore Way, Suite 306
Seattle, WA 98199
marc at holmeslawgroup.com<mailto:marc at holmeslawgroup.com>
(206) 357-4224 (ofc)
(206) 849-0853 (cell)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190220/61bc245f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 9460 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190220/61bc245f/image001-0001.jpg>
------------------------------
Message: 20
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 19:24:26 +0000
From: "Elizabeth [Lisa] M. Carney" <carney at westseattlelaw.com>
To: "WSBA Real Property Listserv (wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com)"
<wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] FW: Mining in eastern Washington
Message-ID:
<MWHPR22MB0432A5B3EA79F7A24F3B5583A67D0 at MWHPR22MB0432.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Colleagues-
Second try- sending to larger group-
Seeking referral to an attorney who works with mining rights in Washington.
Thank you.
Regards,
Lisa
Elizabeth [Lisa] M. Carney
Attorney at Law
[devrieze-carney logo 6 13_60%]
de Vrieze | Carney pllc
3909 California Avenue SW
Seattle, WA 98116-3705
Phone: 206.938.5500
Fax: 206.535.6264
Carney at WestSeattleLaw.com<mailto:Carney at WestSeattleLaw.com>
www.WestSeattleLaw.com<http://www.westseattlelaw.com/>
CONFIDENTIAL & PRIVILEGED. This e-mail message may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this e-mail message and any attachment. Unless you have previously signed an engagement agreement with this firm, and the firm has accepted you as a client, NO exchange of information by virtue of emails or communications will create any attorney client relationship, including any duty of confidentiality, between sender and/or recipient.
Click here to connect with de Vrieze | Carney on Facebook: [FB Logo] <https://www.facebook.com/DeVriezeCarney>
From: Elizabeth [Lisa] M. Carney [mailto:carney at westseattlelaw.com]
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 3:31 PM
To: KCBA Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Discussion List <realpropertyprobatetrustlaw at lists.kcba.org>
Subject: FW: Mining in eastern Washington
Dear colleagues:
Potential client has 20 acres of gold claim in eastern Washington.
Apparently, to move forward with the mining, one files a Plan of Operation to work the claim, then seeks cooperation with the Forest Service.
Client is seeking an attorney to assist with avenues that may be more productive than waiting on the cooperation of the Forest Service.
All referrals appreciated.
Regards,
Lisa
Elizabeth [Lisa] M. Carney
Attorney at Law
[devrieze-carney logo 6 13_60%]
de Vrieze | Carney pllc
3909 California Avenue SW
Seattle, WA 98116-3705
Phone: 206.938.5500
Fax: 206.535.6264
Carney at WestSeattleLaw.com<mailto:Carney at WestSeattleLaw.com>
www.WestSeattleLaw.com<http://www.westseattlelaw.com/>
Our offices will be closed Monday, February 18, for President?s Day.
CONFIDENTIAL & PRIVILEGED. This e-mail message may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this e-mail message and any attachment. Unless you have previously signed an engagement agreement with this firm, and the firm has accepted you as a client, NO exchange of information by virtue of emails or communications will create any attorney client relationship, including any duty of confidentiality, between sender and/or recipient.
Click here to connect with de Vrieze | Carney on Facebook: [FB Logo] <https://www.facebook.com/DeVriezeCarney>
---
King County Bar Association
1200 5th Ave, Suite 700
Seattle, WA 98101
***Notices from King County Bar Association are intended to be a service.
To unsubscribe click here: http://www.kcba.org/kcba/unsubscribe.aspx?listnm=realpropertyprobatetrustlaw&emailad=carney@westseattlelaw.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 44160 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190220/c8611a6f/winmail-0001.dat>
------------------------------
Message: 21
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 11:38:34 -0800
From: <nestor at pplsweb.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Best practice - Conveying into new trust
Message-ID: <018201d4c953$de92faf0$9bb8f0d0$@pplsweb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
That's why I typically go with that route for the preservation of
warranties. Well said.
Nestor Gorfinkel, Attorney at Law
Licensed in Washington & Florida
Florida Civil-Law (International) Notary
ATTENTION - This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message
may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are
not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard
copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you
have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by return
e-mail or by telephone at the phone numbers provided herein and delete this
message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded
message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of
this message or any attachments may not have been produced by the sender.
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
<wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> > On Behalf Of Jeanne Dawes
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 10:28 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com> >
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Best practice - Conveying into new trust
John, I typically use a Statutory Warranty Deed for properties because
typically I don't know whether they are insured, or when they were insured,
or under what ALTA policy they were insured (a lot of times is may be under
a much older policy). My thought is that if the living trust is not
insured under the Grantor's existing policy the Trust would have a claim
against the Grantor under the statutory warranties, and the Grantor would
then have a claim against their title insurance policy, if they have one and
it is a covered claim. If the property was not insured, then the Trust
would just deal with the issue, it is unlikely it would bring a claim
against the original grantor. Does it make good sense to continue using
the Statutory Warranty Deed when transferring property to grantor trusts?
Jeanne
Jeanne J. Dawes
Attorney at Law
Gore & Grewe, P.S.
103 E. Indiana Avenue, Suite A
Spokane, WA 99207-2317
Voice: 509-326-7500
Fax: 509-326-7503
<mailto:jjdawes at goregrewe.com> jjdawes at goregrewe.com
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL TRANSMISSION IS PRIVILEGED AND
CONFIDENTIAL.
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
<wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> > On Behalf Of John McCrady
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 9:39 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com> >
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Best practice - Conveying into new trust
>From a title insurance perspective, it probably doesn't matter what type of
deed you use, provided the trust is a "Living Trust" created for estate
planning purposes.
In the 2006 Owner's Policy the definition of "Insured" includes ".a trustee
or beneficiary of a trust created by a written instrument established by the
insured named in Schedule A for estate planning purposes."
In the Alta Homeowner's Policy the insured ("You") is defined: (3) the
trustee or successor trustee of Your Trust or any Estate Planning Entity
created for You to whom or to which You transfer Your Title after the Policy
Date; (4) the beneficiaries of Your Trust upon Your death; or
Since these definitions are not dependent on continuation of warranty
provisions a quit claim deed would not jeopardize coverage.
If the trust is not an estate planning trust, I would use a Statutory
Warranty Deed and request an endorsement from the client's Title Insurer.
John McCrady
Counsel
Puget Sound Title Company
5350 Orchard Street West
University Place WA 98467
253-476-5721
j.mccrady at pstitle.com <mailto:j.mccrady at pstitle.com>
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
[mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of marc
holmeslawgroup.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 8:52 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com> >
Subject: [WSBARP] Best practice - Conveying into new trust
I've seen quit claim, bargain and sale, special warranty, and statutory
warranty deeds used to convey property into a trust and am trying to decide
which to use and whether to ask the title company for an endorsement for the
new "insured."
Any opinion on which is most appropriate form of deed and whether a title
endorsement is even necessary. I vaguely recall that this sort of
conveyance won't disturb continuity of coverage under either an ALTA
Standard or ALTA Homeowner's policy.
Marc Holmes, JD
Holmes Law Group PLLC
2303 W. Commodore Way, Suite 306
Seattle, WA 98199
<mailto:marc at holmeslawgroup.com> marc at holmeslawgroup.com
(206) 357-4224 (ofc)
(206) 849-0853 (cell)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190220/45fdcfd0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 9460 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190220/45fdcfd0/image001-0001.jpg>
------------------------------
***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***
_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
End of WSBARP Digest, Vol 53, Issue 22
**************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190220/96a45171/attachment.html>
More information about the WSBARP
mailing list