Prefixed with: I have no financial stake in the matter, but more than a
little curiousity in the outcome.

Timeline:

1972 - R and J marry. Neither are US citizens.

1977 - A house is purchased by R and J, with a mortgage, in San Francisco.

sometime 1980s - A trust is created for estate planning purposes by R
and J. The ownership of the house is transferred to the
trust.

1990 - R and J separate but do not divorce. R does not live in the United
States ever again. J lives in the house from this point on.

1991 - R signs a quitclaim to remove the house from the trust and
transfer ownership to J. This is filed with the San Francisco
Recorder's Office.

late 2007 - The mortgage is paid off.

early 2008 - A Full Reconveyance is filed with the San Francisco
Recorder's Office by the mortgaging bank that transfers
ownership to the R and J Trust.

2012 - J becomes a naturalized US citizen.

sometime 2020s - R moves from his residence in one non-US country to
another non-US country and leaves no forwarding
address, disconnects his known phone number, and
becomes much worse at replying to email.

Question:

Presently the City of San Francisco thinks the house is owned by the R
and J Trust instead of just by J. Given the paperwork for the mortgage, quitclaim (with Recorder's Office filing receipt), and reconveyance, are
all available, is it likely to be difficult to convince the city that J
owns the house, not R and J jointly nor the R and J Trust?

Further details:

If J pre-deceases R, as spouse he inherits the house. If J owns the
house outright, she can quitclaim it to her children and avoid that.

J is an extreme penny pincher and believes she has "run out of laywers"
willing to help her, but it seems more likely she has run out of lawyers
at her expected rate willing to talk to her.

R is probably alive, as he replies to email sometimes, but he avoids many questions. His exact whereabouts for getting a signature for a new
quitclaim (or serving divorce papers) is unknown. A private investigator
in the country of presumed residence has been retained by R and J's son,
but there has not been any result of that yet. A private investigator
in the country with last known residence did not find him in that
country.

Email may be bad for communication since R probably has vision problems
from untreated glaucoma.

Elijah
------
as of 2015, the glaucoma was being ignored

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 6/29/2024 9:50 PM, Eli the Bearded wrote:

Question:

Presently the City of San Francisco thinks the house is owned by the R
and J Trust instead of just by J. Given the paperwork for the mortgage, quitclaim (with Recorder's Office filing receipt), and reconveyance, are
all available, is it likely to be difficult to convince the city that J
owns the house, not R and J jointly nor the R and J Trust?

The problem is that "R's quitclaim" of the house was basically useless.
He wasn't on the title. The house is owned by the trust. What should
have happened is that the trust should have issued a quitclaim..

A question is who now controls the trust. Can J issue a quitclaim on
behalf of the trust without R's signature.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Some words of wisdom preparing to affairs for the death of a spouse.

My wife passed away 18 months ago and the banks immediately cancelled
all the credit cards where she was the primary cardholder. Make sure
you have at least one credit card for each spouse/partner as primary.
Double check all the bank and brokerage accounts to make sure the death
of one of the spouses will not automatically close them and you have the beneficiary correctly set.

I am going to sell the house soon but I have been told that the death certificate will be sufficient to activate the JTROS clause and allow
the title people to process the transaction.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Sat, 29 Jun 2024 21:50:46 -0700 (PDT), Eli
the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:

Prefixed with: I have no financial stake in the matter, but more than a >little curiousity in the outcome.

Timeline:

1972 - R and J marry. Neither are US citizens.

1977 - A house is purchased by R and J, with a mortgage, in San Francisco.

sometime 1980s - A trust is created for estate planning purposes by R
and J. The ownership of the house is transferred to the
trust.

1990 - R and J separate but do not divorce. R does not live in the United
States ever again. J lives in the house from this point on.

1991 - R signs a quitclaim to remove the house from the trust and
transfer ownership to J. This is filed with the San Francisco
Recorder's Office.

Seems to me, a quitclaim can cancel any benefits R would receive from
the trust, and maybe even remove him from the trust, and the intention
may have been to cancel the trust, but now that R has a weaker or no relationship to the trust, it's even more true that he can't cancel the
trust or convey ownership from the trust to anyone else. See my sig.

Unless there is some statute that if only one person is now beneficiary
the trust is cancelled. Doesn't sound likely, unless there was a clause
in the trust that did that.

I would think that quitclaiming the trust could easily be interpreted to
mean he's quitclaimed any interest in the house within or outside of the
trust, but I'm no lawyer. Is interpreting that he meant that the same
as effectuating it?

late 2007 - The mortgage is paid off.

early 2008 - A Full Reconveyance is filed with the San Francisco
Recorder's Office by the mortgaging bank that transfers
ownership to the R and J Trust.

2012 - J becomes a naturalized US citizen.

sometime 2020s - R moves from his residence in one non-US country to
another non-US country and leaves no forwarding
address, disconnects his known phone number, and
becomes much worse at replying to email.

Question:

Presently the City of San Francisco thinks the house is owned by the R
and J Trust instead of just by J.

I'm not surprised.

Given the paperwork for the mortgage,
quitclaim (with Recorder's Office filing receipt), and reconveyance, are
all available, is it likely to be difficult to convince the city that J
owns the house, not R and J jointly nor the R and J Trust?

Yes. Who is the trustee? Can't he disband the trust or at least
convey the house to J, on the basis of the R's quitclaim? It's been 40
years. Is the estate planning purpose of the trust still a goal? Just guessing: wasn't that to make it easier to pass to the surviving spouse,
which now they don't want to do anyhow.

Further details:

If J pre-deceases R, as spouse he inherits the house.

R does. J is dead, but your next sentence says J now owns the house,
after his or her own death.

If J owns the
house outright, she can quitclaim it to her children and avoid that.

I guess you are saying that along with the quitclaim, she will also convey/give/deed it to her children. Even without owning it outright,
she can do this, and then it's the kids problem that R once had a
half-interest in the house. Isn't there a remedy when someone like him
can't be found?

J is an extreme penny pincher and believes she has "run out of laywers" >willing to help her, but it seems more likely she has run out of lawyers
at her expected rate willing to talk to her.

LOL. Probably. There are lots of lawyers, hard to run out.

R is probably alive, as he replies to email sometimes, but he avoids many >questions. His exact whereabouts for getting a signature for a new
quitclaim (or serving divorce papers) is unknown. A private investigator
in the country of presumed residence has been retained by R and J's son,
but there has not been any result of that yet. A private investigator
in the country with last known residence did not find him in that
country.

Wow. This search combined with R's earlier quitclaim seems like enough
to me, but that's just me.

Email may be bad for communication since R probably has vision problems
from untreated glaucoma.

Can't someone read the email to her? What will she do when she wants
to sign the quitclaim to her children, etc.? Or is this last line left
over from an earlier discussion with people who might have actually
emailed her.

Elijah
------
as of 2015, the glaucoma was being ignored

9 years is a long time to ignore it. I finally got around to getting
teste when I was 70, after no test since age 48. Fortunately, I was
okay and am still okay.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Sat, 29 Jun 2024 23:11:33 -0700 (PDT), Roy <[email protected]> wrote:

Some words of wisdom preparing to affairs for the death of a spouse.

My wife passed away 18 months ago and the banks immediately cancelled
all the credit cards where she was the primary cardholder. Make sure
you have at least one credit card for each spouse/partner as primary.

I'm sure this is excellent advice, but fwiw, my mother died 30 years
ago, and she was the primary on one credit card and I had been added to
it***, and it didn't get cancelled. Is there a difference between
mother and son versus spouses? Or maybe they didn't learn of her death?
At any rate, don't assume the card won't be cancelled or will be
cancelled.

Also some insurance payment, maybe Medicare supplement, that she had on
monthly automatic pay did not get cancelled until I noticed it months
after she died.


***The circumstances might be relevant and they are certainly
interesting. She got the card when I was 24 and moved to NYC where it
was harder to pay with a check and I needed a card. So I was added at
the same time she got the card, but I had no credit****.

Around 1972, she went to a bank to get the credit card and they wanted
to put her husband's name on it, and she didn't want that, because even
though she planned to pay whatever I charged if I didn't pay, she didn't
want it to seem like my step-father was responsible. (My father died
when I was 8 and they had married when I was 19.)

She told the bank employee this reason, but the woman insisted.

There was a new law in Pennsylvania -- I forget the details -- requiring
banks to extend credit to women as to men, and my mother said she would complain to the agency in charge of that law. The woman said "You do
that."

Finally, my mother said, Either you give me the card to me without my
husband or I'm leaving. And the woman said, Do you have any assets?
And of course she did, we and my older brother until he got a job had
been living on them since my father died 15 years earlier.

Even though the employee was a woman, the desire to abide by a law meant
to help women seemed totally absent.

**** Also, they talk about young people buying something on time to
establish credit. What my mother did was certainly easier and didn't
require my paying interest. When my mother died 24 years later, the
bank didn't even ask me about credit-worthinesss. Of course you have to
trust your child.

Double check all the bank and brokerage accounts to make sure the death
of one of the spouses will not automatically close them and you have the >beneficiary correctly set.

I am going to sell the house soon but I have been told that the death >certificate will be sufficient to activate the JTROS clause and allow
the title people to process the transaction.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Roy" wrote in message news:v5qslu$c5lp$[email protected]...

Some words of wisdom preparing to affairs for the death of a spouse.

My wife passed away 18 months ago and the banks immediately cancelled all
the credit cards where she was the primary cardholder. Make sure you have
at least one credit card for each spouse/partner as primary. Double check
all the bank and brokerage accounts to make sure the death of one of the >spouses will not automatically close them and you have the beneficiary >correctly set.

I am going to sell the house soon but I have been told that the death >certificate will be sufficient to activate the JTROS clause and allow the >title people to process the transaction.

Those are all good suggestions. I think what you are saying about the
credit card is that even if both spouses are listed on the account and each spouse has their own copy of the card (sometimes even with a different
number), one person is usually designated as primary. When that person
dies, the card is cancelled as soon as the credit card company is notified.

Regarding the house, if you live in Florida, Texas, Michigan, Vermont or
West Virginia, I would recommend couples obtain what's known as a Lady Bird deed or enhanced life estate deed. My wife and I have this and our two
adult children are listed on the deed as "remainders". What this means is
that my wife and I control the house during our lifetime and can mortgage or sell the house without our children's consent, or we could even remove our children from the deed if we want. But if we both die before our
children, the house automatically passes to them without going through
probate.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/investing/estate-planning/lady-bird-deed


--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote in
news:eli$[email protected]:

Prefixed with: I have no financial stake in the matter, but more than
a little curiousity in the outcome.

Timeline:

1972 - R and J marry. Neither are US citizens.

1977 - A house is purchased by R and J, with a mortgage, in San
Francisco.

sometime 1980s - A trust is created for estate planning purposes by R
and J. The ownership of the house is transferred to
the
trust.

1990 - R and J separate but do not divorce. R does not live in the
United
States ever again. J lives in the house from this point on.

1991 - R signs a quitclaim to remove the house from the trust and
transfer ownership to J. This is filed with the San Francisco
Recorder's Office.

late 2007 - The mortgage is paid off.

early 2008 - A Full Reconveyance is filed with the San Francisco
Recorder's Office by the mortgaging bank that transfers
ownership to the R and J Trust.

2012 - J becomes a naturalized US citizen.

sometime 2020s - R moves from his residence in one non-US country to
another non-US country and leaves no forwarding
address, disconnects his known phone number, and
becomes much worse at replying to email.

Question:

Presently the City of San Francisco thinks the house is owned by the R
and J Trust instead of just by J. Given the paperwork for the
mortgage, quitclaim (with Recorder's Office filing receipt), and reconveyance, are all available, is it likely to be difficult to
convince the city that J owns the house, not R and J jointly nor the R
and J Trust?

Roy is correct, the quitclaim is outside the chain of title, so it has
little effect. But it is evidence that R resigned as trustee of the
trust, giving J the power, as sole trustee, to deed the house to herself.
If she didn't do it before, she should do it now. That should solve the
title problem.

The other problem is property tax. In general property tax in California
can be raised when there's a change in ownership of real property.
Transfers between spouses are generally exempt, but the exemption must be claimed in a timely manner. If a Preliminary Change of Ownership Report
was filed with the county along with the quitclaim deed, that might be sufficient to give notice of the intended transfer and claim of
exemption. But if not, the county may want to go back and retroactively increase property tax during that time period.

Further details:

If J pre-deceases R, as spouse he inherits the house. If J owns the
house outright, she can quitclaim it to her children and avoid that.

J is an extreme penny pincher and believes she has "run out of
laywers" willing to help her, but it seems more likely she has run out
of lawyers at her expected rate willing to talk to her.

R is probably alive, as he replies to email sometimes, but he avoids
many questions. His exact whereabouts for getting a signature for a
new quitclaim (or serving divorce papers) is unknown. A private
investigator in the country of presumed residence has been retained by
R and J's son, but there has not been any result of that yet. A
private investigator in the country with last known residence did not
find him in that country.

Email may be bad for communication since R probably has vision
problems from untreated glaucoma.

Elijah
------
as of 2015, the glaucoma was being ignored

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 30 Jun 2024 10:21:09 -0700 (PDT), Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

Presently the City of San Francisco thinks the house is owned by the R
and J Trust instead of just by J. Given the paperwork for the
mortgage, quitclaim (with Recorder's Office filing receipt), and reconveyance, are all available, is it likely to be difficult to
convince the city that J owns the house, not R and J jointly nor the R
and J Trust?

Roy is correct, the quitclaim is outside the chain of title, so it has
little effect. But it is evidence that R resigned as trustee of the
trust, giving J the power, as sole trustee, to deed the house to herself.
If she didn't do it before, she should do it now. That should solve the
title problem.

Why should she deed the house to herself? What is the problem with
having it owned by the R and J trust, of which she is now sole
trustee?

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 30 Jun 2024 10:21:09 -0700 (PDT), Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

The other problem is property tax. In general property tax in California
can be raised when there's a change in ownership of real property.

What about going in the other direction, i.e. putting a house into a
revocable trust?

I recently sold one house in California and bought another, and under
Prop 19 since I'm over 55 I bring my factored base year with me,
getting considerable savings in property tax. Would putting the house
into a trust trigger a reassessment to what I paid for it, thus
wiping out my Prop 19 benefit?

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, micky <[email protected]> wrote:

I would think that quitclaiming the trust could easily be interpreted to
mean he's quitclaimed any interest in the house within or outside of the trust, but I'm no lawyer. Is interpreting that he meant that the same
as effectuating it?

The quitclaim specifically is removing the house from the trust (R and J
are joint trustees) to transfer it exclusively to J. It does not
dissolve the trust nor does is quit and claim on other things owned by
the trust. At the time of of the quitclaim that included some
undeveloped property in Northern California. That property has since
been sold and the proceeds are trust property (in the form of an
investment account).

Yes. Who is the trustee? Can't he disband the trust or at least
convey the house to J, on the basis of the R's quitclaim? It's been 40 years. Is the estate planning purpose of the trust still a goal? Just guessing: wasn't that to make it easier to pass to the surviving spouse, which now they don't want to do anyhow.

My understanding of California probate is that it is a nightmare and a
trust is the preferred way to smooth things over.

Isn't there a remedy when someone like him can't be found?

Presumably, but that's a difficult path to follow for an pre-se
octagenarian with no formal legal training. (Back to the "doesn't
want to pay" problem.)

Email may be bad for communication since R probably has vision problems
from untreated glaucoma.

Can't someone read the email to her?

R is the remote person whose physical address and phone number are not
known. Only a seldom replied to email address. If J could arrange
someone to read things to R, she'd probably have an in for finding him.
I am speculating that glaucoma may be a reason for ignoring email.

Elijah
------
whose own mother had different vision problems that lead to ignoring email

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, Stan Brown <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jun 2024 10:21:09 -0700 (PDT), Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

Roy is correct, the quitclaim is outside the chain of title, so it has
little effect. But it is evidence that R resigned as trustee of the
trust, giving J the power, as sole trustee, to deed the house to herself.
If she didn't do it before, she should do it now. That should solve the
title problem.

Why should she deed the house to herself? What is the problem with
having it owned by the R and J trust, of which she is now sole
trustee?

Chiefly because there are other things owned by the trust for which
there is no similar document denying interest. There was other
property which was sold circa 2010 and the proceeds are in a trust
investment account.

It's a few hundred thousand, not chump change, but much smaller value
than the house in San Francisco.

Disolving the trust would be a good outcome, but a little harder to do
without actually being willing to pay a lawyer.

Elijah
------
doesn't know if there are other things of significant value in the trust

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Stan Brown <[email protected]> wrote:

Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

The other problem is property tax. In general property tax in
California can be raised when there's a change in ownership of real
property.

What about going in the other direction, i.e. putting a house into a revocable trust?

I recently sold one house in California and bought another, and under
Prop 19 since I'm over 55 I bring my factored base year with me,
getting considerable savings in property tax. Would putting the house
into a trust trigger a reassessment to what I paid for it, thus
wiping out my Prop 19 benefit?

Putting a house into or taking it out of a revocable trust is still exempt
from an increase in property tax. But now there is the prospect of a
Revocable Transfer On Death Deed. That can do the same job with a lot
lower expense.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote in
news:eli$[email protected]:

In misc.legal.moderated, Stan Brown <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jun 2024 10:21:09 -0700 (PDT), Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

Roy is correct, the quitclaim is outside the chain of title, so it
has little effect. But it is evidence that R resigned as trustee of
the trust, giving J the power, as sole trustee, to deed the house to
herself. If she didn't do it before, she should do it now. That
should solve the title problem.

Why should she deed the house to herself? What is the problem with
having it owned by the R and J trust, of which she is now sole
trustee?

Chiefly because there are other things owned by the trust for which
there is no similar document denying interest. There was other
property which was sold circa 2010 and the proceeds are in a trust
investment account.

It's a few hundred thousand, not chump change, but much smaller value
than the house in San Francisco.

Disolving the trust would be a good outcome, but a little harder to do without actually being willing to pay a lawyer.

You can dissolve the trust just by taking everything out of it, and file
a tax return, IRS Form 1041, with the "final return" box checked on the
top.



--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 09:03:28 -0700 (PDT), Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

Stan Brown <[email protected]> wrote:

Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

[quoted text muted]
Prop 19 since I'm over 55 I bring my factored base year with me,
getting considerable savings in property tax. Would putting the house
into a trust trigger a reassessment to what I paid for it, thus
wiping out my Prop 19 benefit?

Putting a house into or taking it out of a revocable trust is still exempt from an increase in property tax. But now there is the prospect of a Revocable Transfer On Death Deed. That can do the same job with a lot
lower expense.

Thanks, Stuart. I hadn't heard of that type of deed. I'm guessing
that it would not shield my house from court judgments or Medicaid,
as I believe a trust does?

If it matters, I own 100% of my house, and it's not community
property.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Stan Brown <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 09:03:28 -0700 (PDT), Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

Stan Brown <[email protected]> wrote:

Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

[quoted text muted]
Prop 19 since I'm over 55 I bring my factored base year with me,
getting considerable savings in property tax. Would putting the
house into a trust trigger a reassessment to what I paid for it,
thus wiping out my Prop 19 benefit?

Putting a house into or taking it out of a revocable trust is still
exempt from an increase in property tax. But now there is the
prospect of a Revocable Transfer On Death Deed. That can do the same
job with a lot lower expense.

Thanks, Stuart. I hadn't heard of that type of deed. I'm guessing
that it would not shield my house from court judgments or Medicaid,
as I believe a trust does?

My recollection is that your estate would only need to reimburse Medi-Cal
if the estate goes to probate. A TOD Deed avoids probate for the
property.

You will need the legal description on your current deed, but you can
find the form for a TOD deed here:

https://saclaw.org/resource_library/transfer-on-death-tod-deed-naming- beneficiaries-and-revoking-tod-deeds/

If it matters, I own 100% of my house, and it's not community
property.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 17:20:53 -0700 (PDT), Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

Stan Brown <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 09:03:28 -0700 (PDT), Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

Stan Brown <[email protected]> wrote:

Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

[quoted text muted]
Prop 19 since I'm over 55 I bring my factored base year with me,
getting considerable savings in property tax. Would putting the
house into a trust trigger a reassessment to what I paid for it,
thus wiping out my Prop 19 benefit?

Putting a house into or taking it out of a revocable trust is still
exempt from an increase in property tax. But now there is the
prospect of a Revocable Transfer On Death Deed. That can do the same
job with a lot lower expense.

Thanks, Stuart. I hadn't heard of that type of deed. I'm guessing
that it would not shield my house from court judgments or Medicaid,
as I believe a trust does?

My recollection is that your estate would only need to reimburse Medi-Cal
if the estate goes to probate. A TOD Deed avoids probate for the
property.

You will need the legal description on your current deed, but you can
find the form for a TOD deed here:

https://saclaw.org/resource_library/transfer-on-death-tod-deed-naming- beneficiaries-and-revoking-tod-deeds/

Thanks, Stuart -- again!


--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)