[WSBARP] WSBARP Digest, Vol 79, Issue 4

Fri Apr 2 13:21:58 PDT 2021

Regarding the lack of probate affidavit, we have communicated with the Department of Revenue on that and cited to, in our mind, clear authority for the fact they cannot require an affidavit since it is not a transfer of an interest in real property. They would not agree and did not really cite to any authority. The local people are just doing what DOR is telling them to 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 at lists.wsbarppt.com
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Sent: Fri, Apr 2, 2021 11:50 am
Subject: WSBARP Digest, Vol 79, Issue 4

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: Update on Need for Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit    to
      Record Transfer on Death Deed (Ronald St. Hilaire)
  2. Re: Update on Need for Real Estate Excise Tax    Affidavit    to
      Record Transfer on Death Deed (Joshua McKarcher)
  3. Seattle Eviction Moratorium - 90 Day Notice
      (Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com)
  4. Re: Seattle Eviction Moratorium - 90 Day Notice (Maxwell Glasson)
  5. Re: Seattle Eviction Moratorium - 90 Day Notice
      (Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com)
  6. Re: Adverse Possession case against FDIC (Randy Boyer)
  7. Re: Adverse Possession case against FDIC (Gregory L. Ursich)
  8. Re: Update on Need for Real Estate Excise    Tax    Affidavit    to
      Record Transfer on Death Deed (Jennifer L White)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 16:04:11 +0000
From: "Ronald St. Hilaire" <rfs at licbs.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Update on Need for Real Estate Excise Tax
    Affidavit    to    Record Transfer on Death Deed
Message-ID:
    <MW2PR20MB20913B2897BB4826645277E7A57A9 at MW2PR20MB2091.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Benton County has recently been requiring a REETA to record a Lack of Probate Affidavit.  Further, if you want to attach a CPA or Will to the affidavit, they are charging additional recording fees, which they have not done in the past.

________________________________
Ronald F. St. Hilaire * Certified Elder Law Attorney
Liebler & St. Hilaire, P.S.
P.O. Box 6125 * Kennewick, WA  99336
8131 W. Grandridge Blvd., Suite 101 * Kennewick, WA  99336
(509) 735-3581 office * (509) 735-3585 fax
rfs at licbs.com<mailto:rfs at licbs.com> * www.bentonfranklinlaw.com<http://www.bentonfranklinlaw.com/>
 [LieblerStHilaire_Color_PS_1]

Certification as Elder Law Attorney by the National Elder Law Foundation.  The Supreme Court of Washington does not recognize certification of specialties in the practice of law.  Certification is not required to practice law in the State of Washington.

Confidentiality Notice:  This email transmission is intended only for the addressee named above.  It contains information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from use and disclosure.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, or dissemination of this transmission or the taking of any action in reliance on its contents or other use is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy the original and notify us by telephone immediately.  Thank you for your cooperation.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 6:37 AM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Update on Need for Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit to Record Transfer on Death Deed

Listmates,

A week or two ago we had a discussion regarding Jefferson County requiring an real estate excise tax affidavit to record a transfer on death deed.  I took another listmate's advice and sent in the affidavit with the $10 but with a letter saying it was done under protest and cited the WAC provisions showing no need for such a process.  Yesterday,  we learned we were right no need for the affidavit with such a deed.  HOWEVER, because I was also recording an Affidavit of Lack of Probate, on another matter, it was that document that required the REETA.  WHAT!  I am not going to waste my time researching the WAC's for such a requirement.  At least here in Clallam County, we are never required to include the REETA when recording  such a lack of probate affidavit or even a community property agreement.  County Treasurers' creativity, or obstructionism, never ceases to amaze me.  At least it is Friday!

Jeff Davis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210402/2cfcaedc/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 62472 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210402/2cfcaedc/image001-0001.png>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 16:20:30 +0000
From: Joshua McKarcher <josh at mckarcherlaw.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Update on Need for Real Estate Excise Tax
    Affidavit    to    Record Transfer on Death Deed
Message-ID:
    <MW3PR11MB46527DBEA630C8D334CB1356BB7A9 at MW3PR11MB4652.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

I recently researched the WACs on this. Recording the community property agreement or transfer on death deed, which does not affect title at that moment, does not require a REETA, because no change of title occurs then.

Later, when someone dies and title changes, even just to remove a spouse, then the REETA is required, and there are clear exemptions to cite on the REETA.

So the WACs do require a REETA for ?activating? the community property agreement (transfer after the death of the first spouse), and they do require a REETA when one of the TOD deed grantors dies thereby ?activating? a transfer of title.

The confusion, I think, lies in that no REETA is required when TOD deeds and CP agreements are initially recorded (for ?future? or ?contingent? changes to title that are merely being memorialized for a possible future change of title).

Hope that helps even one person, ha ha!

Joshua D. McKarcher
McKarcher Law PLLC
537 6th Street
Clarkston, WA 99403
(509) 758-3345
(509) 758-3314 (fax)
josh at mckarcherlaw.com
www.mckarcherlaw.com<http://www.mckarcherlaw.com>
________________________________
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> on behalf of Ronald St. Hilaire <rfs at licbs.com>
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 9:11 AM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv'
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Update on Need for Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit to Record Transfer on Death Deed

Benton County has recently been requiring a REETA to record a Lack of Probate Affidavit.  Further, if you want to attach a CPA or Will to the affidavit, they are charging additional recording fees, which they have not done in the past.

________________________________
Ronald F. St. Hilaire ? Certified Elder Law Attorney
Liebler & St. Hilaire, P.S.
P.O. Box 6125 ? Kennewick, WA  99336
8131 W. Grandridge Blvd., Suite 101 ? Kennewick, WA  99336
(509) 735-3581 office ? (509) 735-3585 fax
rfs at licbs.com<mailto:rfs at licbs.com> ? www.bentonfranklinlaw.com<http://www.bentonfranklinlaw.com/>
 [LieblerStHilaire_Color_PS_1]

Certification as Elder Law Attorney by the National Elder Law Foundation.  The Supreme Court of Washington does not recognize certification of specialties in the practice of law.  Certification is not required to practice law in the State of Washington.

Confidentiality Notice:  This email transmission is intended only for the addressee named above.  It contains information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from use and disclosure.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, or dissemination of this transmission or the taking of any action in reliance on its contents or other use is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy the original and notify us by telephone immediately.  Thank you for your cooperation.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 6:37 AM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Update on Need for Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit to Record Transfer on Death Deed

Listmates,

A week or two ago we had a discussion regarding Jefferson County requiring an real estate excise tax affidavit to record a transfer on death deed.  I took another listmate?s advice and sent in the affidavit with the $10 but with a letter saying it was done under protest and cited the WAC provisions showing no need for such a process.  Yesterday,  we learned we were right no need for the affidavit with such a deed.  HOWEVER, because I was also recording an Affidavit of Lack of Probate, on another matter, it was that document that required the REETA.  WHAT!  I am not going to waste my time researching the WAC?s for such a requirement.  At least here in Clallam County, we are never required to include the REETA when recording  such a lack of probate affidavit or even a community property agreement.  County Treasurers? creativity, or obstructionism, never ceases to amaze me.  At least it is Friday!

Jeff Davis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210402/439ac08a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 62472 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210402/439ac08a/image001-0001.png>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 09:40:52 -0700
From: <Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Seattle Eviction Moratorium - 90 Day Notice
Message-ID: <00a001d727de$f277cf00$d7676d00$@bellanddavispllc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Listmates,

Probate estate intends to sell two King County properties.  One is a
multiple unit apartment, fully leased up, and one single family residence
with a month to month tenant.  Obviously, the estate does not want to evict
the apartment tenants.  Further, the estate does NOT intend to evict the
single family home tenant.  I have read to City of Seattle's 90 day notice
of intent to sell  "good-caused" exception, but I assume that such notice
does not have to be given for either sale to close because there is no
intent to terminate the tenancies.  Am I reading this wrong.  The question
was raised by the current property managers.

Jeff Davis

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210402/a030cb27/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 16:47:24 +0000
From: Maxwell Glasson <max at glassonlegal.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Seattle Eviction Moratorium - 90 Day Notice
Message-ID:
    <BYAPR06MB6293D1EE8A33796587B424E0C97A9 at BYAPR06MB6293.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi Jeff,

Without an intent to evict anyone, you do not need to tender a notice.  Make sure your clients put the ball in the Buyer's court to notify the Tenants of the new ownership and where to tender rent once the sale closes.

Regards,

Maxwell B. Glasson
Glasson Legal, PLLC
2212 Queen Anne Ave. N, #659
Seattle, Washington, 98109
206-627-0528
max at glassonlegal.com<mailto:max at glassonlegal.com>
www.glassonlegal.com<http://www.glassonlegal.com/>
WA# 51948  NV# 13339  CA# 292356
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY BE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO WHOM OR THE ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 9:41 AM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Seattle Eviction Moratorium - 90 Day Notice

Listmates,

Probate estate intends to sell two King County properties.  One is a multiple unit apartment, fully leased up, and one single family residence with a month to month tenant.  Obviously, the estate does not want to evict the apartment tenants.  Further, the estate does NOT intend to evict the single family home tenant.  I have read to City of Seattle's 90 day notice of intent to sell  "good-caused" exception, but I assume that such notice does not have to be given for either sale to close because there is no intent to terminate the tenancies.  Am I reading this wrong.  The question was raised by the current property managers.

Jeff Davis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210402/374f0c23/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 10:14:15 -0700
From: <Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Seattle Eviction Moratorium - 90 Day Notice
Message-ID: <00bb01d727e3$9c767f70$d5637e50$@bellanddavispllc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Thank you Mr. Glasson,

Although the property managers feel the City wants the 90 day notice given,
even if there is no intent to terminate the lease, by giving the notice the
tenants may want to move, anyway, to avoid the trouble of people looking at
the property.  The managers would like to know if they don't have to give
the notice.  I agree with your statement, if no intent to evict, no need to
give notice.

Jeff

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
On Behalf Of Maxwell Glasson
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 9:47 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Seattle Eviction Moratorium - 90 Day Notice

Hi Jeff,

Without an intent to evict anyone, you do not need to tender a notice.  Make
sure your clients put the ball in the Buyer's court to notify the Tenants of
the new ownership and where to tender rent once the sale closes. 

Regards, 

Maxwell B. Glasson 

Glasson Legal, PLLC 

2212 Queen Anne Ave. N, #659

Seattle, Washington, 98109

206-627-0528

 <mailto:max at glassonlegal.com> max at glassonlegal.com

 <http://www.glassonlegal.com/> www.glassonlegal.com 

WA# 51948  NV# 13339  CA# 292356

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY BE
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF
THE INDIVIDUAL TO WHOM OR THE ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE
NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR
DELIVERING IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY
USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS
STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY
NOTIFY US AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE.

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
Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com <mailto:Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com> 
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 9:41 AM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com> >
Subject: [WSBARP] Seattle Eviction Moratorium - 90 Day Notice

Listmates,

Probate estate intends to sell two King County properties.  One is a
multiple unit apartment, fully leased up, and one single family residence
with a month to month tenant.  Obviously, the estate does not want to evict
the apartment tenants.  Further, the estate does NOT intend to evict the
single family home tenant.  I have read to City of Seattle's 90 day notice
of intent to sell  "good-caused" exception, but I assume that such notice
does not have to be given for either sale to close because there is no
intent to terminate the tenancies.  Am I reading this wrong.  The question
was raised by the current property managers.

Jeff Davis

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210402/89151956/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 10:15:36 -0700
From: Randy Boyer <randyedlynlaw at gmail.com>
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Adverse Possession case against FDIC
Message-ID: <068CDB69-EF2C-4A8B-AF5F-BDD9F0F610C2 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Listmates

Thank you for you input.  In this case FDIC foreclosed on a second deed of trust over ten years ago.  They never took possession of the property and I believe they forgot they have title.  My client continue to use the property, paying the first deed of trust and taxes for the past 10 years.  A year after the foreclosure deed FDIC sold the note that secured the debt to a Limited Partnership (I do not have a copy of that Sale Agreement).  I cannot determine if FDIC intended the assign the  foreclosed property to them.  The LP reached settlement with my client on the outstanding note.

Sounds like most of you feel adverse possession cannot be asserted against FDIC.  But they are a receiver for the insolvent bank and do not hod on to real property as far as I know.

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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210402/f20b5ebb/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 17:26:37 +0000
From: "Gregory L. Ursich" <gursich at insleebest.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Adverse Possession case against FDIC
Message-ID: <BA85F305-81EB-4BBB-9A5F-C93E4387C449 at insleebest.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Randy: if your client is the property owner and still pays on a first Deed of trust, he never ?lost? the property to the FDIC. He is still in full possession and ownership. Whatever Interest the FDIC has is subject to your client?s senior interest, and that of the 1st position lender. -Greg

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 2, 2021, at 10:19 AM, Randy Boyer <randyedlynlaw at gmail.com> wrote:

? Listmates

Thank you for you input.  In this case FDIC foreclosed on a second deed of trust over ten years ago.  They never took possession of the property and I believe they forgot they have title.  My client continue to use the property, paying the first deed of trust and taxes for the past 10 years.  A year after the foreclosure deed FDIC sold the note that secured the debt to a Limited Partnership (I do not have a copy of that Sale Agreement).  I cannot determine if FDIC intended the assign the  foreclosed property to them.  The LP reached settlement with my client on the outstanding note.

Sounds like most of you feel adverse possession cannot be asserted against FDIC.  But they are a receiver for the insolvent bank and do not hod on to real property as far as I know.

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
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210402/79a61ad9/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 18:50:44 +0000
From: Jennifer L White <jen at appletreelaw.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Update on Need for Real Estate Excise    Tax
    Affidavit    to    Record Transfer on Death Deed
Message-ID:
    <BYAPR14MB2613893DDD65DF22F2A6194AC07A9 at BYAPR14MB2613.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Thanks Josh! It helped this one person ?
Looks like the state is trying to get every $10 it can?.

Jennifer L. White, Esq.
[cid:image002.jpg at 01D727B5.85EFAD40]

jen at appletreelaw.com<mailto:jen at appletreelaw.com>
PO Box 11037
Yakima, WA 98909
509.225.9813

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Joshua McKarcher
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 9:21 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Update on Need for Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit to Record Transfer on Death Deed

I recently researched the WACs on this. Recording the community property agreement or transfer on death deed, which does not affect title at that moment, does not require a REETA, because no change of title occurs then.

Later, when someone dies and title changes, even just to remove a spouse, then the REETA is required, and there are clear exemptions to cite on the REETA.

So the WACs do require a REETA for ?activating? the community property agreement (transfer after the death of the first spouse), and they do require a REETA when one of the TOD deed grantors dies thereby ?activating? a transfer of title.

The confusion, I think, lies in that no REETA is required when TOD deeds and CP agreements are initially recorded (for ?future? or ?contingent? changes to title that are merely being memorialized for a possible future change of title).

Hope that helps even one person, ha ha!

Joshua D. McKarcher
McKarcher Law PLLC
537 6th Street
Clarkston, WA 99403
(509) 758-3345
(509) 758-3314 (fax)
josh at mckarcherlaw.com<mailto:josh at mckarcherlaw.com>
www.mckarcherlaw.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mckarcherlaw.com&d=DwMF-g&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=kDcM-fraYQNOZ1rCslLoMSSRXJQXmQVvRJbE6ymQGho&m=HpvrS9Pdp70rbmn9aKkbnpVhta7ml6RM3avcxDq56_w&s=IMHmxtAx8a4y9IwZL4oZQCK20MfXwswfB3nuWeZB03g&e=>
________________________________
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 Ronald St. Hilaire <rfs at licbs.com<mailto:rfs at licbs.com>>
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 9:11 AM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv'
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Update on Need for Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit to Record Transfer on Death Deed

Benton County has recently been requiring a REETA to record a Lack of Probate Affidavit.  Further, if you want to attach a CPA or Will to the affidavit, they are charging additional recording fees, which they have not done in the past.

________________________________
Ronald F. St. Hilaire ? Certified Elder Law Attorney
Liebler & St. Hilaire, P.S.
P.O. Box 6125 ? Kennewick, WA  99336
8131 W. Grandridge Blvd., Suite 101 ? Kennewick, WA  99336
(509) 735-3581 office ? (509) 735-3585 fax
rfs at licbs.com<mailto:rfs at licbs.com> ? www.bentonfranklinlaw.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.bentonfranklinlaw.com_&d=DwMF-g&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=kDcM-fraYQNOZ1rCslLoMSSRXJQXmQVvRJbE6ymQGho&m=HpvrS9Pdp70rbmn9aKkbnpVhta7ml6RM3avcxDq56_w&s=uOyqB1inM29fNDV5_1Q6ZxshY7des95Q0TfZhZgWAIU&e=>
 [LieblerStHilaire_Color_PS_1]

Certification as Elder Law Attorney by the National Elder Law Foundation.  The Supreme Court of Washington does not recognize certification of specialties in the practice of law.  Certification is not required to practice law in the State of Washington.

Confidentiality Notice:  This email transmission is intended only for the addressee named above.  It contains information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from use and disclosure.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, or dissemination of this transmission or the taking of any action in reliance on its contents or other use is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy the original and notify us by telephone immediately.  Thank you for your cooperation.

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 Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com<mailto:Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com>
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 6:37 AM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBARP] Update on Need for Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit to Record Transfer on Death Deed

Listmates,

A week or two ago we had a discussion regarding Jefferson County requiring an real estate excise tax affidavit to record a transfer on death deed.  I took another listmate?s advice and sent in the affidavit with the $10 but with a letter saying it was done under protest and cited the WAC provisions showing no need for such a process.  Yesterday,  we learned we were right no need for the affidavit with such a deed.  HOWEVER, because I was also recording an Affidavit of Lack of Probate, on another matter, it was that document that required the REETA.  WHAT!  I am not going to waste my time researching the WAC?s for such a requirement.  At least here in Clallam County, we are never required to include the REETA when recording  such a lack of probate affidavit or even a community property agreement.  County Treasurers? creativity, or obstructionism, never ceases to amaze me.  At least it is Friday!

Jeff Davis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210402/165f4e44/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 987192 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210402/165f4e44/image002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 62472 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210402/165f4e44/image003.png>

------------------------------

***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 79, Issue 4
*************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210402/ede74f6b/attachment.html>