[WSBARP] WSBARP Digest, Vol 103, Issue 23
Stephen Whitehouse
swhite8893 at aol.com
Thu Apr 20 17:21:07 PDT 2023
I would also detail all payments made. If the tenant has paid the same amount every month, would that not go to prove that it was just rent? Is the option a separate agreement requiring separate consideration? Just thinking out loud.
Stephen WhitehouseWhitehouse & Nichols, LLPP.O. Box 1273601 W. Railroad Ave. Shelton, Wa. 98584360-426-5885swhite8893 at aol.com
On Thursday, April 20, 2023, 12:00:18 PM PDT, <wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com> wrote:
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: Litigation and Statute of Frauds (Mark Anderson)
2. Referral request (Margaret Delp)
3. Re: Excise Tax (Meyler Legal, PLLC)
4. Re: Excise Tax (Stromberg, Spencer)
5. Grantee Language (Mark Anderson)
6. Re: Excise Tax (Mark Anderson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 00:58:04 +0000
From: Mark Anderson <marka at mbaesq.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Litigation and Statute of Frauds
Message-ID:
<SN1PR12MB2381596CACD05A3AB69544F3C8639 at SN1PR12MB2381.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I thought it was the alternate spelling of ?pfft? and with an accent to boot.
Mark B. Anderson
ANDERSON LAW FIRM PLLC
821 Dock St Ste 209 PMB 4-12
Tacoma, Washington 98402
+1 253-327-1750
+1 253-327-1751 (fax)
marka at mbaesq.com<mailto:marka at mbaesq.com>
www.mbaesq.com<http://www.mbaesq.com/>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This transmission is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the individual named recipient. It may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other confidentiality protection. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, be advised that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender via e-mail or by telephone at (253) 327-1750 that you have received the message in error, and then delete it. Thank you.
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Eric Nelsen
Sent: 04/19/2023 9:38 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Litigation and Statute of Frauds
You?re more likely to catch me in a pronunciation error. I read too much so I know a lot of words, but too often I discover the hard way that I don?t know how to pronounce them. I still remember the feeling when I was a kid of pronouncing ?legion? like ?le-JY-un? in front of my older brother....who showed no mercy. :-)
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>
Covid-19 Update - All attorneys are working remotely during regular business hours and are available via email and by phone. Videoconferencing also is available. Signing of estate planning documents can be completed and will be handled on a case-by-case basis. Please direct mail and deliveries to the Seattle office.
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 Jason Burnett
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 8:45 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Litigation and Statute of Frauds
I thought I caught him in an error, but PHOOEY! It?s a recognized alternative spelling.
Jason W. Burnett
Attorney at Law
Reed Longyear Malnati Corwin & Burnett, PLLC
[A black background with white text Description automatically generated with low confidence]<http://reedlongyearlaw.com/>
801 Second Ave, Suite 1415
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 624?6271
Fax: (206) 624?6672
jburnett at reedlongyearlaw.com<mailto:jburnett at reedlongyearlaw.com>
www.reedlongyearlaw.com<http://www.reedlongyearlaw.com/>
[cid:image002.png at 01D972E8.7A897C30]<https://www.facebook.com/reedlongyear>[cid:image003.png at 01D972E8.7A897C30]<https://twitter.com/ReedLongyear>[cid:image004.png at 01D972E8.7A897C30]<http://www.linkedin.com/company/reed-longyear-malnati-&-ahrens-pllc>
The information in this email message may be privileged and confidential. It is intended only for the use of the recipient named above (or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient). If you received this in error, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
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 Sullivan, Brett
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 5:17 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Litigation and Statute of Frauds
Eric, you had me at "Pfui." That was awesome.
Brett T. Sullivan
Attorney at Law
Partner
[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4yOUljtOzDnhXCjUiBuPG8Hj6U3HtblY4BFjXug8xSesMpbpAA6U7WWxXOnDSm6h0dzArGezBExbwe0KKhWvqeCuNUqlGzJbMnMRv7h8A]
1403 S. Grand Blvd., Suite 201-S
Spokane, WA 99203-2278
P: (509) 455-3713
D: (509) 828-4642
F: (509) 455-3718
E: brett at lucentlaw.com<mailto:brett at lucentlaw.com>
lucentlaw.com<http://lucentlaw.com/>
Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/lucentlaw>
LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/in/brettsullivanspokane>
Twitter<https://twitter.com/lucentlaw>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying or distribution, or use of this email or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify me by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system.
On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 4:53?PM Eric Nelsen <eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com>> wrote:
Pfui. Garbage defense. Assertion of the existence of a PSA is an affirmative defense against the eviction because it evades or negates elements necessary to prove UD?whether the occupant is a ?tenant? under a ?rental agreement? as defined in Title 59. The burden of proof on affirmative defenses is with the defendant. See Kastanis v. Educ. Emps. Credit Union, 122 Wash.2d 483, 493, 859 P.2d 26 (1993) (the defendant bears the burden of proof ?only where it asserts an ?affirmative defense? ?); Locke v. City of Seattle, 133 Wash.App. 696, 713, 137 P.3d 52 (2006) (?The burden of proof is ... placed upon the party asserting the avoidance or affirmative defense.?). The fact that he isn?t making a counterclaim is irrelevant.
That said, a contract to purchase real property does not need to be in writing, even though a conveyance or lien (or real estate commission agreement) does?so long as its terms must be completely performed within one year. See the blog post by Babak Shamsi on Beresford Booth?s website<https://beresfordlaw.com/what-is-the-statute-of-frauds/#:~:text=Washington%20State%20affords%20great%20flexibility,to%20have%20an%20enforceable%20agreement.>. So I think the occupant can testify to the alleged contract and how it was formed and what its terms are. (All subject to the trier of fact?s credibility determination, of course, and subject to denial by the plaintiff.)
Might be able to trip them up immediately if they testify to any term that could or would require performance more than a year after formation. If the agreement was for payments to be made over multiple years, that violates RCW 19.36.010(1)<https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.36&full=true#19.36.010>. (But note case law about saving an oral contract to purchase real estate by occupancy plus partial performance.)
Since this would be a pretty complex lie to pull off, I?d depose/examine the occupant concerning all the specifics on when and how the agreement was formed?on the phone? in person? when? and then question all the elements of formation and performance ? offer, acceptance, consideration, purchase price, payment terms, interest rate, type of deed conveyance, escrow, title insurance company, closing date, any financing required, contingencies, etc., etc., until they?re desperately making up as many random clauses as they can. Ask them if the seller recited the legal description during their completely oral agreement (no emails, no texts, nothing in writing concerning a contract to buy?).
Ask them about contextual/circumstantial evidence of the existence of a contract. After the agreement was made, then what? Did they make payments? Any evidence of those payments? Checks have ?installment payment on contract? written on them, or anything like that? Emails from the landlord treating him as a purchaser and not a tenant? Did they make any demands as a tenant, like getting the plumbing repaired or whatever? Ever invoke tenant protections even though supposedly buying the property?
Re the original question about statute of frauds at trial?I?d file a Motion in Limine asking the Court to exclude all evidence/testimony suggesting the existence of a contract in violation of RCW 19.36.010(1). At the least, this puts the issue at the forefront of the judge?s mind.
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>
Covid-19 Update - All attorneys are working remotely during regular business hours and are available via email and by phone. Videoconferencing also is available. Signing of estate planning documents can be completed and will be handled on a case-by-case basis. Please direct mail and deliveries to the Seattle office.
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 Paul Neumiller
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 3:53 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Litigation and Statute of Frauds
NJP attorney is arguing that they don?t have to prove a purchase and sale agreement because title is not the issue. NJP is arguing that they are presenting the testimony that T is buying the property as a defense that Plaintiff must overcome because Plaintiff has the burden of proof and T is not asserting it as a counter-claim. Any thoughts? I?m arguing it is two sides of the same coin.
[cid:image005.jpg at 01D972E8.7A897C30]
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 Stromberg, Spencer
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 3:00 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Litigation and Statute of Frauds
I agree with Kelby. I represented a defendant in a UD case several years back who claimed he had an agreement to buy the property, and we lost because we didn't satisfy the statute of frauds. My client had an email or two and his testimony that it was a "rent to own" situation (plaintiff was his sister!). Is it too late for SJ? If discovery hasn't produced a signed agreement that adequately identifies the property and the terms of sale, you should win on SJ. At trial, I don't think there's much weighing of evidence - there's either a written contract or there isn't. If there is a written contract, the judge should then be the one to weigh the evidence as a matter of law only in the event there is some question about whether a written agreement adequately describes the property or the terms.
Spencer A. W. Stromberg
Attorney at Law
[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4wMRe_ukoUDSfEk1B9GOtzEv1ZmETJ5W4aT8G-i1q6fL7AkhPL9-7Q-uOEqpeS39zB_6R0N47HVfeKJTfKSM6im7XYlsivfchznVeSWqQ]
1403 S. Grand Blvd., Suite 201-S
Spokane, WA 99203-2278
P: 509.455.3713
D: 509.828.4644
F: +1.509.455.3718 (must dial 1 before area code)
E: spencer at lucentlaw.com<mailto:spencer at lucentlaw.com>
lucentlaw.com<https://www.lucentlaw.com/>
Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/lucentlaw>
LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/lucent-law>
Twitter<https://twitter.com/LucentLaw>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying or distribution, or use of this email or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify me and delete it from your system.
On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 11:36?AM Kelby Derenick <kelby at derenicklaw.com<mailto:kelby at derenicklaw.com>> wrote:
I would think that whether a contract exists for the sale of the property would be a question of fact. So, if you are representing the Plaintiff in the trial, when your client testifies and in anticipation of what the Defendant is going to argue, have the Plaintiff provide testimony that there was no contract for the
sale of the property. Then, after the Defendant is finished with presenting his/her defense and counterclaims and introduces whatever documents into evidence, you can recall your client to provide rebuttal testimony to address whatever the Defendant introduced. After the evidentiary part of the trial is over, if there was no evidence of a contract, move the court for dismissal of that counterclaim under CR 41 or CR 50 Judgment as a Matter of Law if there is a jury (for non-unlawful detainer trials).
If the judge won't dismiss it, then just argue at closing that the Defendant cannot prevail on the counterclaim because there was no contract and the statute of frauds case law requires a contract (cite and argue statute of frauds case law).
Kelby J. Derenick
Attorney
9414 State Ave., Suite E
Marysville, WA 98270
Ph: (206) 659-5061
14 E. Main Street, Suite 207
Walla Walla, WA 99362
Ph: (509) 676-9805
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail message contains information that (a) is or may be legally privileged, confidential, proprietary in nature, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure, and (b) is intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) named herein. If you are not the intended recipient, an addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to an addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, using, copying, or distributing any part of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail message in error, please contact me immediately and take the steps necessary to delete the message completely from your computer system. Thank you.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 4:07?PM Paul Neumiller <pneumiller at hotmail.com<mailto:pneumiller at hotmail.com>> wrote:
So I have a trial coming up where the occupant says occupant is buying the house and I represent the LL who says the occupant is renting the house and therefore subject to unlawful detainer. The occupant has little to show that occupant is buying the house and therefore the statute of frauds kicks in. But how? Is it a ?weight of the evidence type of thing? where the occupant can still present oral testimony and a couple of documents which don?t meet the requirements of the statute of limitations? Or, can I object (on what grounds?) to the evidence from being presented at trial in the first place because it fails to rise to the level of documentation required by the statute of frauds? In other words, I have this thing called the statute of frauds. On a practical basis, how do I use it at trial?
BTW, I have read many sources regarding the statute and none have addressed how it is used at trial.
[cid:image005.jpg at 01D972E8.7A897C30]
***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<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/20230420/10d22310/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 24909 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230420/10d22310/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1750 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230420/10d22310/image002-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1991 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230420/10d22310/image003-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1826 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230420/10d22310/image004-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14264 bytes
Desc: image005.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230420/10d22310/image005-0001.jpg>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 19:13:28 -0700
From: Margaret Delp <delp at whidbey.net>
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: [WSBARP] Referral request
Message-ID: <0BAA25A6-E300-4434-A2B4-DF1E2C3DD3D0 at whidbey.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I am looking for a referral to an attorney with expertise on land use and water drainage issues. The issue involves water and drainage pipe crossing property lines. Property is located in Coupeville, Washington.
Thanks!
Margaret Delp
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 19:40:36 -0700
From: "Meyler Legal, PLLC" <samuel at meylerlegal.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Excise Tax
Message-ID: <3DEECB94-392C-4345-B335-24C8CFC1951A at meylerlegal.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230419/994468a0/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 09:44:00 -0700
From: "Stromberg, Spencer" <spencer at lucentlaw.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Excise Tax
Message-ID:
<CAGyXgZKHaJkV+brtEFnpGUtdr9GgSSrw87mBUSrJsDbLqcAmMA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
If the gift exemption is being used, the supplemental statement is
required. If there is a significant difference between 1/2 the mortgage
balance and 1/2 the overall value of the property, I would recommend using
the gift exemption for the difference, just to reduce the risk of a DOR
audit of the REETA. Also, the amount of "consideration" may depend on who
has been making the payments - there are several options on the
supplemental statement (e.g., if the grantee has been making 100% of the
payments and will continue to do so, then there is no consideration in the
eyes of DOR).
Another consideration is that if the gift exemption is used, the grantor
may need to file a federal gift tax return.
*Spencer A. W. Stromberg*
Attorney at Law
1403 S. Grand Blvd., Suite 201-S
Spokane, WA 99203-2278
P: 509.455.3713
D: 509.828.4644
F: +1.509.455.3718 (must dial 1 before area code)
E: spencer at lucentlaw.com
lucentlaw.com <https://www.lucentlaw.com/>
Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/lucentlaw>
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/company/lucent-law>
Twitter <https://twitter.com/LucentLaw>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are confidential and
may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient,
be aware that any disclosure, copying or distribution, or use of this email
or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this email in error,
please notify me and delete it from your system.
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 7:46?PM Meyler Legal, PLLC <samuel at meylerlegal.com>
wrote:
> Mark,
>
> Piggybacking off of this, what if 50% of the balance of the mortgage plus
> cash that is being paid as consideration, is still less than 50% of the tax
> assessed value. Do you know if a supplement statement still needs to be
> provided?
>
>
>
> *Samuel M. Meyler*
>
> *Meyler Legal, PLLC*
>
> *1700 Westlake Ave. N., Ste. 200*
>
> *Seattle, WA 98109*
>
> *Main: 206-876-7770*
>
> *Fax: 206-876-7771*
>
> *Direct: 206-876-7772*
>
> *Email: samuel at meylerlegal.com <samuel at meylerlegal.com>*
>
>
> *NOTICE:*
>
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be Confidential or
> Privileged and constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning
> of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 18 USC 2510. The information
> is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure,
> copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is
> prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the
> sender and delete the copy you received together with any attachments.
> Thank you.
>
> On Apr 19, 2023, at 6:00 PM, Mark Anderson <marka at mbaesq.com> wrote:
>
> ?
>
> How much is the one person agreeing to be paid by the other person for
> their interest in the property? One half the balance of the mortgage? If
> that is the only consideration and if there is any equity in the property
> then, yes, the parties should execute and provide a Supplemental Statement
> reflecting the gift.
>
>
>
>
> *Mark B. Anderson *ANDERSON LAW FIRM PLLC
> 821 Dock St Ste 209 PMB 4-12
> Tacoma, Washington 98402
> +1 253-327-1750
> +1 253-327-1751 (fax)
> marka at mbaesq.com
> www.mbaesq.com
>
>
> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE *This transmission is confidential and is
> intended solely for the use of the individual named recipient. It may be
> protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other
> confidentiality protection. If you are not the intended recipient, or the
> person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, be advised that
> any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is
> prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please
> immediately notify the sender via e-mail or by telephone at (253) 327-1750
> that you have received the message in error, and then delete it. Thank you.
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <
> wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> *On Behalf Of *Nestor Gorfinkel
> *Sent:* 04/18/2023 1:46 PM
> *To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> *Subject:* [WSBARP] Excise Tax
>
>
>
> Unmarried couple, bad breakup and one is taking out the other from title.
>
> There will be a refinance and excise tax will be paid on ? of the balance
> of mortgage. On REETA I just assumed we indicate partial sale and no other
> consideration. I was told that there has to be a gift exemption supplement
> for any difference in ? the appraised value. Is that the case?
>
>
>
>
>
> Cordially,
>
>
>
> Nestor Gorfinkel, Attorney at Law
>
> Licensed in Florida & Washington State
>
> Florida Civil-Law (International) Notary
>
>
>
> <image001.jpg>
>
>
>
> *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.*
>
>
>
>
> ***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
>
> ***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/20230420/59814114/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 18:27:10 +0000
From: Mark Anderson <marka at mbaesq.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Grantee Language
Message-ID:
<MW2PR12MB23793277752C04A2B7C72A12C8639 at MW2PR12MB2379.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dear Listmates:
H/W own unencumbered real property as husband and wife. H died in 2018 with a will, leaving everything to W. His estate was never probated. W died in 2022 with a will. Her estate is being probated. To remove H from title, we have now opened probate for H's estate to put title to the property solely in the name of W in accordance with the terms of H's will so that it can subsequently be conveyed by W's estate.
On a bargain and sale deed from H's estate, what is the best way to describe the grantee? W? Estate of W? Something else?
Thanks.
Mark B. Anderson
ANDERSON LAW FIRM PLLC
821 Dock St Ste 209 PMB 4-12
Tacoma, Washington 98402
+1 253-327-1750
+1 253-327-1751 (fax)
marka at mbaesq.com<mailto:marka at mbaesq.com>
www.mbaesq.com<http://www.mbaesq.com/>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This transmission is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the individual named recipient. It may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other confidentiality protection. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, be advised that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender via e-mail or by telephone at (253) 327-1750 that you have received the message in error, and then delete it. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230420/09a410f2/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 18:35:08 +0000
From: Mark Anderson <marka at mbaesq.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Excise Tax
Message-ID:
<MW2PR12MB23795FB7BBF9DF2BEACC69A6C8639 at MW2PR12MB2379.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
FWIW, I agree with what Spencer said.
Mark B. Anderson
ANDERSON LAW FIRM PLLC
821 Dock St Ste 209 PMB 4-12
Tacoma, Washington 98402
+1 253-327-1750
+1 253-327-1751 (fax)
marka at mbaesq.com<mailto:marka at mbaesq.com>
www.mbaesq.com<http://www.mbaesq.com/>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This transmission is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the individual named recipient. It may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other confidentiality protection. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, be advised that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender via e-mail or by telephone at (253) 327-1750 that you have received the message in error, and then delete it. Thank you.
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Stromberg, Spencer
Sent: 04/20/2023 9:44 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Excise Tax
If the gift exemption is being used, the supplemental statement is required. If there is a significant difference between 1/2 the mortgage balance and 1/2 the overall value of the property, I would recommend using the gift exemption for the difference, just to reduce the risk of a DOR audit of the REETA. Also, the amount of "consideration" may depend on who has been making the payments - there are several options on the supplemental statement (e.g., if the grantee has been making 100% of the payments and will continue to do so, then there is no consideration in the eyes of DOR).
Another consideration is that if the gift exemption is used, the grantor may need to file a federal gift tax return.
Spencer A. W. Stromberg
Attorney at Law
[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4wMRe_ukoUDSfEk1B9GOtzEv1ZmETJ5W4aT8G-i1q6fL7AkhPL9-7Q-uOEqpeS39zB_6R0N47HVfeKJTfKSM6im7XYlsivfchznVeSWqQ]
1403 S. Grand Blvd., Suite 201-S
Spokane, WA 99203-2278
P: 509.455.3713
D: 509.828.4644
F: +1.509.455.3718 (must dial 1 before area code)
E: spencer at lucentlaw.com<mailto:spencer at lucentlaw.com>
lucentlaw.com<https://www.lucentlaw.com/>
Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/lucentlaw>
LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/lucent-law>
Twitter<https://twitter.com/LucentLaw>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying or distribution, or use of this email or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify me and delete it from your system.
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 7:46?PM Meyler Legal, PLLC <samuel at meylerlegal.com<mailto:samuel at meylerlegal.com>> wrote:
Mark,
Piggybacking off of this, what if 50% of the balance of the mortgage plus cash that is being paid as consideration, is still less than 50% of the tax assessed value. Do you know if a supplement statement still needs to be provided?
Samuel M. Meyler
Meyler Legal, PLLC
1700 Westlake Ave. N., Ste. 200
Seattle, WA 98109
Main: 206-876-7770
Fax: 206-876-7771
Direct: 206-876-7772
Email: samuel at meylerlegal.com<mailto:samuel at meylerlegal.com>
NOTICE:
This electronic message contains information which may be Confidential or Privileged and constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 18 USC 2510. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender and delete the copy you received together with any attachments. Thank you.
On Apr 19, 2023, at 6:00 PM, Mark Anderson <marka at mbaesq.com<mailto:marka at mbaesq.com>> wrote:
?
How much is the one person agreeing to be paid by the other person for their interest in the property? One half the balance of the mortgage? If that is the only consideration and if there is any equity in the property then, yes, the parties should execute and provide a Supplemental Statement reflecting the gift.
Mark B. Anderson
ANDERSON LAW FIRM PLLC
821 Dock St Ste 209 PMB 4-12
Tacoma, Washington 98402
+1 253-327-1750
+1 253-327-1751 (fax)
marka at mbaesq.com<mailto:marka at mbaesq.com>
www.mbaesq.com<http://www.mbaesq.com/>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This transmission is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the individual named recipient. It may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other confidentiality protection. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, be advised that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender via e-mail or by telephone at (253) 327-1750 that you have received the message in error, and then delete it. Thank you.
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 Nestor Gorfinkel
Sent: 04/18/2023 1:46 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBARP] Excise Tax
Unmarried couple, bad breakup and one is taking out the other from title.
There will be a refinance and excise tax will be paid on ? of the balance of mortgage. On REETA I just assumed we indicate partial sale and no other consideration. I was told that there has to be a gift exemption supplement for any difference in ? the appraised value. Is that the case?
Cordially,
Nestor Gorfinkel, Attorney at Law
Licensed in Florida & Washington State
Florida Civil-Law (International) Notary
<image001.jpg>
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.
***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/20230420/9cc903af/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 103, Issue 23
***************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230421/4975b51b/attachment.html>
More information about the WSBARP
mailing list