Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealprobatetrustwillquiet title action
attorneyappealprobatetrustwill

Related Cases

Fidelity Title & Trust Co. v. Clyde, 143 Conn. 247, 121 A.2d 625
View Case »
Rush University Medical Center v. Sessions, 2012 IL 112906, 980 N.E.2d 45, 366 Ill.Dec. 245
View Case »
Electrical Workers, Local No. 1 Credit Union v. IBEW-NECA Holiday Trust Fund, 583 S.W.2d 154, 24 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 966
View Case »
A. v. B., 158 N.J. 51, 726 A.2d 924
View Case »
Eppler, Matter of, v Van Alstyne, nan
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Manary v. Anderson, 176 Wash.2d 342, 292 P.3d 96

Facts

Homer L. Greene and Eileen M. Greene created a revocable living trust and conveyed their community property residence into it. After Eileen's death, Homer became the sole trustee and later executed a will bequeathing the property to Edwin A. Anderson, who had been his caretaker. Following Homer's death, a dispute arose between Anderson and Jeffrey Manary, the successor trustee, over the rightful ownership of the property, leading to a quiet title action.

In 1995, Homer L. and Eileen M. Greene, a married couple, entered into “The Homer L. Greene and Eileen M. Greene Revocable Living Trust Agreement” (Trust).

Issue

Whether Edwin A. Anderson or Jeffrey Manary is entitled to the decedent's interest in the real property that was deeded to a trust.

Whether Edwin A. Anderson or Jeffrey Manary is entitled to the decedent's interest in the real property that was deeded to a trust.

Rule

An owner complies with the Testamentary Disposition of Nonprobate Assets Act when they specifically refer to a nonprobate asset in their will, even if they do not mention the trust under which the asset passes.

An owner complies with the Act when he specifically refers to a nonprobate asset in his will, even if he does not refer to the instrument under which the asset passes.

Analysis

The court determined that Homer Greene's will specifically referred to the property by including its tax parcel number and address, thus satisfying the requirements of the Act. The court found that the property was a nonprobate asset and that Homer, as the owner, had the right to bequeath it to Anderson, despite not mentioning the trust in his will.

The court determined that Homer Greene's will specifically referred to the property by including its tax parcel number and address, thus satisfying the requirements of the Act.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, ruling that Anderson was entitled to the decedent's interest in the property as a testamentary beneficiary under the Act.

We affirm the Court of Appeals. We hold that Homer complied with the Act by specifically referring to the property in his will even without referencing the Trust.

Who won?

Edwin A. Anderson prevailed in the case because the court found that he was the rightful owner of the property as a testamentary beneficiary, having been specifically named in the decedent's will.

Anderson is entitled to the decedent's interest in the property, but he is not entitled to attorney fees for answering the petition for review.

You must be