No harmless error/dispensing power

New Cascadia (WA statute CL Majority Rule)

Community Property Owns undivided interest Waiver not enforced if not voluntary Omitted spouse intestacy Omitted child intestacy M/C Common Law No Holographic Will Rule Against Perpetuities 11.98.130 Trust Assets must vest in 150 Years Ambiguities and Extrinsic Evidence Strict Construction POA RCW 11.94.050 Express provisions nec. to create/change nonprobate no LWT Strict Construction Substituted Judgment Standard - CCE Wills Mental Cap.: 18, capable knowledge, property, bounty, disposition MAJ: prima facie due execution; BOP contestant Insane Delusion: belief in facts that do not exist; not susceptible to correction. Causation. Burden Shifting. CCE. Majority Rule: Contestant must show that (1) the T labored under an insane delusion, and (2) the will (or some part thereof) was a project of the insane delusion. Undue Influence: w/or w/out confidential relationship, exertion of power over T causing a result that otherwise would not be. Susceptible, Position, Opportunity, Result No contest clause: upheld unless PC for contest Will Formalities: Strict Construction (traditional) Presence, Signature, Writing Execution: Writing, Signature, and (2) Attestation or Affidavit

Old Olympia (CL Modern Trend)

Separate Property 1969 Elective Share 50% augmented estate Includes inter vivos gifts, discretionary income, not Life Insr Waiver enforced Revocation by marriage rebuttable by language in the will only Omitted child no rights MC Modern Trend Holographic Will Material Portions are handwritten, dated and signed

Ambiguities and Extrinsic Evidence Construction of terms to effect the Ps intent POA Not strict look at express terms and context of will Construction to effect intent Substituted Judgment Standard - CCE Wills

Will Formalities: Substantial compliance with writing, signature and presence to show that the Ts intended to make a testamentary disposition

New Cascadia (WA statute CL Majority Rule)

Revocation: Writing or Physical Act with Intent 11.12.040 Disso revokes DRR: no revival without intent 11.12.080 Integration: at time of execution Republication by Codicil Incorporation by Reference: Existence, intent description 11.96A.0002.Reformation w/out ambiguity if CCE of true intent Descent and Distribution 11.04.015 Community Property: All Separate Property: Issue/parents/Brothers & Sisters Same degree - Equally Representation RCW 11.02.005(3) Half-Bloods are Whole Step Children 11.04.095 Avoid Escheat Adopted child is treated as natural child Posthumous: consent required Advancement: 11.04.041 proof of gift, no advancement Bars to succession slayers and abusers statutes (POE and CCE) Declaimer: subject to tax lien, must be reported to Medicaid AntiLapse: 11.12.120 on the condition of survival Class: Group minded, survivors take Ademption: Modern intent theory Abatement: Statute (includes nonprobate assets) MAJ: Duty to Intended Beneficiaries. See Simpson v. Calivas TRUSTS 11.98 Capacity like wills Trust Pursuit Rule Res, Trustee, Beneficiary Non probate assets do not need to conform to will formalities (w,e,d) Ademption and Abatement apply

Old Olympia (CL Modern Trend)

Revocation: Presumption of revocation with Act+Intent Disso revokes DRR: Intent to revive (mistaken belief) by operation of law Integration Republication by Codicil Incorporation by Reference Reformation: Ambiguities to admit Extrinsic Evidence Intestate Distribution: Modern per stirpes per capita with representation Divided equally by degree of kinship

No virtual adoption Posthumous: consent required (9th cir. No parentage) Advancement: UPC requires intent in writing Bars to Succession: CL- unworthy heirs do not take (POE) Disclaimers: must be reported to Medicaid, is subject to tax lien AntiLapse: by statute presumed intent of T to descendents Class Ademption Abatement: Honorary Trusts o.k. Oral trust (CCE) Creditors can reach inter vivos discretionary trust for debts JT account rebuttable by CCE CY PRES: General Charitable intent, purpose, entity Impracticable, Impossible, Illegal, Wasteful Presumption of general intent

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Section A. The Power to Transmit Property At Death 1. The Right to Inherit and the Right to Convey a. Hodel v. Irving Native Americans Restricted from Devising Property b. Shaw Family Archives Marilyn Monroe i. Convey only that property that is owned at time of death ii. RCW 11.12.090. After Acquired Property not in supplement 2. The Policy of Passing Wealth at Death 3. The Problem of the Death Hand a. Donative Intent i. Freedom of disposition ii. Restrictions 1. Spousal rights, Unreasonable restraints on alienation or marriage, Provisions promoting separation or divorce, Creditors rights, Impermissible racial or other categorical restrictions, Provisions encouraging illegal activity, Accumulations 2. RAP (Washington does away with RAP at 11.98.130) b. Shapira v. Union National Bank i. Conditional Restriction 1. Partial Restriction: marry a Jewish girl or gift over was not unconstitutional as it did not restrict marriage wholly 2. No right to inherit 3. Donors intent was shown in the gift over: to further the Jewish Faith c. Sometimes produces perverse incentives Section B. Transfer of the Decedents Estate 1. Probate and Nonprobate Property a. Joint Tenancy vanishes at death b. POD c. Life Insurance d. Inter Vivos Trust Interest 2. Administration of Probate

Section C. Skip Section D. Professional responsibility 1. Duties of Intended Beneficiaries a. Simpson v. Calivas i. Majority: Some duties to intended beneficiary ii. Minority: Privity required 1. Extrinsic Evidence admitted if the terms of the will are ambiguous 2. Conflicts of Interest a. A. v. B. i. Duty of Confidentiality v. Duty to Inform CHAPTER 2. INTESTACY Heirs Apparent: Expectancy Destroyed by will Intestate: no will Testate: will

Section A. The Basic Scheme 1. Introduction a. Default Rules Probable Intent of Decedent b. RCW 11.04.015 Family Protection c. RCW 11.02.005(3) Representation 2. Share of the Surviving Spouse a. Simultaneous Death i. RCW 11.05A.030: 120 hours/5 days Per Capita: Divided equally ii. Janus v. Tarasewicz: Tylenol. Requires sufficient evidence b. Elective Share 3. Share of Descendents a. Traditionally No Negative Will (disinheritance) 4. Share of Ancestors and Collaterals a. Half-Bloods i. RCW 11.04.035 same as full ii. Modern per stirpes: Per capita with representation

Section B. Transfers to Children 1. Meaning of Children a. Adopted Children i. RCW 1.04.085. Adopted child is treated as a natural child ii. Hall v. Vallandingham: No natural inheritance if adopted (dual benefits) iii. Minary v. Citizens Fidelity Bank & Trust Co.: Husband adopts wife, she cannot take under mothers will because it disrupts the Ts intent. iv. ONeal v. Wilkes: Virtual adoption is not upheld because there is no authority to contract. 1. Dissent: No contract, performance is what creates the virtual adoption b. Posthumous Children c. Nonmarital Children: 11.04.081 no effect if parents are not married d. Reproductive Technology i. Woodward v. Comm. Of Social Security: genetics, consent to conception, consent to support ii. RCW 26.26.710 & 730: Consent required iii. In re: Martin: Controlling factor is grantors intent for trusts 2. Advancements a. CL: presumption of advancement b. RCW 11.04.041. Shown to be a gift, not advancement c. UPC requires intent of advancement, must be in writing 3. Guardianship and Conservatorship of Minors a. Guardian of a Person i. Custody and Care ii. Raised and Educated iii. Medical Care b. Property Management Options i. Guardianship of the property: Under strict court supervision ii. Conservatorship: Under court supervision, less reporting than guardianship iii. Custodianship: Person who is given property to hold for the benefit of a minor under UTMA and UGMA a. Annual reporting only if an accounting is requested by an interested party iv. Trusts: Flexible and highly customizable property mgmt arrangement

Section C. Bars to Succession 1. Homicide a. In re Estate of Mahoney: Common law bars unworthy heirs b. Conduct-Based restrictions in other countries c. RCW 11.84.010, .020, .030 Slayer/abuser statutes 2. Disclaimer a. Drye v. United States: disclaimed property is subject to federal tax lien b/c it is an exercise of dominion over property b. Medicaid: Required to report disclaimers

CHAPTER 3 WILLS: CAPACITY AND CONTESTS

Testamentary Freedom & Personal Autonomy

Section A. Mental Capacity 1. The Test of Mental Capacity i. 18 years or older and capable of knowing and understanding the natural objects of bounty, the nature and extent of property and the relation of these to the disposition of same. b. In re the Estate of Washburn: Minority rule, presumption of sanity, due execution, BOP on proponent c. Wilson v. Lane: Majority rule, due execution, BOP on contestant i. Capacity Thresholds based on protection of interests ii. Require Capacity to incentivize mutual support and principal of reciprocity 2. Insane Delusion belief in irrational facts that do not exist; not susceptible to correction. Delusion must have caused the disposition; BOP on contestant presumption of competency, sufficient evidence shifts BOP to proponent) a. In re Strittmater: will of extreme feminist challenged, set aside. Personal autonomy within the bounds of social norms. b. Majority Rule: Contestant must show that (1) the T labored under an insane delusion, and (2) the will (or some part thereof) was a project of the insane delusion. c. Minority Rule: Lower standard of causation: dispositive provisions might have been caused or affected by Ts insane delusion d. Breeden v. Stone: enforced b/c insane delusions did not materially affect the will (POE) minority? e. WA Estate of Bussler: Will rational on its face, presumption of capacity CCE of insane delusion f. Dead mans statute

Section B. Undue Influence 1. Introduction: With or without a confidential relationship, the donors free will is overcome to the effect that dispositions are made that would not have been made otherwise. Portions of the will that are cause by undue influence will be stricken if those portions do not disrupt the testamentary scheme intended by the testator. Circumstantial evidence is aided by the presumption of undue influence. Contestant must prove that the donor was susceptible to the influence, that alleged wrongdoer was in a position and had the opportunity to exert influence over the donor, and that the testamentary disposition was the result of that influence. 2. What influence is undue? a. Estate of Lakotosh: CCE that donor was susceptible and the alleged wrongdoer was in a influential position b. Presumptions, Burden Shifting and Undue Influence c. The Will of Moses: older womans will devising estate to younger lover overturned, sister gets estate d. In re Kaufmanns Will: homosexuality and undue influence e. Lipper v. Welsow: Control exerted to cause T to do what would not have been done otherwise f. No Contest Clauses: Majority upholds unless PC for contest 3. Planning for and Avoiding a Will Contest Contest Grounds A. Challenges to Mental Capacity i. Undue Influence ii. Insane Delusion 1. Washington Follows the Majority Rule, but for causation Washington follows the minority rule iii. Fraud 1. Not going cover in class, but its on the syllabus iv. Duress v. Tortious Interference (focusing on conduct of alleged wrongdoer) Warning Signs Radical departure from previous plans Multiple or blended families Mistress or other unpopular person Unnatural disposition o Omission of a close family member or unexplainable distinction among family members of equal relation.

Strategies Client to handwrite a letter to attorney setting forth in detail the disposition sought Video discussion Family meeting Professional examination Extra precautions at the will execution No-contest clause Inter vivos trust Section C. Fraud 1. Puckett v. Krida: confidential relationship and encouragement of false beliefs a. Intent to deceive Section D. Section E. Duress Tortious Interference with an Expectancy Ritual, Evidentiary, Protective, Channeling

CHAPTER 4. WILLS: FORMALITIES AND FORMS Section A. Execution of Wills 1. Attested Wills a. The Function of Formalities b. Writing, Signature, and Attestation: Strict Compliance (traditional) i. In re Groffman: Witnesses not present in the room during attestation ii. Stevens v. Casdorph: Not signed in the presence of the witnesses iii. Presence 1. Line of Sight (seen) 2. Conscious Presence (sight, hearing, or general consciousness) iv. Signature 1. By mark, font v. Writing vi. Estate of Morea: Interested witnesses and the purging statute 1. RCW11.12.060. Presumes gift is faulty vii. Recommended method of execution & safeguarding a will

2. Curing Defects in the Execution of Attested Wills a. Excusing Execution Defects by Ad Hoc Exception i. In re Pavlinkos Estate: Will switch, no relief ii. In re Snide: Will switch, relief (GAL objected minor childs interest more intestate) b. Curative Doctrines: Substantial Compliance and Harmless Error 1. Fulfill the purpose of formalities v. CCE of Intent to be the will ii. In re Will of Ranney: iii. Harmless Error Minority Rule can prove Ts intent CCE iv. In re the Estate of Hall: joint will in draft form probated v. Note: Substantial Compliance vs. Harmless Error 3. Notarized Wills 4. Holographic Wills: Materially in handwriting of T, signed and dated a. Kimmels Estate: Letter probated (w/out real intent that it was a will but that it provided a disposition to bounty) b. Estate of Gonzalez: form will, 2nd generation, material provisions c. Note: Signature and Handwriting in Holographic Wills d. In re Estate of Kuralt: substantial compliance, letter deemed testamentary as codicil with intent to devise specifically Section B. Revocation of Wills 1. Revocation by Writing or Physical Act a. RCW 11.12.040: By subsequent will or physical act b. Harrison v. Bird: (atty ripped and mailed) rebuttable presumption of revocation c. Thompson v. Royall: Act and Intent d. No partial revocation potential for fraud 2. Dependent Relative Revocation and Revival (mistaken assumption of law or fact, lacks intent) a. RCW 11.12.080. Revocation of later will or codicil i. No revival without intent b. Estate of Alburn: Earlier will to be probated as per intent of T b/c of mistaken belief that the earlier will stands c. Revival i. Majority: Intent to Revive. See RCW 11.12.080 ii. Minority: no revival without due execution d. UPC 3. Revocation by Operation of Law: Change in Family Circumstances a. Minority: Premarital will is revoked upon marriage b. See RCW 11.12.091 and .095 for omitted spouses and children, disso revokes RCW 11.12.051

SECTION C. Components of a Will 1. Integration of Wills must be present at execution and intended to be integrated 2. Republication by Codicil 3. Incorporation by Referencei a. RCW 11.12.255 In existence at the time of execution, intent to incorporate, and adequate description b. UPC 2-510 c. Clark v. Greenhalge: farm painting and memorandum d. Simon v. Grayson: letter dated before codicil was incorporated by reference e. UPC 2-513 f. Johnson v. Johnson: interwoven will and codicil upheld although contrary to statute 4. Acts of Independent Significance a. UPC 2-512

SECTION D. Contracts Relating to Wills 1. Contract to Make a Will 2. Contracts Not to Revoke a Will a. UPC b. Via v. Putnam: Mutual wills, pretermitted spouse takes as if T died intestate (elective share), children are not creditors

A will may incorporate by reference any writing in existence when the will is executed if the will itself manifests the testator's intent to incorporate the writing and describes the writing sufficiently to permit its identification. In the case of any inconsistency between the writing and the will, the will controls

CHAPTER 5 CONSTRUCTION OF WILLS Section A. Mistaken or Ambiguous Language in Wills 1. The Traditional Approach: No Extrinsic Evidence, No Reformation a. Mahoney v. Grainger: Common testamentary language is not ambiguous b. Note: Plain Meaning, Ambiguity, and Extrinsic Evidence i. Traditionally Not allowed ii. Patent Ambiguities: On its face iii. Latent Ambiguities: As applied 1. Equivocation 2. Personal Usage Exemption 2. Slouching Toward Reformation: Correcting Mistakes without the Power to Reform Wills a. The Causes and Effects of Will Defects i. Rule Against Reformation: No relief for mistake b. Arnheiter v. Arnheiter: wrong address, removes numbers, does not change street c. Estate of Gibbs: Wrong middle initial 3. Openly Reforming Wills for Mistake a. Erickson v. Erickson: Modern Trend, Not the Majority 2 days before marriage b. UPC 2-805. Reformation to correct mistakes; CCE even without ambiguity c. Curing Execution Errors and Mistaken terms in Wills d. Fleming v. Morrison: Sham will; inducement to sleep with woman Section B. Death of Beneficiary Before Death of Testator 1. Introduction a. Estate of Russell: Tradition no-residue-of-a-residue rule 2. Antilapse Statutes a. UPC 2-605. Words of Survivorship Washington gives effect to the words b. Ruotolo v. Tietjen: presumption against disinheriting a line c. Note: Worlds of Purchase, Words of Limitation and the Meaning of And versus Or 3. Class Gifts - Group minded a. CL lapse rule: surviving members of the class take everything b. Dawson v. Yucus: Named individuals, not group minded c. Note: Application of Antilapse Statute to Class Gifts

Section C. Changes in Property after Execution of Will 1. Ademption by Extinction a. In re Estate of Anton: Specific Bequest is extinguished if done voluntarily by the T. b. Modern Intent Theory: Intent required i. Tradition: Extinguished c. Stock Splits and the Problem of Increase i. Specific or general, mere change in form d. Satisfaction of General Pecuniary Bequests Transfer to beneficiary after execution e. Exoneration of Liens CL doctrine liens to be paid from residue f. Abatement - no enough to go around i. Residuary ii. General iii. Specific/Demonstrative CHAPTER 7 TRUSTS: INTRODUCTION AND CREATION Section A. Introduction 1. Background 2. Parties to A Trust a. The Settlor i. INTENT to create Trust and Capacity ii. RES iii. Definite Beneficiaries b. The Trustee i. Duties: Loyalty, Prudence, Impartiality, Inform and Account ii. Trustee Duties RCW 11.98.0001 iii. Trust Pursuit Rule. 11.98.0009 c. The Beneficiaries i. Hold Equitable Interests ii. Power of Appointment d. Commercial Uses of the Trust
TRUSTS Settlor Trustee Beneficiaries Power of Appointment Future Interests Legal Title Equitable Title Bifurcation Express Implied (Constructive) Inter Vivos Testamentary RIGHTS/DUTIES

Section B. Creation of a Trust 1. Intent to Create a Trust (for the use and benefit) a. Lux v. Lux b. Jimenez v. Lee c. Note: Precatory Language d. No Hebrew 2. Necessity of Trust Property (3 elements trustee, beneficiary, res) a. Unthank v. Rippstein: Gift of $200/month, not a trust b. Brainard v. Commissioner: c. Speelman v. Pascal: Expectancy and License - property d. Note: taxation of grantor trusts 3. Necessity of Trust Beneficiaries (Ascertainable beneficiaries) a. Clark v. Campbell: Requires ascertainable beneficiaries fails for want of certainty friends b. In re Searights Estate honorary no beneficiary capable of enforcement c. Note: Trusts for Pets and Other Noncharitable Purposes 4. Necessity of a Written Instrument a. Oral Trusts for Disposition at Death i. In re the Estate of Fournier ii. Olliffe v. Wells CHAPTER 6 NONPROBATE TRANSFERS AND PLANNING FOR INCAPACITY Pure Will Substitutes Section A. An Introduction to Will Substitutes

Section B. Will Substitutes and the Wills Act 1. Revocable Trusts a. Farkas v. Williams Inter vivos trust b. UTC 603 c. Linthicum v. Rudi beneficiaries lack standing during life of T 2. Payable on Death Contracts and Other Nonprobate Transfers a. In re the Estate of Atkinson non probate asset b. Estate of Hillowitz do not need to conform to formalities of wills c. UPC 6-101 d. Note: TOD Deed for Real Property?

Section C. Will Substitutes and the Subsidiary Law of Wills 1. Introduction a. Restatement 2. Revocation of Trusts vests at death a. In re Estate and Trust of Pilafas b. State Street Bank and Trust Co. v. Reiser bank can reach inter vivos trust assets to pay debt b/c discretionary (reserved right to amend and revoke or direct disposition of p/i) 3. Life Insurance a. Cook v. Equitable Life Assurance Society: will does not trump designated beneficiaries of life insurance b. Note: A Superwill? 4. Pension and Retirement Accounts a. Note: Defined Benefit Versus Defined Contribution Pension Plans b. Eglehoff v. EgelhoffI: ERISA preempts state statute revoking on dissolution 5. Multiple-Party Bank and Brokerage Accounts a. Varela v. Bernachea: donative intent in JT account with mistress Section D. Pour-Over Wills and Revocable Trusts in Modern Estate Planning 1. Introduction 2. Avoiding Probate 3. Consequences During Life of Settlor 4. Consequences at Death of Settlor: Avoiding Probate 5. Pour-Over Wills a. UPC b. Clymer v. Mayo Section E. Joint Tenancies in Realty

Section F. Planning for Incapacity 1. The Durable Power of Attorney agency relationship, duties a. In re the Estate of Kurrelmeyer not a breach of fiduciary duty, trust stands i. Strict Construction ii. Construction to effect the intent 2. Directives Regarding Health Care and Disposition of the Body a. Advance Directives: Living Wills, Health Care Proxies, and Hybrids

i. Death with Dignity ii. Bush v. Schiavo Substituted Judgment Standard 1. Spouse 2. Adult Child 3. Parents 4. Adult Brother/Sister iii. Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide 1. OREGON b. Disposition of the Body no assurance i. Elder Law CHAPTER 7 Restrictions on the Power of Disposition: Protection of the Spouse and Children Section A. Rights of the Surviving Spouse 1. Introduction 2. Rights of Surviving Spouse to Support 3. Rights of Surviving Spouse to Share of Decedents Property a. Community Property b. Elective Share c. Incompetent Surviving Spouse i. Cannot be forced by creditors d. Property Subject to Elective Share i. Community Property ii. Statutory schemes for what non probate assets are subject to the elective share iii. Sullivan v. Burkin: changed the rule from inter vivos trust being unreachable in elective share to reachable if the deceased alone had general power of appointment. iv. Bonegaards v. Millen: does not apply to trusts created by 3d parties 1. Consider: Illusory trusts, invalid trusts, intent to defraud a. Subjective intent b. Objective intent: control retained, time between transfer and death, other means of support 2. Fact sensitive v. MAJORITY: a revocable trust created by the decedent spouse is included in determining the surviving spouses elective share vi. MINORITY: no subject to elective share

e. Must the surviving spouse accept a life estate? i. 1969 not charged or credited for the value of the life estate against her share 1. Later changes charge to force the SSp to take the life estate f. Waiver i. Allowed and enforced in Separate Property states ii. Reese v. Elliott iii. Fair and Reasonable Disclosure 4. Rights of Surviving Spouse in Community Property a. Basic information Strong presumption of community property b. Putting the Survivor to an election 5. Migrating Couples and Multisstate Property Holdings a. Moving to Comm. Prop. State where acquired b. Moving to a Sep. Property State no change to preacquired 6. Spouse Omitted from Premarital Will a. In re the Estate of Prestie rebuttable presumption of revocation by marriage if language is in the will (not trust) Section B. Rights of Descendants Omitted from the Will 1. Protection from Intentional Omission a. Domestic Approach b. Abroad 2. Protection from Unintentional Omission a. Gray v. Gray: b. UPC c. Note: Anna Nicole d. Kidwell v. Rhew:

Chapter 9 Section A.

Rights to Distributions from the Trust Fund Rights of the Beneficiary to Distributions

Section B. Rights of the Beneficiarys Creditors 1. Discretionary Trusts not assigned or alienated a. Support Trusts b. For the benefit of c. Protective Trusts: Mandatory subject to a protective provision 2. Spendthrift Trusts disabling restraint, WA presumes spendthrift a. Scheffel v. Krueger: cannot be reached by tort b. Shelley v. Shelley : Spousal and child support c. Bankruptcy Law and Trust Asset Protection 3. Self-Settled Asset Protection Trusts a. FTC v. Affordable Media b. In re Lawrence c. Trusts for the State Sponsored i. Self-settled are considered for eligibility ii. 3rd party created not considered iii. Created by spouse upon death not considered iv. From settlement for injury as long as there is a provision of repayment d. Supplemental Needs Trust provides above and beyond state and not reachable by state Section C. Modification and Termination of Trusts 1. Introduction 2. Deviation and Changed Circumstances a. In re the Trust of Stuchell b. In re Riddell c. Trust Protectors 3. Claflin and Material Purpose a. In re Estate of Brown b. Revocable vs. Irrevocable 4. Trustee Removal a. Davis v. US. Bank National Assoc.: b. Virtual Representation

CHAPTER 11 CHARITABLE TRUSTS Section A. Introduction

Section B. Nature of Charitable Purposes Poverty, education, health, government 1. Shenadoah Valley v. Taylor 2. Shaw: Alphabet

Section C. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Modification of Charitable Trusts: Cy Pres Approximates the settlors intention In re Neher general charitable rather than specific Buck Cy Pres vs. Administrative Deviation Barnes Foundation Discriminatory Trusts

Section D. Supervision of Charitable Trusts 1. Carl J. Herzog Foundation v. University of Bridgeport 2. Smiters v. St. Lukes

RCW 11.12.260 Separate writing may direct disposition of tangible personal property Requirements. (1) A will or a trust of which the decedent is a grantor and which by its terms becomes irrevocable upon or before the grantor's death may refer to a writing that directs disposition of tangible personal property not otherwise specifically disposed of by the will or trust other than property used primarily in trade or business. Such a writing shall not be effective unless: (a) An unrevoked will or trust refers to the writing, (b) the writing is either in the handwriting of, or signed by, the testator or grantor, and (c) the writing describes

the items and the recipients of the property with reasonable certainty. (2) The writing may be written or signed before or after the execution of the will or trust and need not have significance apart from its effect upon the dispositions of property made by the will or trust. A writing that meets the requirements of this section shall be given effect as if it were actually contained in the will or trust itself, except that if any person designated to receive property in the writing dies before the testator or grantor, the property shall pass as further directed in the writing and in the absence of any further directions, the disposition shall lapse and, in the case of a will, RCW 11.12.110 shall not apply to such lapse. (3) The testator or grantor may make subsequent handwritten or signed changes to any writing. If there is an inconsistent disposition of tangible personal property as between writings, the most recent writing controls. (4) As used in this section "tangible personal property" means articles of personal or household use or ornament, for example, furniture, furnishings, automobiles, boats, airplanes, and jewelry, as well as precious metals in any tangible form, for example, bullion or coins. The term includes articles even if held for investment purposes and encompasses tangible property that is not real property. The term does not include mobile homes or intangible property, for example, money that is normal currency or normal legal tender, evidences of indebtedness, bank accounts or other monetary deposits, documents of title, or securities.