[WSBARP] Is a REETA Required?

[Dwight Bickel]

If it is a typical "three-prong" CPA, it converts all Bob's prior separate property to community and it is distributed to spouse. No legal description of the particular property would be involved. I saw many CPA forms that did not convert prior separate property, or some, not others. The form must be analyzed.
If it does, then yes, record the CPA and the Death Certificate as you cited, but with the Lack of Probate Affidavit. Technically the Affidavit and the Death Certificate do not document the transfer of Bob's interest, they allow the recording of the CPA and the Lack of Probate Affidavit without payment of excise tax. The CPA is the instrument that transfers the property to Bob and Jane as community, and his death automatically transfers his share of the property to Jane by operation of law.
WAC 458-61A-303(3)(g) controls recording the CPA at its execution, prior to Bob's death, where no Affidavit is required.
RCW 82.45.197(1)(e) and WAC 458-61A-303(2)(a) control what you are now doing, which requires an Excise Tax Affidavit, attaching the Lack of Probate Affidavit, the Death Certificate, and the CPA, which evidence that the title has transferred, based upon the CPA.
Dwight A. Bickel
Real Property Title Advisor
Washington Title Professional
Dwight at dwightbickel.com<mailto:Dwight at dwightbickel.com>
http://dwightbickel.com
206-484-1976

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Mark Anderson
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 4:16 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Is a REETA Required?

Bob took title to a condo with his parents as follows: "Bob, an unmarried man, and Martha and Dagwood, husband and wife."  After that, Bob married Jane.  Bob and Jane executed a CPA but did not record it.  The CPA does not specifically identify or even mention the condo or Bob's interest in it.

Bob died.  I plan to record the CPA and the Death Certificate per WAC 458-61A-202(6)(a).  I understand that will document the transfer of Bob's interest in title to Jane as his surviving spouse.  Please correct me if I am wrong.

With respect to the need for a REETA, WAC 458-61A-303(2)(a) and 303(3)(g) seem to be at odds with each other:

[cid:image001.png at 01D9F076.87B87440]

Question: is a REETA required or not?  Thanks in advance.

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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mbaesq.com_&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=p9vJsp0aoiE7RjUE9pW-_Qg_OI-6qMHlnZdfSllgAtM&m=1deLzhVKUKKOyRMaT8TrlKibVwY0a3_o9uKfUcmsUSPYg_mhLrQKDCYoynbgw4zB&s=AofdQ41WDCXlrU7vOnmdXiOGdymUhrS3DGX1HTeVeD4&e=>
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/20230926/7db16f8d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 16368 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230926/7db16f8d/image001.png>