Manary v. Anderson
164 Wash. App. 569
Wash. Ct. App.2011Background
- In 1995, Homer and Eileen Greene created a revocable living trust funded with their residential property.
- The trust named multiple beneficiaries and structured survivors’ and family/survivor trusts with retention and withdrawal powers for the surviving spouse.
- Eileen died in 1998; Homer amended the trust in 1999, naming Alice Manary as sole beneficiary and as successor trustee.
- Homer executed a will on November 5, 2004 leaving his interest in the property to Edwin Anderson.
- Homer died in January 2007; Anderson became personal representative and stayed on the property after death.
- Alice Manary (successor trustee) sued to quiet title; Anderson counterclaimed; the trial court granted summary judgment to Manary; Anderson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Act apply to Homer's 2004 testamentary disposition? | Anderson: Act governs nonprobate assets and passes to intended testamentary beneficiary. | Manary: Act does not apply to this disposition if not properly triggered by the will and trust terms. | Yes; Act applies and Anderson entitled. |
| Is Homer's interest in the property a nonprobate asset under the Act? | Anderson: the interest is a nonprobate asset under the Act’s broad definition. | Manary: the interest is excluded by trust/real property exceptions. | It is a nonprobate asset. |
| Are notice requirements under RCW 11.11.050(1) applicable here? | Anderson: notice to Manary not required since asset was not in Manary’s possession. | Manary: notices were required to all parties. | Not applicable; notices not required. |
| Does Furst control the outcome here? | Anderson: distinguishable; Act compliance suffices. | Manary: Furst precludes applying the Act without trust mention/revocation. | Furst distinguishable; Act compliance governs. |
| Does the Act eliminate the need to follow the will-substitute terms? | Anderson: Act permits testamentary disposition without revoking the trust. | Manary: the will must align with trust terms. | Act permits disposition independent of revoking trust. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lake v. Woodcreek Homeowners Ass’n, 243 P.3d 1283 (Wash. 2010) (statutory interpretation and nonprobate asset principles in real property)
- Rest. Dev., Inc. v. Cananwill, Inc., 80 P.3d 598 (Wash. 2003) (estate and trust principles; nonprobate asset framework)
- Schaaf v. Highfield, 896 P.2d 665 (Wash. 1995) (precedent on probates and trusts; procedural posture guidance)
- State v. Engel, 210 P.3d 1007 (Wash. 2009) (statutory interpretation and entitlement analysis)