Subscribe in a reader


Issaquah Law Group: Experienced Counsel; Client Focus

PHILOSOPHY: Formed in 2014, Issaquah Law Group is a law firm with one focus: providing businesses and insurers with high quality legal representation with the responsiveness of a smaller firm. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built upon clear and consistent communication. 

LITIGATION: We work closely with our clients to fully and accurately understand their goals, work collaboratively to formulate specific legal strategies, and execute the agreed plan of action utilizing methods most likely to result in the efficient and effective resolution of the matter. ILG attorneys have a broad base of litigation experience to draw on in all Federal and State courts from on-the-ground investigations to Supreme Court appeals in the areas of personal injury and wrongful death, product liability, commercial general liability, labor & employment, construction litigation, and catastrophic losses due to fire and explosion.

BUSINESS LAW: Rarely is the path from point A to point B a straight line, so our role in a business law practice is to find alternatives, devise workable strategies, and keep your business ideas, goals and objectives moving toward realization. ILG’s business attorneys help clients achieve their goals with respect to business formation, intellectual property, labor and employment, CAN-SPAM, copyright and trademark

COMMUNITY: In addition, the Lawyers at Issaquah Law Group remain active in the legal and civic community. A core commitment of our Issaquah Attorneys is community service. Our attorneys' civic involvement includes the King County Civil Rights Commission; the City of Issaquah Planning Policy Commission; the Northwest Screenwriters Guild, service as a pro tem judge. We live and work in the Pacific Northwest, and we aim to make it a better place.

In addition, through The Amateur Law Professor Blog and LinkedIn postings, we share pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Supreme Court, as well as the pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Courts of Appeal so that our clients can be as update to date on cutting legal issues as we are.

WA Legal Roundup: Division III


See v. Hennigar

Interesting community property issue.  Arlene was married to Delbert.  Delbert owned and operated a farm previous to the marriage.  Delbert made a will in which gave a life estate in the farm to Arlene and upon her death the farm was to go to Arlene and Delbert’s children (all children were from previous marriages).  However, the life estate to Arlene also gave her the power to mortgage or sell the property.   Hmmmm.  That seems contrary to a “life estate.” 

Delbert died.  Arlene then got married to Robert and they entered into a community property agreement.  Then Arlene died.  The children then claimed the property and filed suit to quiet title in their names.  Of course Robert wasn’t willing to give up the farm.  Robert claimed that the CPA vested all of Arlene’s separate property to the marital community including the life estate in the farm.  Robert also claimed that since Arlene had power to sell the property the CPA acted as a transfer of the property (consideration and disposition thus a sale) to the marital community.  The trial court agreed and the children appealed. 

Arlene’s death caused two things to happen: (1) transfer of the land to Robert under the CPA; and (2) transfer of the land to the children as the remaindermen under Delbert’s will.  Which action prevails?  Division III reasoned that a person cannot convey a greater interest in real estate than she owns.  Thus Arlene could not convey a fee simple to the marital community when she only had a life estate.  Even though the CPA could change the owner of the life estate to the marital community, it could not transform the nature of the property.  Division III also held that the CPA did not effect a “sale” of the property by changing the character, i.e., the community property had a life estate instead of just Arlene.  When Arlene died the life estate ended.  Robert will be forced to give up the farm.

Subscribe in a reader