<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">In Iredell v. Iredell, 49
Wash.2d 627, </font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">305 P.2d 805 </font>(1957),
the court stated: "The presumption that tenants in common hold
equal shares when the instrument under which they claim is silent
in that regard, is subject to rebuttal. Williams v. Monzingo,
1944, 235 Iowa 434, 16 N.W.2d 619, 156 A.L.R. 508, and cases there
cited. See, also, annotation, 156 A.L.R. 515. That presumption was
rebutted in the present case. When in rebuttal the purchasers of
property are shown to have contributed unequally to the purchase
price, the general rule is that a presumption arises that they
intended to share the property in proportion to the amount
contributed by each."<br>
<br>
Please forgive me if this was already pointed out. I did not read
all previous posts on this thread.<br>
<br>
Doug Schafer, in Tacoma.<br>
</font><br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/11/2017 1:23 PM, Eric Nelsen
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:8CF6ADB264BB704BB884B2ED9C1931D4019BF43BB4@SBS2011.SayreLawOffices.local">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I have done
research on this before and never come up with satisfactory
authority as to a presumption one way or the other. In a
common law marital property state, I think the presumption
probably would be equal thirds; but in a community property
state it's not so clear to me. One can construct an argument
pointing either way.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">If you do find
something, please post to the list.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D">Eric<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D">Eric C. Nelsen<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D">SAYRE LAW OFFICES,
PLLC<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D">1417 31st Ave South<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D">Seattle WA
98144-3909<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D">phone 206-625-0092<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D">fax 206-625-9040<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:red">Please Note that We
Have Moved.</span></b><b><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D">
</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D">We
have moved our Seattle office to Mount Baker Ridge (a
small commercial community just above the I-90 tunnel).
<b>Our new address is 1417 31st Avenue South, Seattle WA
98144. </b>All other contact information remains the
same.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Marcus Fry<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, September 11, 2017 11:41 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> WSBA Real Property Listserv
(<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>)<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [WSBARP] Tenant in Common Question<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_GoBack" moz-do-not-send="true"></a>Anyone
aware of any case law here in the State of Washington or
another community property state that addresses the situation
of a deed that conveys to X and Y and husband and wife, and to
Z, a single person, as tenants in common. Case says there is
presumption that the parties’ ownership interest is equal. My
question is and what case law at least here in Washington
hasn’t decided, is X&Y treated as one unit or two units?
In other words, does X&Y own 50% or 66.7% of property
deeded in the fashion above under the initial presumption.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Marcus
J. Fry<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Lyon,
Weigand & Gustafson, P.S.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Confidentiality:
</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">This
e-mail transmission may contain information which is
protected by attorney-client, work product and/or other
privileges. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any disclosure, or taking of any action
in reliance on the contents, is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this transmission in error, please contact us
immediately and return the e-mail to us by choosing Reply
(or the corresponding function on your e-mail system) and
then deleting the e-mail.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:WSBARP@lists.wsbarppt.com">WSBARP@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp">http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>