[WSBARP] WSBARP Digest, Vol 100, Issue 9

Fri Jan 13 09:51:38 PST 2023

This really seems to be a county by county thing. Thurston County seems to be pretty okay with it. Grays Harbor County has very little experience with it. I have managed, but it took some work. Mason County has been very good. However, because I have strong working relationships with the people here, I always call up the planner that handles boundary issues and just give him an FYI  on what I am doing. 
Steve
Stephen WhitehouseWhitehouse & Nichols, LLPP.O. Box 1273601 W. Railroad Ave. Shelton, Wa. 98584360-426-5885swhite8893 at aol.com

    On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 01:47:42 AM PST, <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: Boundary Line Agreement - issues with title (Holland, Sean)
  2. Re: Issues with King County Recording (Rob Bartlett)
  3. Re: Issues with King County Recording (Jimmy Garg)
  4. Divorce Decree Silent as to Ownership of House
      (Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com)
  5. Flood Insurance - Referral (Paul Neumiller)
  6. Re: Divorce Decree Silent as to Ownership of House (Roger Hawkes)
  7. Re: Divorce Decree Silent as to Ownership of House (Andrew Hay)
  8. Re: Divorce Decree Silent as to Ownership of House (Roger Hawkes)
  9. Re: Divorce Decree Silent as to Ownership of House (Eric Nelsen)
  10. Re: Boundary Line Agreement - issues with title
      (Gregory L. Ursich)
  11. Re: Divorce Decree Silent as to Ownership of House (Kary Krismer)
  12. Re: Boundary Line Agreement - issues with title (Holland, Sean)
  13. Re: Boundary Line Agreement - issues with title
      (Gregory L. Ursich)
  14. Re: Is a Landlord Required to Accept Rental Assistance
      (Kaitlyn Jackson)

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

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 20:02:16 +0000
From: "Holland, Sean" <Sean.Holland at fnf.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Boundary Line Agreement - issues with title
Message-ID:
    <MWHPR0701MB3641B0718EEF7EE2FFF5D76780FD9 at MWHPR0701MB3641.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

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

A 2005 Attorney General Opinion addresses appropriate and inappropriate uses of the statute and local authority.  https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions/authority-county-impose-procedural-requirements-recording-property-boundary-disputes

Final paragraph of the AGO states as follows:

In our view, RCW 58.04.007 leaves room for local legislation, particularly legislation designed to implement the statute and facilitate its administration.  Since RCW 58.04.007 specifies only that the agreement be in written form, for instance, a charter county could enact requirements concerning the form of the written agreement (size of the document, what information it should contain, and where on the document each item should be located, etc.).  Insofar as an ordinance providing for pre-recording county review may be concerned, we simply note that counties would appear to have considerable leeway in this area so long as the local legislation does not contravene the statute itself.  For instance, an ordinance providing for review to determine whether a document presented for recording meets the requirements set forth in the statute (see discussion above) (or whether accepting a document for recording would be in conflict with some other state statute or state or local reg!
 ulatory requirement[3]) would not necessarily be inconsistent with the statute.  At least where a county can show that its ordinance serves a legitimate purpose and does not frustrate or negate the application of RCW 58.04.007 or other statutes, we believe the ordinance would be upheld.

Sean Holland
VP | Underwriting Counsel
Washington & Montana
Fidelity National Title Group
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2700
Seattle, Washington 98104
Mobile:  206-308-6823
Sean.Holland at fnf.com<mailto:Sean.Holland at fnf.com>

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Gregory L. Ursich
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 9:39 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Boundary Line Agreement - issues with title

IMPORTANT NOTICE - This message sourced from an external mail server outside of the Company.
Bryce is absolutely correct with his opinion and approach. -Greg
Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 12, 2023, at 9:32 AM, Bryce Dille <Bryce at dillelaw.com<mailto:Bryce at dillelaw.com>> wrote:
?
I have done at least 20 of these is last several years in Pierce, Kitsap and Thurston Counties and have never encountered this the only time a county or city may object is if the parties are using this just to do an boundry adjustment and not because there is a boundary line issue like encroachment or fence lines off etc. but use it to avoid the formal process that involves application and approval by appropriate governmental agency. In my opinion the state statute (RCE 58.04.007) trumps any ordinance or municipal code to the contrary

Bryce H. Dille
Dille Law, PLLC
2010 Caton Way SW Ste. 101
Olympia, WA 98502
Office: 360-350-0270
Cell: 253-579-5561

<image001.png>
** 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.

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 Okner
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 7:46 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBARP] Boundary Line Agreement - issues with title

Dear boundary line gurus,

To resolve a boundary dispute, two neighboring parcels (in Seattle) have agreed to enter into a Boundary Line Agreement pursuant to RCW 58.04.007.  However, we're getting pushback from Chicago Title.  Their latest response is pasted in below.  Any thoughts on how to get this across the finish line?

Unfortunately we have not had luck with the procedure [party's] attorney is suggesting. In reviewing with underwriting counsel here, we acknowledge that a Boundary Line Agreement is an option to resolve boundary line disputes or discrepancies under RCW 58.04.007. However, in our experience, King County will likely assert their formal boundary line adjustment administrative review process needs to be followed, too. Presumptively, the City of Seattle would take the same stance. It?s likely building and repair permits would be denied in the future if they don?t obtain city approval. Also, the county assessor might decline to change the tax roll to match the new boundaries.

You could proceed with the proposed approach, but we would need to raise an exception from coverage for potential violation of subdivision regulations. This exception could cause issues with the lender and future purchasers, so underwriting counsel does not recommend this course of action.

Many thanks,

-Paul Okner
Fremont Law PLLC
3429 Fremont Pl. N.,  Suite 305
Seattle, WA 98103
(206) 399 - 1922
***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<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.fsr.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fwsbarp&data=05%7C01%7CSean.Holland%40fnf.com%7C04607864f57d45d677b408daf4c43960%7C8a807b9b02da47f3a903791a42a2285c%7C0%7C0%7C638091420884337675%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=52M%2FgMrsL2GA14rrYGK42Eb0OWh76AHxQbX0Ufwjyr4%3D&reserved=0>
________________________________
NOTICE: The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are hereby notified to: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately.

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

This message was secured by Zix(R).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230112/b4f42d5f/attachment-0001.html>

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

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 20:47:39 +0000
From: Rob Bartlett <rbartlett at cookandbartlett.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Issues with King County Recording
Message-ID:
    <PH0PR16MB407048C3FC61E0C81BB79A63A4FD9 at PH0PR16MB4070.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>

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

Brent, thank you for doing this.  Here is another one my paralegal ran into:

?The exemption description on the REETA was too long to fit into their box so I just wrote ?see attached? and added the entire description to the attachment.  It was rejected because we didn?t include a partial reason before writing ?see attached?. ?

I?m hoping you can also find out if the recording folks even understand the rising frustration with them.

--Rob

Everyone at Cook & Bartlett is available to assist you during the COVID-19 outbreak.  We are keeping our operations as normal as possible, while practicing social distancing.  We are monitoring our emails and phone calls, but might be delayed in responding.  Please let us know how we can assist you, and we will get back to you as soon as possible.

Robert M. Bartlett, Esq.
Cook & Bartlett, PLLC
1900 W. Nickerson St., Ste. 215
Seattle, WA 98119
(206) 282-2710
Fax: (206) 282-2707

The information contained in this e-mail and in any attached document(s) is CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by attorney-client privilege and/or the work-product doctrine.  The e-mail (and attached document(s)) is intended only for use by the person(s) to whom this e-mail is addressed.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of such e-mail and/or document(s) is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail and/or any attached document(s) in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at (206) 282-2710.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Brent Williams-Ruth
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 11:18 AM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <WSBAPT at lists.wsbarppt.com>; WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Issues with King County Recording

Apologies for the duplicate post from RP and PT sides but I am looking for feedback as it relates to property transfers in King County.

Many of us have had interesting encounters with the King County Recorders office.  Most recently, I was transferring four pieces of property and three of the four were accepted and recorded and the fourth rejected. The Deed and REETAs were identical for everything except the parcel number, property value and legal description. Grantor, Grantee, reason for transfer - all the same.

Reason for rejection - the Grantor in Box 1 did not match the Deed exactly.

So it was ok for 3 of them but #4 - that was just unacceptable.  If you have had a recent story (that you have not shared with me) regarding frustrations with the Recorder's office, please share. I am compiling these to be share with the the Director and Executive's office.

Thank you!
Brent

Brent Williams-Ruth (pronouns: he/him)
Attorney-At-Law

Law Offices of Brent Williams-Ruth, a division of BWR Consulting, PLLC

Physical Address: 500 S 336th Street, Suite 214; Federal Way, WA 98003

**EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY** All mail sent through the USPS should be sent to the following address: PO BOX 3319; Federal Way, WA 98063

Office/Scheduling Phone: (253) 285-7751

Direct: (253) 285-7453

e-mail<mailto:Brent at Williams-RuthLaw.com> / website<http://www.williams-ruthlaw.com/> / facebook<http://www.facebook.com/bwrlaw> /
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230112/308e0ba7/attachment-0001.html>

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

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 20:55:37 +0000
From: Jimmy Garg <jimmy at jimmygarg.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Issues with King County Recording
Message-ID:
    <DM4PR11MB8130BE34F2A37E0BF0B2BFF9A6FD9 at DM4PR11MB8130.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

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

I had one sent through Simplifile late last year that took 7-8 attempts to record.  It was something fairly simple, but every time there would be a different person who would review the document I believe, and come up with a completely different reasoning for denial.

Jimmy Garg, Esq.
Jimmy Garg, PLLC
300 Lenora Street # 1063
Seattle, WA 98121
206-580-3790 (p) 206-736-3218 (f)
Notice: Unless you have previously signed an engagement agreement with this firm, and the firm has accepted you as a client, then NO exchange of information by virtue of e-mails or other communications will create an attorney-client relationship, including a duty of confidentiality, between sender and/or recipient.
Confidentiality Note:  This e-mail, and any attachment to it, contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity named on the e-mail.  If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that reading it is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately return it to the sender and delete it from your system.  Thank you.
Please note that due to COVID-19, this office is not currently accepting in person appointments.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Rob Bartlett
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 12:48 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Issues with King County Recording

Brent, thank you for doing this.  Here is another one my paralegal ran into:

?The exemption description on the REETA was too long to fit into their box so I just wrote ?see attached? and added the entire description to the attachment.  It was rejected because we didn?t include a partial reason before writing ?see attached?. ?

I?m hoping you can also find out if the recording folks even understand the rising frustration with them.

--Rob

Everyone at Cook & Bartlett is available to assist you during the COVID-19 outbreak.  We are keeping our operations as normal as possible, while practicing social distancing.  We are monitoring our emails and phone calls, but might be delayed in responding.  Please let us know how we can assist you, and we will get back to you as soon as possible.

Robert M. Bartlett, Esq.
Cook & Bartlett, PLLC
1900 W. Nickerson St., Ste. 215
Seattle, WA 98119
(206) 282-2710
Fax: (206) 282-2707

The information contained in this e-mail and in any attached document(s) is CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by attorney-client privilege and/or the work-product doctrine.  The e-mail (and attached document(s)) is intended only for use by the person(s) to whom this e-mail is addressed.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of such e-mail and/or document(s) is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail and/or any attached document(s) in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at (206) 282-2710.

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 Brent Williams-Ruth
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 11:18 AM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <WSBAPT at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:WSBAPT at lists.wsbarppt.com>>; WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBARP] Issues with King County Recording

Apologies for the duplicate post from RP and PT sides but I am looking for feedback as it relates to property transfers in King County.

Many of us have had interesting encounters with the King County Recorders office.  Most recently, I was transferring four pieces of property and three of the four were accepted and recorded and the fourth rejected. The Deed and REETAs were identical for everything except the parcel number, property value and legal description. Grantor, Grantee, reason for transfer - all the same.

Reason for rejection - the Grantor in Box 1 did not match the Deed exactly.

So it was ok for 3 of them but #4 - that was just unacceptable.  If you have had a recent story (that you have not shared with me) regarding frustrations with the Recorder's office, please share. I am compiling these to be share with the the Director and Executive's office.

Thank you!
Brent

Brent Williams-Ruth (pronouns: he/him)
Attorney-At-Law

Law Offices of Brent Williams-Ruth, a division of BWR Consulting, PLLC

Physical Address: 500 S 336th Street, Suite 214; Federal Way, WA 98003

**EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY** All mail sent through the USPS should be sent to the following address: PO BOX 3319; Federal Way, WA 98063

Office/Scheduling Phone: (253) 285-7751

Direct: (253) 285-7453

e-mail<mailto:Brent at Williams-RuthLaw.com> / website<http://www.williams-ruthlaw.com/> / facebook<http://www.facebook.com/bwrlaw> /
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230112/ad38af48/attachment-0001.html>

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

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 13:35:21 -0800
From: <Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Divorce Decree Silent as to Ownership of House
Message-ID: <000101d926cd$c6a53fd0$53efbf70$@bellanddavispllc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Listmates:

In 1994, H & W buy home under a Real Estate Contract.  On December 9, 2010,
H & W divorce finalized.  In the "do-it-yourself" decree, there is no
mention of who gets the home.  Home remains in both names, but H continues
to live on the property.  October, 2022, H dies.  No probate has been filed.
W wants her name off the property.  If H were alive a quit claim deed to him
would suffice.  However, there is no one to "accept" the deed.  What can be
done?  There is a child, who, I presume, could open a probate, accept the
deed then sell the property for the estate.  Have any of you run into this
problem?

Jeff

W. Jeff Davis

BELL & DAVIS PLLC

Attorneys at Law
P.O. Box 510

720 E. Washington Street, Suite 105
Sequim WA 98382
Phone: (360) 683.1129 
Fax: (360) 683.1258 
email:  <mailto:jeff at bellanddavispllc.com> jeff at bellanddavispllc.com
 <http://www.bellanddavispllc.com/> www.bellanddavispllc.com

The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged,
confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly
prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in
error, please e-mail the sender at  <mailto:info at bellanddavispllc.com>
info at bellanddavispllc.com  or call 360.683.1129.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230112/9b52eab4/attachment-0001.html>

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

Message: 5
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 21:48:45 +0000
From: Paul Neumiller <pneumiller at hotmail.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>,
    "Listserve RealProp (realprop at googlegroups.com)"
    <realprop at googlegroups.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Flood Insurance - Referral
Message-ID:
    <MW3PR13MB398021AE191E804AD8BBA9E6D2FD9 at MW3PR13MB3980.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>

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

PC called insurance broker 20 days ago and said requested flood insurance and broker says yes.  Now, after storms and king tides, waterfront property flood damage occurs.  Insurance broker now says, "Opps.  I got busy during the holiday and I didn't place a policy so no coverage."  PC has now received a call from broker's "E & O Insurance" attorneys.  PC says the broker must have contacted the E &O carrier.  The attorneys for the E & O ins. co. want receipts for damages (ok, makes sense) but also want a written explanation why the PC thinks the broker is liable for doing or not doing something.  The PC's spider-sense is tingling and desires assistance on how to respond.  Can anyone assist PC?  Self-referrals welcome on- or off-line.

[cid:image001.jpg at 01D9268B.FBE356B0]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230112/dba610c7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14264 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230112/dba610c7/image001-0001.jpg>

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

Message: 6
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 22:27:22 +0000
From: Roger Hawkes <roger at skyvalleylawyers.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Divorce Decree Silent as to Ownership of House
Message-ID:
    <CO6PR20MB36689FBBE7422F03FDFBFC25D5FD9 at CO6PR20MB3668.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>

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

If w is still alive, she can get the house if she wants it.  If no will the community property goes to the spouse.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 1:35 PM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Divorce Decree Silent as to Ownership of House

Listmates:

In 1994, H & W buy home under a Real Estate Contract.  On December 9, 2010, H & W divorce finalized.  In the "do-it-yourself" decree, there is no mention of who gets the home.  Home remains in both names, but H continues to live on the property.  October, 2022, H dies.  No probate has been filed.  W wants her name off the property.  If H were alive a quit claim deed to him would suffice.  However, there is no one to "accept" the deed.  What can be done?  There is a child, who, I presume, could open a probate, accept the deed then sell the property for the estate.  Have any of you run into this problem?

Jeff

W. Jeff Davis
BELL & DAVIS PLLC
Attorneys at Law
P.O. Box 510
720 E. Washington Street, Suite 105
Sequim WA 98382
Phone: (360) 683.1129
Fax: (360) 683.1258
email: jeff at bellanddavispllc.com<mailto:jeff at bellanddavispllc.com>
www.bellanddavispllc.com<http://www.bellanddavispllc.com/>

The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at info at bellanddavispllc.com<mailto:info at bellanddavispllc.com>  or call 360.683.1129.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230112/8f9144ce/attachment-0001.html>

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

Message: 7
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 22:47:41 +0000
From: Andrew Hay <andrewhay at washingtonlaw.net>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Divorce Decree Silent as to Ownership of House
Message-ID:
    <MW3PR13MB39933B3A09164072F0F9AB29B2FD9 at MW3PR13MB3993.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>

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

I am not sure the property would be treated as CP.  I am concerned that wife's interest is a half interest as TIC with husband's heir.  Undivided CP is held by the ex-spouses as TIC.  This makes it look like SP, not CP.  So when H died, his half went to his child.  But W retained her half interest.

So it is possible, she is currently half-owner as TIC with heir of H.

A deed to the son would effectively transfer her interest in the property to him.

As a practical matter, even if the property is CP and she inherits his half, then she is full owner and she can transfer it to his son.

Then the next question would be can the son reject the deed?

Also, how comfortable can she feel that she won't get dragged into some quiet title thing later on down the road or some request for contribution to property expenses?

Those are risks she has to evaluate.  An agreement with the son would put those issues to rest.

Here are some cites from Doug Becker's family law quickcites:

"Community property not disposed of by decree is held by the parties as tenants in common (cite omitted). The adjudication of rights in property not disposed of in a dissolution decree requires an independent action for partition (cite omitted)." (Wagers, p. 880) A partition action seeks a declaratory judgment pursuant to RCW 7.24. The attorney fees provision of RCW 26.09.140 is not applicable in such an action and the costs recoverable under RCW 7.24.100 are limited (Wagers, but see Seals v. Seals, 22 Wn. App. 652, 657-58 for an opinion to the contrary). Note the exception for fraud in the next item.
Wagers v. Goodwin, 92 Wn. App. 876, 880, 964 P.2d 1214 (1998);
In re Marriage of Monaghan, 78 Wn. App. 918, 929, 899 P.2d 841 (1995);
In re Marriage of Bishop, 46 Wn. App. 198, 729 P.2d 647 (1986)

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>
He/him/his
253.272.2400 (w)
253.377.3085 (c)

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Roger Hawkes
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 2:27 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Divorce Decree Silent as to Ownership of House

If w is still alive, she can get the house if she wants it.  If no will the community property goes to the spouse.

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: Thursday, January 12, 2023 1:35 PM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBARP] Divorce Decree Silent as to Ownership of House

Listmates:

In 1994, H & W buy home under a Real Estate Contract.  On December 9, 2010, H & W divorce finalized.  In the "do-it-yourself" decree, there is no mention of who gets the home.  Home remains in both names, but H continues to live on the property.  October, 2022, H dies.  No probate has been filed.  W wants her name off the property.  If H were alive a quit claim deed to him would suffice.  However, there is no one to "accept" the deed.  What can be done?  There is a child, who, I presume, could open a probate, accept the deed then sell the property for the estate.  Have any of you run into this problem?

Jeff

W. Jeff Davis
BELL & DAVIS PLLC
Attorneys at Law
P.O. Box 510
720 E. Washington Street, Suite 105
Sequim WA 98382
Phone: (360) 683.1129
Fax: (360) 683.1258
email: jeff at bellanddavispllc.com<mailto:jeff at bellanddavispllc.com>
www.bellanddavispllc.com<http://www.bellanddavispllc.com/>

The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at info at bellanddavispllc.com<mailto:info at bellanddavispllc.com>  or call 360.683.1129.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230112/a40dc1ea/attachment-0001.html>

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

Message: 8
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 23:17:55 +0000
From: Roger Hawkes <roger at skyvalleylawyers.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Divorce Decree Silent as to Ownership of House
Message-ID:
    <CO6PR20MB3668D63D33521712F0A88870D5FD9 at CO6PR20MB3668.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>

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

Property acquired during marriage is presumptively community; I think that a different finding must be based on someone contradicting the presumption with reasonable evidence.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Andrew Hay
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 2:48 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Divorce Decree Silent as to Ownership of House