[WSBARP] WSBARP Digest, Vol 65, Issue 7
Stephen Whitehouse
swhite8893 at aol.com
Tue Feb 11 13:44:19 PST 2020
My thought is that when someone comes into common ownership, at that point the person can deed out whatever they want, irrespective of where the line might have beenestablished prior. So the deeds control unless it is pretty clear where the line was on the ground. If it was pretty clear on the ground where the line was intended to be, then I would start lookingat estoppel in pais and location by common grantor. Estoppel can occur by silence. No sure on common grantor. No length of time is required of either. I think if you can establish that it was really clear to the non-possessing owner what was operating as the line at the time of acquisition, then you have a starting point. If it was not obvious, then I think you have trouble getting there and thedeeds control.
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: Tue, Feb 11, 2020 12:00 pm
Subject: WSBARP Digest, Vol 65, Issue 7
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. Adverse possession (J. B. Ransom)
2. Re: Adverse Possession (Rob Wilson-Hoss)
3. Re: Adverse Possession (Kary Krismer)
4. Eviction or Ejectment? Tacoma (Kaitlyn Jackson)
5. Re: Eviction or Ejectment? Tacoma (Roger Moss)
6. Grantee in a Common Road / Private Road Easement. (Jamie Morin)
7. Action against Trustee (Bryce Dille)
8. Re: Adverse possession (nestor at pplsweb.com)
9. Re: Adverse possession (Kaitlyn Jackson)
10. Re: Action against Trustee (Andrew Hay)
11. Re: Action against Trustee (Eric Nelsen)
12. Re: Action against Trustee (Bryce Dille)
13. Re: Action against Trustee (Eric Nelsen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 13:11:20 -0800
From: "J. B. Ransom" <jbransom18 at gmail.com>
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: [WSBARP] Adverse possession
Message-ID:
<CAJpqOLdNkuEbOxf15NNS3zGpQi1SWs4FtmqYL2nSzDxUUzUaBg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
This seems quite simple. The properties were owned by one party - common
owner (CO). CO then deeded one of the two adjoining parcels to A. Then CO
deeded the other parcel to B. The legal descriptions in the SW Deeds
should tell you what the CO conveyed. Should make no difference how CO
acquired title. The party now claiming adverse possession is wrong.
--
J. B. Ransom
Winslow Law Group, PLLC
Seattle office: 206.282.4900
Bainbridge office: 206.842.3100
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200210/8776c303/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 13:46:29 -0800
From: "Rob Wilson-Hoss" <rob at hctc.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Adverse Possession
Message-ID: <04ea01d5e05b$8d27cfe0$a7776fa0$@hctc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
That?s an interesting thought. Merger requires 1. Coming together of two different estates; and 2. Merger is not contrary to the intention of the party against whom asserted, and not inimical to their interests. Unless the owner of the two lots did not intend merger when the second one was deeded to them, or it was against their interests, then merger.
As to Randy?s question, maybe merger does apply. It would depend in part on what the person who owned both parcels for four years says about intention and inimicability. OK, so that?s not a word. Maybe it depends on whether they have a dog in this fight, as to what they would say. If they get tendered a claim, they have a dog in the fight, and they may want to say merger was the intention and it was in furtherance of their interests.
Use of they, them and their instead of he or she ? him or her ? his or hers, is still unsettling.
Rob
Robert D. Wilson-Hoss
Hoss & Wilson-Hoss, LLP
236 West Birch Street
Shelton, WA 98584
360 426-2999
www.hossandwilson-hoss.com
rob at hctc.com
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Terrance Wilson
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2020 4:40 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Adverse Possession
doesn't the merger doctrine distinguish this fact pattern from the Gorman case, which dealt with perfecting title prior to being acquired my a municipality? I didn't see merger addressed in the Gorman case anywhere, and the municipality in that case is just like any other owner in that it takes subject to despite it being immune to AP claims after its acquisition. In Gorman, the properties at issue where not owned at any time by the same owner. It seems the merger issue is what needs to be evaluated- maybe I am wrong and merger (as contrasted with municipal acquisition) doesn't extinguish the claim?
Terrance Randall Wilson, Managing Partner
Attorney at Law
Wilson Law Group of WA
(206) 550-3189 - Cell
(206) 805-6238 - Office
_____
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 Gregory L. Ursich <gursich at insleebest.com <mailto:gursich at insleebest.com> >
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2020 4:06 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com> >
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Adverse Possession
If the 10 years ran prior to the acquisition of the two properties, then adverse possession is perfected at that time, especially if the two parcels were acquired at different times by the common owner. Gorman states the proposition as that once the 10 years runs, then adverse possession is perfected, and all that left to do is to confirm it by a quiet title action. Read that decision carefully. -Greg Ursich, Inslee Best
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 7, 2020, at 3:54 PM, Terrance Wilson <Twilson at wilsonlawgroupwa.com <mailto:Twilson at wilsonlawgroupwa.com> > wrote:
?
Isn't Gorman dealing with municipalities taking land subject to AP claims already in existence when the government acquires such land? I understood the doctrine of merger to eliminate AP claims when adjoining properties are acquired by the same owner. The 10 years would not therefore start again until there are actually adverse parties again.
Terrance Randall Wilson, Managing Partner
Attorney at Law
Wilson Law Group of WA
(206) 550-3189 - Cell
(206) 805-6238 - Office
_____
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 Gregory L. Ursich <gursich at insleebest.com <mailto:gursich at insleebest.com> >
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2020 3:15 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com> >
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Adverse Possession
Randy: Not quite; if 10 years had ran with the encroachment in place before common ownership, the adverse possession claim would likely survive. See, Gorman v. City ? Woodinville, Wa Supreme Court. -Greg Ursich, Inslee Best
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 7, 2020, at 3:08 PM, Randy Boyer <randyedlynlaw at gmail.com <mailto:randyedlynlaw at gmail.com> > wrote:
? Listmates
I am dealing with two adjacent parcels. For many years they were owned by different people. Until recently there was no knowledge of an encroachment of a yard area. When one of the parcel owners died, the other owner purchased that property (that encroached). The two parcels were owned by the same owner for 4 years. Then that owner sold each of the parcels in the same year to different parties.
One of the new owners claims adverse possession for the yard area encroachment. It seems to me that when both lots were owned by one owner the adverse possession claim could no longer be asserted. New owner has only owned for 5 years. Both parcels were sold with Warranty Deeds.
Has anyone run across this? I have not found any cases yet.
Randy
Randy M. Boyer ______
Attorney, WSBA# 8665
Law Office of Randy M. Boyer, Inc. P.S.
7017 196th St. S.W. Lynnwood, Washington 98036
* 425.712.3107| Fax 425.778.2274
mail to: randyedlynlaw at gmail.com <mailto:randyedlynlaw at gmail.com>
This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521, and is legally privileged. This email was sent by an attorney or his agent, is intended only for the addressee?s use, and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, reproduction or other use of the information contained in this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender by reply email. Thank you for your cooperation.
***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
***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/20200210/2596ea78/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 14:08:50 -0800
From: Kary Krismer <Krismer at comcast.net>
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Adverse Possession
Message-ID: <e0149b8d-2062-24c1-ade2-1e286b0d4ec2 at comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
I'm not remembering the facts, but if there was an effective adverse
possession period completed, wouldn't the subsequent deeds from the
common owner using the original legal descriptions reverse that change
in property line (which was presumably never approved by the
city/county)?? The owner of both properties transferred deeds away to
the specifically described parcels.
Kary L. Krismer
206 723-2148
On 2/10/2020 1:46 PM, Rob Wilson-Hoss wrote:
>
> That?s an interesting thought. Merger requires 1. Coming together of
> two different estates; and 2. Merger is not contrary to the intention
> of the party against whom asserted, and not inimical to their
> interests. ?Unless the owner of the two lots did not intend merger
> when the second one was deeded to them, or it was against their
> interests, then merger.
>
> As to Randy?s question, maybe merger does apply. It would depend in
> part on what the person who owned both parcels for four years says
> about intention and inimicability. OK, so that?s not a word. Maybe it
> depends on whether they have a dog in this fight, as to what they
> would say. If they get tendered a claim, they have a dog in the fight,
> and they may want to say merger was the intention and it was in
> furtherance of their interests.
>
> Use of they, them ?and their instead of he or she ? him or her ? his
> or hers, is still unsettling.
>
> Rob
>
> Robert D. Wilson-Hoss
>
> Hoss & Wilson-Hoss, LLP
>
> 236 West Birch Street
>
> Shelton, WA 98584
>
> 360 426-2999
>
> www.hossandwilson-hoss.com
>
> rob at hctc.com
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> *On Behalf Of *Terrance Wilson
> *Sent:* Friday, February 7, 2020 4:40 PM
> *To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] Adverse Possession
>
> doesn't the merger doctrine distinguish this fact pattern from the
> Gorman case, which dealt with perfecting title prior to being acquired
> my a municipality?? I didn't see merger addressed in the Gorman case
> anywhere, and the municipality in that case is just like any other
> owner in that it takes subject to despite it being immune to AP claims
> after its acquisition. In Gorman, the properties at issue where not
> owned at any time by the same owner.? It seems the merger issue is
> what needs to be evaluated- maybe I am wrong and merger (as contrasted
> with municipal acquisition) doesn't extinguish the claim?
>
> Terrance Randall Wilson, Managing Partner
>
> Attorney at Law
>
> *Wilson Law Group of WA*
>
> (206) 550-3189 - Cell
>
> (206) 805-6238 - Office
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *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 Gregory L.
> Ursich <gursich at insleebest.com <mailto:gursich at insleebest.com>>
> *Sent:* Friday, February 7, 2020 4:06 PM
> *To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
> <mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] Adverse Possession
>
> If the 10 years ran prior to the acquisition of the two properties,
> then adverse possession is perfected at that time, especially if the
> two parcels were acquired at different times by the common owner.
> Gorman states the proposition as that once the 10 years runs, then
> adverse possession is perfected, and all that left to do is to confirm
> it by a quiet title action. Read that decision carefully. -Greg
> Ursich, Inslee Best
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Feb 7, 2020, at 3:54 PM, Terrance Wilson
> <Twilson at wilsonlawgroupwa.com
> <mailto:Twilson at wilsonlawgroupwa.com>> wrote:
>
> ?
>
> Isn't Gorman dealing with municipalities taking land subject to AP
> claims already in existence when the government acquires such
> land?? I understood the doctrine of merger to eliminate AP claims
> when adjoining properties are acquired by the same owner.? The 10
> years would not therefore start again until there are actually
> adverse parties again.
>
> Terrance Randall Wilson, Managing Partner
>
> Attorney at Law
>
> *Wilson Law Group of WA*
>
> (206) 550-3189 - Cell
>
> (206) 805-6238 - Office
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *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 Gregory
> L. Ursich <gursich at insleebest.com <mailto:gursich at insleebest.com>>
> *Sent:* Friday, February 7, 2020 3:15 PM
> *To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
> <mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] Adverse Possession
>
> Randy: Not quite; if 10 years had ran with the encroachment in
> place before common ownership, the adverse possession claim would
> likely survive. See, Gorman v. City ? Woodinville, Wa Supreme
> Court. -Greg Ursich, Inslee Best
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Feb 7, 2020, at 3:08 PM, Randy Boyer
> <randyedlynlaw at gmail.com <mailto:randyedlynlaw at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> ? Listmates
>
> I am dealing with two adjacent parcels. ?For many years they
> were owned by different people. ?Until recently there was no
> knowledge of an encroachment of a yard area. ?When one of the
> parcel owners died, the other owner purchased that property
> (that encroached). ?The two parcels were owned by the same
> owner for 4 years. ?Then that owner sold each of the parcels
> in the same year to different parties.
>
> One of the new owners claims adverse possession for the yard
> area encroachment. ?It seems to me that when both lots were
> owned by one owner the adverse possession claim could no
> longer be asserted. ?New owner has only owned for 5 years.
> ?Both parcels were sold with Warranty Deeds.
>
> Has anyone run across this? ?I have not found any cases yet.
>
> Randy
>
> *_Randy M. Boyer ? ? ? _______*
> Attorney, WSBA# 8665
>
> Law Office of Randy M. Boyer, Inc. P.S.
> 7017 196th St. S.W. ?Lynnwood, Washington 98036
> (425.712.3107| ??Fax 425.778.2274
> mail to:__randyedlynlaw at gmail.com <mailto:randyedlynlaw at gmail.com>
>
> This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy
> Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521, and is legally privileged.
> This email was sent by an attorney or his agent, is intended
> only for the addressee?s use, and may contain confidential and
> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient,
> you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination,
> reproduction or other use of the information contained in this
> e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email
> in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender
> by reply email. Thank you for your cooperation.
>
> ***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
>
> ***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
>
>
> ***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/20200210/18967a26/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 14:16:55 -0800
From: Kaitlyn Jackson <kaitlyn at dimensionlaw.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Eviction or Ejectment? Tacoma
Message-ID:
<CAO+NF_4Ob_fNtzLeamNNA-sdr4Hi4_zBnCh3n3prPJGG0MJcEg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Private PSA of mixed use residential and commercial property in Tacoma. One
of the residential units is occupied by the "handyman" on the property who
no longer does any "handyman" work. There's no written lease agreement or
any written agreement whatsoever. Rent was basically his handyman work. The
previous owner was afraid to try to evict him when he refused to pay rent
or continue his handyman services because previous owner claims she was
afraid of him. Previous owner will not cooperate. People go in and out of
the place at all hours and there's a some belief by new owner that handyman
is dealing drugs (no proof).
Eviction or ejectment?
--
Thank you,
Kaitlyn R. Jackson | Attorney| DIMENSION LAW GROUP PLLC
130 Andover Park East, Suite 300 | Tukwila, WA 98188
t: *206.973.3500 *| f: *206.577.5090*| e: *kaitlyn at dimensionlaw.com*|
www.dimensionlaw.com
--
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL:??This e-mail (including any attachments) is
intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may
contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the
intended recipient, you are notified that any review, dissemination,
distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. Attempts to intercept
this message are in violation of 18 USC 2511(1) of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, which subjects the interceptor to fines,
imprisonment and/or civil damages. If you have received this e-mail in
error, please immediately notify us by e-mail, facsimile, or telephone;
return the e-mail to us at the e-mail address below; and destroy all paper
and electronic copies.?Any settlement offer contained herein is made
pursuant to Washington ER 408, and without admitting fault or liability on
the part of this firm?s client(s) or its agents.??IRS?CIRCULAR?230
DISCLAIMER:??To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, I
inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication
(including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
Internal Revenue Code; or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or tax-related matter addressed herein.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200210/b21b39fb/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 14:29:29 -0800
From: Roger Moss <ram at pacific-ci.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Eviction or Ejectment? Tacoma
Message-ID: <4C9117D1-58B5-4D2E-85BF-A133453EF0A0 at pacific-ci.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Eviction, which you should avoid. Pay occupant to leave. Use a mediator.
Roger A. Moss, Esq.
Pacific Conflict Intervention
206.790.1971 Seattle
415.371.9724 San Francisco
www.pacific-ci.com
Confidentiality Notice: The information in this e-mail (including attachments, if any) is considered confidential and is intended only for the recipient(s) listed above. Any review, use, disclosure, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited except by or on behalf of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify me immediately by reply email, delete this email, and do not disclose its contents to anyone.
> On Feb 10, 2020, at 2:16 PM, Kaitlyn Jackson <kaitlyn at dimensionlaw.com> wrote:
>
> Private PSA of mixed use residential and commercial property in Tacoma. One of the residential units is occupied by the "handyman" on the property who no longer does any "handyman" work. There's no written lease agreement or any written agreement whatsoever. Rent was basically his handyman work. The previous owner was afraid to try to evict him when he refused to pay rent or continue his handyman services because previous owner claims she was afraid of him. Previous owner will not cooperate. People go in and out of the place at all hours and there's a some belief by new owner that handyman is dealing drugs (no proof).
>
> Eviction or ejectment?
>
> --
> Thank you,
>
> Kaitlyn R. Jackson | Attorney| DIMENSION LAW GROUP PLLC
> 130 Andover Park East, Suite 300 | Tukwila, WA 98188
> t: 206.973.3500? <>| f: 206.577.5090 <>| e: kaitlyn at dimensionlaw.com <>| www.dimensionlaw.com <http://www.dimensionlaw.com/>
> PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. Attempts to intercept this message are in violation of 18 USC 2511(1) of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which subjects the interceptor to fines, imprisonment and/or civil damages. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by e-mail, facsimile, or telephone; return the e-mail to us at the e-mail address below; and destroy all paper and electronic copies. Any settlement offer contained herein is made pursuant to Washington ER 408, and without admitting fault or liability on the part of this firm?s client(s) or its agents. IRS!
CIRCULAR 230 DISCLAIMER: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, I inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code; or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or tax-related matter addressed herein.
> ***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/20200210/077a10f9/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 23:17:30 +0000
From: Jamie Morin <morin at confluencelaw.com>
To: "REALPROP at yahoogroups.com" <REALPROP at yahoogroups.com>, "'Listserve
WSBARRPT (wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com)'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Grantee in a Common Road / Private Road Easement.
Message-ID:
<MWHPR22MB0605686BD38F7B1E18231727A8190 at MWHPR22MB0605.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I'm looking for some thoughts on how to describe the grantee in an easement agreement:
Collection of 20+/- homes on the coast. Only one access road into the community from County Highway. Current access road is increasingly unstable. Property owner adjacent to the existing main access is willing to sell an easement which will allow for the access road to be moved to more solid ground. How should the grantee be memorialized on the easement?
Finding one common grantee seems out of the question:
Once upon a time, there was an HOA but went bankrupt and was administratively dissolved 20 years about after protracted infighting and litigation.
A collection of the property owners are coming together to purchase the easement and repair the road for the collective good, but this collection is not all the property owners and is not formally organized. Can this be an unincorporated association and called out as such in and easement or will this cause the easement to fail because the grantee isn't a corporate entity?
Or can the easement be one easement granted to multiple grantees
or does there need to be an easement recorded for the benefit of each of the properties?
Thanks in advance.
Jamie Morin | Attorney at Law
[https://htmlsigs.s3.amazonaws.com/logos/files/001/140/508/landscape/ConfluenceLaw-Final-h.png]<https://htmlsig.com/t/000001ES87DN>
Direct: (206)502-4405 | Cell: (206)498-2381
(509)295-WLAW | morin at confluencelaw.com<mailto:morin at confluencelaw.com>
110 Prefontaine Pl. S., Suite 304, Seattle, WA 98104
505 W Riverside Ave., Suite 505, Spokane, WA 99201
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 14639 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200210/3c4bf36e/winmail-0001.dat>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 01:09:14 +0000
From: Bryce Dille <Bryce at dillelaw.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Action against Trustee
Message-ID:
<DM6PR11MB365881529983D9E01D920CC4C8180 at DM6PR11MB3658.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I have a client that has a claim against a trustee who distributed assets to himself in violation of the trust terms. The trustee died and my client (a successor beneficiary) filed a claim in the trustees estate which claim has been rejected. My question what governs the action should this be a Tedra proceeding or a civil action against the trustees estate for damages. Thanks
Bryce H. Dille
Dille Law, PLLC
Office: 360-350-0270
Cell: 253-579-5561
** Please note that I use the dictation feature of my iPhone and that sometimes everything I say does not get properly translated**
This transmission contains confidential attorney-client communications and may not be disclosed to any person but the intended recipient(s). If this matter is transmitted to you in error, please notify the sender immediately.
Business Entity Creation and Management
Business, Government and Tax Law
Real Estate and Land Use, Residential, Commercial and Condominium Development Real Estate and Commercial Transactions & Closings, Including Performing Services as IRS Section 1031 Exchange Facilitator Estate Planning, including Wills and Trusts, and Probate Administration Representation Homeowners/Condominium Association Real Estate Developments Real Property Foreclosures and Forfeitures
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200211/0162a1d4/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 18:33:34 -0800
From: <nestor at pplsweb.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Adverse possession
Message-ID: <003e01d5e083$a8d0c710$fa725530$@pplsweb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I agree.
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 J. B. Ransom
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 1:11 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: [WSBARP] Adverse possession
This seems quite simple. The properties were owned by one party - common owner (CO). CO then deeded one of the two adjoining parcels to A. Then CO deeded the other parcel to B. The legal descriptions in the SW Deeds should tell you what the CO conveyed. Should make no difference how CO acquired title. The party now claiming adverse possession is wrong.
--
J. B. Ransom
Winslow Law Group, PLLC
Seattle office: 206.282.4900
Bainbridge office: 206.842.3100
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200210/21f34d68/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 21:36:49 -0800
From: Kaitlyn Jackson <kaitlyn at dimensionlaw.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Adverse possession
Message-ID: <E3580977-B6B5-4045-BBD2-5CDBD5D950A8 at dimensionlaw.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
I agree.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 10, 2020, at 1:13 PM, J. B. Ransom <jbransom18 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ?
> This seems quite simple. The properties were owned by one party - common owner (CO). CO then deeded one of the two adjoining parcels to A. Then CO deeded the other parcel to B. The legal descriptions in the SW Deeds should tell you what the CO conveyed. Should make no difference how CO acquired title. The party now claiming adverse possession is wrong.
>
> --
> J. B. Ransom
> Winslow Law Group, PLLC
>
> Seattle office: 206.282.4900
> Bainbridge office: 206.842.3100
> ***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
--
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL:??This e-mail (including any attachments) is
intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may
contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the
intended recipient, you are notified that any review, dissemination,
distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. Attempts to intercept
this message are in violation of 18 USC 2511(1) of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, which subjects the interceptor to fines,
imprisonment and/or civil damages. If you have received this e-mail in
error, please immediately notify us by e-mail, facsimile, or telephone;
return the e-mail to us at the e-mail address below; and destroy all paper
and electronic copies.?Any settlement offer contained herein is made
pursuant to Washington ER 408, and without admitting fault or liability on
the part of this firm?s client(s) or its agents.??IRS?CIRCULAR?230
DISCLAIMER:??To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, I
inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication
(including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
Internal Revenue Code; or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or tax-related matter addressed herein.
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 17:21:55 +0000
From: Andrew Hay <andrewhay at washingtonlaw.net>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Action against Trustee
Message-ID:
<MWHPR1301MB1933E6C88889275F7B85FD49B2180 at MWHPR1301MB1933.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I would use TEDRA on this. It has a broad statement of intent and applicability in .010 and .020 so you know the court will be able to handle any aspect of the case, often via motion or petition to a court commissioner.
Andrew Hay
Hay & Swann PLLC
201 S. 34th St.
Tacoma, WA 98418
www.washingtonlaw.net<http://www.washingtonlaw.net/>
andrewhay at washingtonlaw.net<mailto:andrewhay at washingtonlaw.net>
253.272.2400 (w)
253.377.3085 (c)
THIS IS A CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION AND IS INTENDED FOR THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT ONLY. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY AND DESTROY ALL COPIES
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Bryce Dille
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 5:09 PM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Action against Trustee
I have a client that has a claim against a trustee who distributed assets to himself in violation of the trust terms. The trustee died and my client (a successor beneficiary) filed a claim in the trustees estate which claim has been rejected. My question what governs the action should this be a Tedra proceeding or a civil action against the trustees estate for damages. Thanks
Bryce H. Dille
Dille Law, PLLC
Office: 360-350-0270
Cell: 253-579-5561
** Please note that I use the dictation feature of my iPhone and that sometimes everything I say does not get properly translated**
This transmission contains confidential attorney-client communications and may not be disclosed to any person but the intended recipient(s). If this matter is transmitted to you in error, please notify the sender immediately.
Business Entity Creation and Management
Business, Government and Tax Law
Real Estate and Land Use, Residential, Commercial and Condominium Development Real Estate and Commercial Transactions & Closings, Including Performing Services as IRS Section 1031 Exchange Facilitator Estate Planning, including Wills and Trusts, and Probate Administration Representation Homeowners/Condominium Association Real Estate Developments Real Property Foreclosures and Forfeitures
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200211/4a988ca3/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:40:04 +0000
From: Eric Nelsen <Eric at sayrelawoffices.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Action against Trustee
Message-ID:
<57DC2058F333E340877E55171112778441ADAFEE at SBS2011.SayreLawOffices.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hmmm....I hate these dilemmas. I make these decisions now simply by proceeding exactly as I would if the defendant were still alive, but substitute the defendant's Estate in the caption. I don't think the law is intended to change the procedure needed to pursue a cause of action based on whether the defendant is alive or dead.
The courts are apparently okay with either, even if you make the wrong decision, so long as you commence a timely action in a court with subject matter jurisdiction. See Estate of Berry, 189 Wn.App. 368, 358 P.3d 426 (2015). Berry appears to hold that a creditor's lawsuit must be filed as an ordinary civil action and not under TEDRA. But, it was harmless error to file it as a TEDRA action since the superior court was the proper court with subject matter jurisdiction, and the creditor filed the action within the 30-day period (on day 29).
In your case, TEDRA might conceivably still be the appropriate procedure for the action against the trustee. In Berry the creditor's claim was based on a breach of contract-decedent had failed to maintain certain real property as required under a written contract. That claim is clearly an ordinary civil action if it were between two living people.
In your case, however, the basic cause of action relates to misfeasance of a trustee, which arguably could be a TEDRA matter. If the trustee was still alive, I think the beneficiary could possibly sue the trustee under TEDRA. However, I think this kind of action is also a poor fit for TEDRA. The definition of "matter" in TEDRA, RCW 11.96A.030(2)<https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=11.96A&full=true#11.96A.030>, appears intended to deal more with matters "internal" to administration of the trust, and is not really meant to take over the standard form of lawsuit for torts such as breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, constructive trust, etc. I think a regular lawsuit is probably more appropriate.
One question I have though is, who is the proper plaintiff. The distribution was taken from the trust, so it seems to me the plaintiff should be the successor trustee of the trust, with a direct cause of action for damages, or for constructive trust to recover assets from, the defendant (former) trustee.
But if your client is not successor trustee, but only a trust beneficiary-is their action more like a shareholder derivative action, bringing suit on behalf of all beneficiaries, and naming the trust as a nominal defendant as well as the trustee individually?
Sincerely,
Eric
Eric C. Nelsen
Sayre Law Offices, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA 98144-3909
206-625-0092
eric at sayrelawoffices.com
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Bryce Dille
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 5:09 PM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Action against Trustee
I have a client that has a claim against a trustee who distributed assets to himself in violation of the trust terms. The trustee died and my client (a successor beneficiary) filed a claim in the trustees estate which claim has been rejected. My question what governs the action should this be a Tedra proceeding or a civil action against the trustees estate for damages. Thanks
Bryce H. Dille
Dille Law, PLLC
Office: 360-350-0270
Cell: 253-579-5561
** Please note that I use the dictation feature of my iPhone and that sometimes everything I say does not get properly translated**
This transmission contains confidential attorney-client communications and may not be disclosed to any person but the intended recipient(s). If this matter is transmitted to you in error, please notify the sender immediately.
Business Entity Creation and Management
Business, Government and Tax Law
Real Estate and Land Use, Residential, Commercial and Condominium Development Real Estate and Commercial Transactions & Closings, Including Performing Services as IRS Section 1031 Exchange Facilitator Estate Planning, including Wills and Trusts, and Probate Administration Representation Homeowners/Condominium Association Real Estate Developments Real Property Foreclosures and Forfeitures
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200211/8d296117/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:52:33 +0000
From: Bryce Dille <Bryce at dillelaw.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Action against Trustee
Message-ID:
<DM6PR11MB36582A6CAB66014C37643DA3C8180 at DM6PR11MB3658.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
That was my thinking client is trust beneficiary. The claim was rejected because trustee's estate claims the 3 year statute of limitation applies since this was only asset of the trust that was taken out of trust and therefore they are claiming trust terminated and the 3 year period began when asset transferred although the trust by its terms had a minimum 10 year period of distributions and trustee conveyed all assets within first 3years of ten year period my client was unaware of the distribution until after trustee died. Fortunately the trustee held title in his own name until death and did not sell earlier.
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Eric Nelsen
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 10:40 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Action against Trustee
Hmmm....I hate these dilemmas. I make these decisions now simply by proceeding exactly as I would if the defendant were still alive, but substitute the defendant's Estate in the caption. I don't think the law is intended to change the procedure needed to pursue a cause of action based on whether the defendant is alive or dead.
The courts are apparently okay with either, even if you make the wrong decision, so long as you commence a timely action in a court with subject matter jurisdiction. See Estate of Berry, 189 Wn.App. 368, 358 P.3d 426 (2015). Berry appears to hold that a creditor's lawsuit must be filed as an ordinary civil action and not under TEDRA. But, it was harmless error to file it as a TEDRA action since the superior court was the proper court with subject matter jurisdiction, and the creditor filed the action within the 30-day period (on day 29).
In your case, TEDRA might conceivably still be the appropriate procedure for the action against the trustee. In Berry the creditor's claim was based on a breach of contract-decedent had failed to maintain certain real property as required under a written contract. That claim is clearly an ordinary civil action if it were between two living people.
In your case, however, the basic cause of action relates to misfeasance of a trustee, which arguably could be a TEDRA matter. If the trustee was still alive, I think the beneficiary could possibly sue the trustee under TEDRA. However, I think this kind of action is also a poor fit for TEDRA. The definition of "matter" in TEDRA, RCW 11.96A.030(2)<https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=11.96A&full=true#11.96A.030>, appears intended to deal more with matters "internal" to administration of the trust, and is not really meant to take over the standard form of lawsuit for torts such as breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, constructive trust, etc. I think a regular lawsuit is probably more appropriate.
One question I have though is, who is the proper plaintiff. The distribution was taken from the trust, so it seems to me the plaintiff should be the successor trustee of the trust, with a direct cause of action for damages, or for constructive trust to recover assets from, the defendant (former) trustee.
But if your client is not successor trustee, but only a trust beneficiary-is their action more like a shareholder derivative action, bringing suit on behalf of all beneficiaries, and naming the trust as a nominal defendant as well as the trustee individually?
Sincerely,
Eric
Eric C. Nelsen
Sayre Law Offices, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA 98144-3909
206-625-0092
eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.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 Bryce Dille
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 5:09 PM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBARP] Action against Trustee
I have a client that has a claim against a trustee who distributed assets to himself in violation of the trust terms. The trustee died and my client (a successor beneficiary) filed a claim in the trustees estate which claim has been rejected. My question what governs the action should this be a Tedra proceeding or a civil action against the trustees estate for damages. Thanks
Bryce H. Dille
Dille Law, PLLC
Office: 360-350-0270
Cell: 253-579-5561
** Please note that I use the dictation feature of my iPhone and that sometimes everything I say does not get properly translated**
This transmission contains confidential attorney-client communications and may not be disclosed to any person but the intended recipient(s). If this matter is transmitted to you in error, please notify the sender immediately.
Business Entity Creation and Management
Business, Government and Tax Law
Real Estate and Land Use, Residential, Commercial and Condominium Development Real Estate and Commercial Transactions & Closings, Including Performing Services as IRS Section 1031 Exchange Facilitator Estate Planning, including Wills and Trusts, and Probate Administration Representation Homeowners/Condominium Association Real Estate Developments Real Property Foreclosures and Forfeitures
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200211/467643cd/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 19:51:12 +0000
From: Eric Nelsen <Eric at sayrelawoffices.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Action against Trustee
Message-ID:
<57DC2058F333E340877E55171112778441ADB150 at SBS2011.SayreLawOffices.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I think that S/L defense is garbage unless there are other facts suggesting client knew or should have known about the improper transfer.
The S/L under RCW 11.96A.070(c) doesn't apply to constructive trusts (see subsec. d), so a cause of action for constructive trust over a specific misappropriated asset is not extinguished, and the discovery rule delaying accrual of a cause of action applies to constructive trust based on fraud/intentional breach of fiduciary duties.
I would also argue that if a fiduciary steals the last asset of a trust, the trust does not terminate. Instead, its remaining "asset" is the cause of action against the trustee, for recovery of the asset. That is the whole point of constructive trust-a fiduciary can't terminate a trust simply by misappropriating its assets; instead, the assets automatically become subject to a constructive trust for the true beneficiaries, and the trustee liable for any loss.
Under the circumstances it sounds to me like the constructive trust theory is most likely to succeed, especially when it's based on intentional fraud as here.
Sincerely,
Eric
Eric C. Nelsen
Sayre Law Offices, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA 98144-3909
206-625-0092
eric at sayrelawoffices.com
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Bryce Dille
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 10:53 AM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Action against Trustee
That was my thinking client is trust beneficiary. The claim was rejected because trustee's estate claims the 3 year statute of limitation applies since this was only asset of the trust that was taken out of trust and therefore they are claiming trust terminated and the 3 year period began when asset transferred although the trust by its terms had a minimum 10 year period of distributions and trustee conveyed all assets within first 3years of ten year period my client was unaware of the distribution until after trustee died. Fortunately the trustee held title in his own name until death and did not sell earlier.
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 11, 2020 10:40 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Action against Trustee
Hmmm....I hate these dilemmas. I make these decisions now simply by proceeding exactly as I would if the defendant were still alive, but substitute the defendant's Estate in the caption. I don't think the law is intended to change the procedure needed to pursue a cause of action based on whether the defendant is alive or dead.
The courts are apparently okay with either, even if you make the wrong decision, so long as you commence a timely action in a court with subject matter jurisdiction. See Estate of Berry, 189 Wn.App. 368, 358 P.3d 426 (2015). Berry appears to hold that a creditor's lawsuit must be filed as an ordinary civil action and not under TEDRA. But, it was harmless error to file it as a TEDRA action since the superior court was the proper court with subject matter jurisdiction, and the creditor filed the action within the 30-day period (on day 29).
In your case, TEDRA might conceivably still be the appropriate procedure for the action against the trustee. In Berry the creditor's claim was based on a breach of contract-decedent had failed to maintain certain real property as required under a written contract. That claim is clearly an ordinary civil action if it were between two living people.
In your case, however, the basic cause of action relates to misfeasance of a trustee, which arguably could be a TEDRA matter. If the trustee was still alive, I think the beneficiary could possibly sue the trustee under TEDRA. However, I think this kind of action is also a poor fit for TEDRA. The definition of "matter" in TEDRA, RCW 11.96A.030(2)<https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=11.96A&full=true#11.96A.030>, appears intended to deal more with matters "internal" to administration of the trust, and is not really meant to take over the standard form of lawsuit for torts such as breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, constructive trust, etc. I think a regular lawsuit is probably more appropriate.
One question I have though is, who is the proper plaintiff. The distribution was taken from the trust, so it seems to me the plaintiff should be the successor trustee of the trust, with a direct cause of action for damages, or for constructive trust to recover assets from, the defendant (former) trustee.
But if your client is not successor trustee, but only a trust beneficiary-is their action more like a shareholder derivative action, bringing suit on behalf of all beneficiaries, and naming the trust as a nominal defendant as well as the trustee individually?
Sincerely,
Eric
Eric C. Nelsen
Sayre Law Offices, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA 98144-3909
206-625-0092
eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.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 Bryce Dille
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 5:09 PM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBARP] Action against Trustee
I have a client that has a claim against a trustee who distributed assets to himself in violation of the trust terms. The trustee died and my client (a successor beneficiary) filed a claim in the trustees estate which claim has been rejected. My question what governs the action should this be a Tedra proceeding or a civil action against the trustees estate for damages. Thanks
Bryce H. Dille
Dille Law, PLLC
Office: 360-350-0270
Cell: 253-579-5561
** Please note that I use the dictation feature of my iPhone and that sometimes everything I say does not get properly translated**
This transmission contains confidential attorney-client communications and may not be disclosed to any person but the intended recipient(s). If this matter is transmitted to you in error, please notify the sender immediately.
Business Entity Creation and Management
Business, Government and Tax Law
Real Estate and Land Use, Residential, Commercial and Condominium Development Real Estate and Commercial Transactions & Closings, Including Performing Services as IRS Section 1031 Exchange Facilitator Estate Planning, including Wills and Trusts, and Probate Administration Representation Homeowners/Condominium Association Real Estate Developments Real Property Foreclosures and Forfeitures
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200211/c9878578/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 65, Issue 7
*************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200211/769d6c7d/attachment.html>
More information about the WSBARP
mailing list