Washington Intestate rules

[Stephen1]

Reading about intestate rules in my state. If there is no spouse or children or living parents, then the distribution is: "If the intestate not be survived by issue or by either parent, then to those issue of the parent or parents who survive the intestate; if they are all in the same degree of kinship to the intestate, they shall take equally, or, if of unequal degree, then those of more remote degree shall take by representation. "

I'm having a little trouble with the above understanding what "unequal degree" would mean for "issue of the parent or parents who survive the intestate".

EXAMPLE: Assume the deceased was "John". When John died, his siblings (#1, #2, #3) were alive and sibling (#4) had predeceased John. Sibling #4 had children A and B. To whom does John's estate go and in what proportions? I read it as: #1, #2, and #3 each get 1/3 of the estate. Neither sibling #4 nor his children A or B get anything as the inheritance goes to only the "issue of the parent or parents who survive the intestate". Sibling #4 did not survive the intestate.

Moving on, if sibling #2 died after John but before the inheritance was distributed then is this where we get into the "unequal degree" and "by representation" aspects? Sibling #2 leaves a spouse and two children (C and D). So does #2's portion of John's estate go to #2's estate to be distributed in accordance with his/her will (or the intestate rules as they apply to #2) or would #2's portion of John's estate go to children C and D (each getting 1/2 of the 1/3) ignoring #2's living spouse?

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Is this homework help?

 

[Stephen1]

Homework? Nope. Just me going down another rabbit hole. I'm curious as to how to read this.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Are you involved in this situation in any way? If so how.

 

[Stephen1]

I'm trying to understand "equal" and "unequal" degrees of kinship when applied to the issue of a set of parents. No, this is not an actual situation nor is it "homework". Let me address how I got to this question.

I was reading about an inheritance situation from another state where the deceased had no spouse nor children nor living parents. I decided to look up how that would be handled in my state (Washington state). When I looked it up I came across the statement from the intestate rules that I quoted in my original post. I thought, well, I can understand "equal degrees of kinship" among the siblings of the deceased. That being they are all the children of the same parents. But what is "unequal degrees of kinship" and how would that apply to the siblings who were alive at the time the decedent died? I might have some differing opinions about some hierarchy when it comes to my siblings but I'm sure that this is not what the law is talking about. So that is where the question was coming from.

It is hypothetical but not being driven by any "homework" assignment. Strictly me reading a section of law and trying to understand what the legislature was trying to say. The example I laid out was my attempt to apply my understanding to a semi-concrete situation. In earlier years I dealt with laws and regulations (environmental, not inheritance). They made some sense to me when they were applied to actual situations (made sense in that I followed what the legislature/agency was doing in that situation not that I necessarily agreed with what they were doing).

I hope this helps.

 

[Zigner]

Think of your family as layers in an organizational chart. Your parents are even with each other in their boxes, below that, you and your siblings are even with each other in your boxes, below that, your kids and your siblings' kids (first cousins to each other) are even in their boxes. That is "Equal Degrees of Kinship". Now, your box is one level above that of your siblings' kids (your nephews/nieces), so you have "Unequal Degrees of Kinship" with your nephews and nieces.

 

[Shadowbunny]

I'm trying to understand "equal" and "unequal" degrees of kinship when applied to the issue of a set of parents. No, this is not an actual situation nor is it "homework". Let me address how I got to this question.

I was reading about an inheritance situation from another state where the deceased had no spouse nor children nor living parents. I decided to look up how that would be handled in my state (Washington state). When I looked it up I came across the statement from the intestate rules that I quoted in my original post. I thought, well, I can understand "equal degrees of kinship" among the siblings of the deceased. That being they are all the children of the same parents. But what is "unequal degrees of kinship" and how would that apply to the siblings who were alive at the time the decedent died? I might have some differing opinions about some hierarchy when it comes to my siblings but I'm sure that this is not what the law is talking about. So that is where the question was coming from.

It is hypothetical but not being driven by any "homework" assignment. Strictly me reading a section of law and trying to understand what the legislature was trying to say. The example I laid out was my attempt to apply my understanding to a semi-concrete situation. In earlier years I dealt with laws and regulations (environmental, not inheritance). They made some sense to me when they were applied to actual situations (made sense in that I followed what the legislature/agency was doing in that situation not that I necessarily agreed with what they were doing).

I hope this helps.

Most of the volunteers prefer not to devote time to hypothetical situations. There are online forums to have these types of discussions; perhaps one of them would better suit your "need to know."

 

[Taxing Matters]

Reading about intestate rules in my state. If there is no spouse or children or living parents, then the distribution is: "If the intestate not be survived by issue or by either parent, then to those issue of the parent or parents who survive the intestate; if they are all in the same degree of kinship to the intestate, they shall take equally, or, if of unequal degree, then those of more remote degree shall take by representation. "

I'm having a little trouble with the above understanding what "unequal degree" would mean for "issue of the parent or parents who survive the intestate".

EXAMPLE: Assume the deceased was "John". When John died, his siblings (#1, #2, #3) were alive and sibling (#4) had predeceased John. Sibling #4 had children A and B. To whom does John's estate go and in what proportions? I read it as: #1, #2, and #3 each get 1/3 of the estate. Neither sibling #4 nor his children A or B get anything as the inheritance goes to only the "issue of the parent or parents who survive the intestate". Sibling #4 did not survive the intestate.

You are misunderstanding the term "issue." You are reading it as only being the children of the parents. It is not. It includes any descendants of the parent, including grandchildren. The children are all issue of the same degree as it relates to each other. The grandchildren are all of the same degree as it relates to each other, but more remote (and thus unequal) in degree in relation to the parents. So all issue living at the time the decedent dies are considered, but what they get varies by the relationship to the deceased. Washington does this by representation, otherwise known as per stripes in other states. In that system, what happens is that you look to the closest group of relatives to the deceased that are of the same degree of kindship first. You then divide the estate equally among all those who are living at the time the person died or who themselves had issue living when he died. The share of the deceased relatives then gets split by their kids who are living at the time the person died.

For your example above, that means that the estate is intially split 4 ways because he had 4 siblings, 3 still living and one deceased but who had kids who were living at the time John died. The deceased sibling's share is then split between her living kids, A & B. The result is that Siblings 1, 2, and 3 all take 25% of the estate each, and children A & B each get 12.5% of the estate.

Moving on, if sibling #2 died after John but before the inheritance was distributed then is this where we get into the "unequal degree" and "by representation" aspects?

No. The determination of who gets to inherit is determined by who is living when John dies, not when distribution is made. So Sibling 2 still gets her share, which since she is deceased at time of distribution goes to her estate. What happens from there will then depend on whether she had a will or, if no will, what the intestate succession laws of her state are.

 

[Stephen1]

You are misunderstanding the term "issue." You are reading it as only being the children of the parents. It is not. It includes any descendants of the parent, including grandchildren. The children are all issue of the same degree as it relates to each other. The grandchildren are all of the same degree as it relates to each other, but more remote (and thus unequal) in degree in relation to the parents. So all issue living at the time the decedent dies are considered, but what they get varies by the relationship to the deceased. Washington does this by representation, otherwise known as per stripes in other states. In that system, what happens is that you look to the closest group of relatives to the deceased that are of the same degree of kindship first. You then divide the estate equally among all those who are living at the time the person died or who themselves had issue living when he died. The share of the deceased relatives then gets split by their kids who are living at the time the person died.

For your example above, that means that the estate is intially split 4 ways because he had 4 siblings, 3 still living and one deceased but who had kids who were living at the time John died. The deceased sibling's share is then split between her living kids, A & B. The result is that Siblings 1, 2, and 3 all take 25% of the estate each, and children A & B each get 12.5% of the estate.



No. The determination of who gets to inherit is determined by who is living when John dies, not when distribution is made. So Sibling 2 still gets her share, which since she is deceased at time of distribution goes to her estate. What happens from there will then depend on whether she had a will or, if no will, what the intestate succession laws of her state are.

Thank you, your statement "You are misunderstanding the term 'issue.' " was exactly the problem I was having.