<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Arial Narrow";
panose-1:2 11 6 6 2 2 2 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman-Roman";}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
font-variant:normal !important;
color:#002060;
text-transform:none;
position:relative;
top:0pt;
mso-text-raise:0pt;
letter-spacing:0pt;
mso-contextual-alternates:no;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;
vertical-align:baseline;}
.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]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#002060">Here is an excerpt of a 2015 memo offered as more fodder for the discussion:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Applicable law relating to ownership rights in real property as a result of being named on a deed where contribution to the purchase of the property
was unequal.</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><u><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Standard for determining ownership interests</span></u><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">. Where the character of ownership
is co-tenancy, and the instrument by which the property was acquired is silent as to the respective interests of the co-owners, it is presumed that they share equally.
<i><u>Cummings v. Anderson</u></i>, 94 Wn.2d 135, 140 (1980). Property acquired with contributions from all parties is held as tenants in common, and courts will presume they intended to share the property, in proportion to the amount contributed, where it
can be traced, otherwise they share it equally. <i><u>Iredell v. Iredell</u>, </i>
49 Wn.2d 627 (1957). <i> </i>However, when in rebuttal it is shown that they contributed unequally to the purchase price, a presumption arises that they intended to share the property proportionately to the purchase price.
<i><u>Cummings</u></i> at 140 citing to <i><u>Iredell v. Iredell</u>.</i> No presumptions arise as to property that can be traced to one party or the other.
<i><u>West v. Knowles</u></i>, 50 Wn.2d 311, 313 (1957). It belongs to the original owner, in the absence of an overt gift or contract regarding it.
<i><u>Id</u></i>. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">From the facts, Harry made no financial contribution to the purchase of any of the rental properties, yet his name is on title as tenant in common with
Bill and Lisa. Because it is admitted and easily shown that the money used to purchase the properties was the community property of Bill or Lisa, or the separate property of Bill and/or Lisa, according to
<i><u>West v. Knowles</u></i>, the presumption does not arise that it was intended that Harry share in ownership, either proportionately, which would be zero, or equally. At Bill’s death, all of his property, community or separate, was passed to Lisa with
the exception of specific gifts dealing with loans from Harry and to Tamara. Because the funds can be either traced from Bill to Lisa or directly from Lisa, Harry has no interest in the property based upon the title listing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Harry may argue that when the deeds were created, this showed intent for gift. I have not researched the legal requirements necessary to show intent.
However, from the facts provided in your conversation with XX, Lisa’s attorney, and XXX, their accountant, namely: XXXX being “madder than a wet hen” that Harry’s name was on the title; Lisa later deciding to give the properties to Harry by way of codicil
(which she did not sign); and the accountant’s statement to the effect that Lisa was going to give Harry the properties; show she had not intended to make a gift at the time the deeds were drafted. Instead, they show she may have intended to make a gift at
a later time.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><u><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Equitable Argument to Favor Harry</span></u><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">. In a partition action, the court found
that a tenant who has enhanced the value of a parcel of the premises the fruits of his expenditures and industry, it was equitable to grant him the parcel so enhanced in value, or so much thereof as represents his share of the whole tract.
<i><u>Bishop v. Lynch</u></i>, 8 Wn.2d 278, 293 (1941). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">From the facts, Harry did act in finding the properties and actively managing them. As a result, in equity, he may have a claim to a portion if he was
not previously compensated for those acts.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#002060"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#002060"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222A35">Mark B. Anderson<br>
</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222A35">ANDERSON LAW FIRM PLLC<br>
821 Dock St Ste 209 PMB 4-12<br>
Tacoma, Washington 98402<br>
+1 253-327-1750<br>
+1 253-327-1751 (fax)<br>
<a href="mailto:marka@mbaesq.com"><span style="color:blue">marka@mbaesq.com</span></a><br>
<a href="http://www.mbaesq.com/"><span style="color:blue">www.mbaesq.com</span></a><b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial Narrow",sans-serif;color:#002060">CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE<br>
</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial Narrow",sans-serif;color:#002060">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.</span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#002060"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#002060"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Eric Nelsen<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 02/07/2023 12:59 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBARP] Partition action<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think <u>Cummings v. Anderson</u> is still the most-often cited case, even though it’s 40 years old and involves a meretricious relationship. In general, the notion of percentage ownership, which is theoretically established at time of
purchase, gets muddled by post-purchase contributions of unequal amount by the co-owners. That needs to all get reconciled in an accounting in the partition, with the result that the net proceeds from sale usually get divided at percentages that differ from
the initial purchase. To get super-technical about it, a court could hold that the initial percentages do not change, and make a specific division of net proceeds based on that initial percentage, and then as a second step add and deduct from each side for
proportional post-purchase expenses...but I think it all comes about basically the same anyway.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">WSBA Real Property Deskbook (4th ed. 2014), Vols. 1&2, Ch. 3, is a great resource. From Ch. 3.2(3):<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-right:3.75pt;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-indent:15.0pt;background:white">
<span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman-Roman";color:black">The tenant in common who is obligated to share rights in cases like those just mentioned is a quasi fiduciary who acquires the right for the benefit of all of the tenants in common.
But the tenants for whose benefit he or she acts do not get a "free ride"; they must contribute their proportional share to the cost of the encumbrance or right acquired or the mortgage or price paid. The paying tenant may have an action for contribution. <i>Walters
v. Walters</i>, <a href="http://links.casemakerlegal.com/states/WA/books/Case_Law/results?ci=14&search%5bCite%5d=1+Wn.App.+849&fn=Washington%20Real%20Property%20Deskbook%20Fourth%20Edition%20Vol%201%20&%202" target="_blank">1 Wn.App. 849</a>, <a href="http://links.casemakerlegal.com/states/WA/books/Case_Law/results?ci=14&search%5bCite%5d=466+P.2d+174&fn=Washington%20Real%20Property%20Deskbook%20Fourth%20Edition%20Vol%201%20&%202" target="_blank">466
P.2d 174</a> (1970). The paying tenant in common may be protected by being given a lien against the other's interest for the amount that is due. <i>Woodard v. Carpenter</i>, <a href="http://links.casemakerlegal.com/states/WA/books/Case_Law/results?ci=14&search%5bCite%5d=31+Wn.2d+271&fn=Washington%20Real%20Property%20Deskbook%20Fourth%20Edition%20Vol%201%20&%202" target="_blank">31
Wn.2d 271</a>, <a href="http://links.casemakerlegal.com/states/WA/books/Case_Law/results?ci=14&search%5bCite%5d=195+P.2d+983&fn=Washington%20Real%20Property%20Deskbook%20Fourth%20Edition%20Vol%201%20&%202" target="_blank">195 P.2d 983</a> (1948). Alternatively,
the other tenant may be put to an election either to pay or to allow the payor to assert the right acquired (failure to pay being deemed an election to allow the payor the sole claim). <i>Buchanan v. First Nat'l Bank,</i> <a href="http://links.casemakerlegal.com/states/WA/books/Case_Law/results?ci=14&search%5bCite%5d=184+Wash.+185&fn=Washington%20Real%20Property%20Deskbook%20Fourth%20Edition%20Vol%201%20&%202" target="_blank">184
Wash. 185</a>, <a href="http://links.casemakerlegal.com/states/WA/books/Case_Law/results?ci=14&search%5bCite%5d=50+P.2d+520&fn=Washington%20Real%20Property%20Deskbook%20Fourth%20Edition%20Vol%201%20&%202" target="_blank">50 P.2d 520</a> (1935).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-right:3.75pt;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-indent:15.0pt;background:white">
<span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman-Roman";color:black">Although a tenant in common who makes payments that preserve or protect the property held in common is entitled to contribution from those who have benefited, the tenant who makes
improvements may find that the payments will not be repaid. <i>In re Foster's Estate</i>, <a href="http://links.casemakerlegal.com/states/WA/books/Case_Law/results?ci=14&search%5bCite%5d=139+Wash.+224&fn=Washington%20Real%20Property%20Deskbook%20Fourth%20Edition%20Vol%201%20&%202" target="_blank">139
Wash. 224</a>, <a href="http://links.casemakerlegal.com/states/WA/books/Case_Law/results?ci=14&search%5bCite%5d=246+P.+290&fn=Washington%20Real%20Property%20Deskbook%20Fourth%20Edition%20Vol%201%20&%202" target="_blank">246 P. 290</a> (1926). However, improvements
may be considered in the process of partition. <i>Cummings v. Anderson</i>, <a href="http://links.casemakerlegal.com/states/WA/books/Case_Law/results?ci=14&search%5bCite%5d=94+Wn.2d+135&fn=Washington%20Real%20Property%20Deskbook%20Fourth%20Edition%20Vol%201%20&%202" target="_blank">94
Wn.2d 135</a>, <a href="http://links.casemakerlegal.com/states/WA/books/Case_Law/results?ci=14&search%5bCite%5d=614+P.2d+1283&fn=Washington%20Real%20Property%20Deskbook%20Fourth%20Edition%20Vol%201%20&%202" target="_blank">614 P.2d 1283</a> (1980). Personal
services in caring for and managing the property will not, however, entitle the person acting to any payment unless there is an agreement. <i>Von Herberg v. Von Herberg</i>, <a href="http://links.casemakerlegal.com/states/WA/books/Case_Law/results?ci=14&search%5bCite%5d=6+Wn.2d+100&fn=Washington%20Real%20Property%20Deskbook%20Fourth%20Edition%20Vol%201%20&%202" target="_blank">6
Wn.2d 100</a>, <a href="http://links.casemakerlegal.com/states/WA/books/Case_Law/results?ci=14&search%5bCite%5d=106+P.2d+737&fn=Washington%20Real%20Property%20Deskbook%20Fourth%20Edition%20Vol%201%20&%202" target="_blank">106 P.2d 737</a> (1940).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Also, for what it’s worth, here’s some undigested chunks of a recent trial brief by our firm on a partition action:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">A partition action is an action in equity.
<i>Cummings v. Anderson</i>, 94 Wn.2d 135, 143, 614 P.2d 1283 (1980). RCW 7.52 <i>
et seq.</i> governs a partition between tenants-in-common. The Court is to determine “the respective rights of the parties” and it may require that one party compensate the other if the partition “cannot be made equal between the parties according to their
respective rights, without prejudice to the rights and interests of some of them . . . .” RCW 7.52.090, RCW 7.52.440.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> Ch. 7.52 RCW does not provide rules for valuing a party’s interest. “The trial court has ‘great flexibility’ in fashioning equitable relief for the parties.”<i> Kelsey
v. Kelsey</i>, 179 Wn. App. 360, 365, 317 P.3d 1096 (2014). “[A] court in the exercise of its equitable powers may fashion remedies to address the particular facts of each case, even if the partition statute does not strictly provide for such a remedy.”
<i>Id.</i> at 369, 317 P.3d 1096.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">When sitting in equity, the trial court may fashion broad remedies to do substantial justice to the parties and put an end to litigation. Appellate courts have frequently deferred
to the trial court’s judgment in tailoring a decree which balances both parties’ interests and reaches an equitable solution to the controversy . . . .<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before:always">
</span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Eichorn v. Lunn</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt">, 63 Wn. App. 73, 80, 816 P.2d 1226 (1991) (internal citations omitted).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">In a case between co-tenants, if a deed does not designate the interest of the co-tenants, then there is a
<b><i>rebuttable</i></b> presumption that the co-tenants have equal interests. <i>
See</i> <i>Cummings v. Anderson</i>, 94 Wn.2d 135, 614 P.2d 1283 (1980); <i>Iredell v. Iredell</i>, 49 Wn.2d 627, 631 305 P.2d 805 (1957). However, when the initial presumption is rebutted by evidence of unequal contributions, a presumption arises that ownership
is held in proportion to contributions made by the parties: “Property acquired with contributions from both parties is held as tenants in common, and courts will presume they intended to share the property,<b> in proportion to the amount contributed, where
it can be traced</b>, otherwise they share it equally.” <i>West v. Knowles</i>, 50 Wn.2d 311, 313, 311 P.2d 689 (1957).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">See also <i><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Stotzky v. Riggers</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt">, No. 77980-0-I, (Wash. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2019) for a recent unpublished case that digs into the equitable considerations when determining
what post-purchase expenses should count in a partition action.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eric<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eric C. Nelsen<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sayre Law Offices, PLLC<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1417 31st Ave South<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Seattle WA 98144-3909<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">206-625-0092<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:eric@sayrelawoffices.com">eric@sayrelawoffices.com</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="background:aqua;mso-highlight:aqua">Covid-19 Update -
</span></b>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">
wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> <<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Jonathan Smith<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 7, 2023 12:21 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> WSBA Real Property Listserv <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [WSBARP] FW: Partition action<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I sent this out yesterday, but did not receive any responses. Not sure if it went out or not? Can someone confirm that it went to the listserv? Thanks. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Jonathan Smith
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Attorney at Law</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">(425)452-9797 Tel</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">(425)440-7681 Fax</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://advantagelegalgroup.com/"><span style="color:#1F497D;text-decoration:none"><img border="0" width="165" height="36" style="width:1.7187in;height:.375in" id="Picture_x0020_4" src="cid:image001.jpg@01D93AFE.A4271830" alt="Logo for email"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#002060">12207 NE 8th Street</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#002060">Bellevue, WA 98005</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#1F497D">This E-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This information is confidential and is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#2F5496">Legal Advice Disclaimer: You should recognize that responses provided by this email means are akin to ordinary telephone or face-to-face conversations and do not reflect the level of factual or
legal inquiry or analysis which would be applied in the case of a formal legal opinion. A formal opinion could reach a different result. This communication does not create an attorney-client relationship.
</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><img border="0" width="84" height="120" style="width:.875in;height:1.25in" id="Picture_x0020_5" src="cid:image002.gif@01D93AFE.A4271830"><img border="0" width="102" height="123" style="width:1.0625in;height:1.2812in" id="Picture_x0020_6" src="cid:image003.png@01D93AFE.A4271830"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Jonathan Smith <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, February 6, 2023 3:45 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Partition action <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Greetings,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Some 20 years ago, I did my only other partition action. The files are gone. If I recall correctly, there was case law which guided distribution as between two tenant in common. If I recall, if one party was claiming proceeds from the sale
were not to be divided 50/50, then the moving party could show that the division should be based upon their respective contributions. So we added the earnest money to person who tendered that, then allocated mortgage payments (both parties occupied the residence
so ouster was not an issue.) as well as money spent to improve the property. At any rate, based upon that method, one parties was deemed to own 65% and the other 35% (if I remember correctly.), but the important issue being how to determine percentage rights
to the proceeds from he sale?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Can anyone provide some guidance and updated case history on diving up sales proceeds? Thank you.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Jonathan Smith
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Attorney at Law</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">(425)452-9797 Tel</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">(425)440-7681 Fax</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://advantagelegalgroup.com/"><span style="color:#1F497D;text-decoration:none"><img border="0" width="165" height="36" style="width:1.7187in;height:.375in" id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.jpg@01D93AFE.A4271830" alt="Logo for email"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#002060">12207 NE 8th Street</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#002060">Bellevue, WA 98005</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#1F497D">This E-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This information is confidential and is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#2F5496">Legal Advice Disclaimer: You should recognize that responses provided by this email means are akin to ordinary telephone or face-to-face conversations and do not reflect the level of factual or
legal inquiry or analysis which would be applied in the case of a formal legal opinion. A formal opinion could reach a different result. This communication does not create an attorney-client relationship.
</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><img border="0" width="84" height="120" style="width:.875in;height:1.25in" id="Picture_x0020_2" src="cid:image002.gif@01D93AFE.A4271830"><img border="0" width="102" height="123" style="width:1.0625in;height:1.2812in" id="Picture_x0020_3" src="cid:image003.png@01D93AFE.A4271830"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>