Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
03/24/2014 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
Audio | Topic |
---|---|
Start | |
HB230 | |
HB316 | |
HB60 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= | HB 230 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | HB 60 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 60-UNIFORM REAL PROPERTY TRANSFERS ON DEATH 4:10:38 PM CHAIR OLSON announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 60, "An Act adopting and relating to the Uniform Real Property Transfer on Death Act." REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD made a motion to adopt a proposed committee substitute for HB 60, Version C, labeled 28-LS0265\C, Bannister, 3/14/14 as the working document. CHAIR OLSON objected for the purpose of discussion. 4:11:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG, Alaska State Legislature, stated this bill is a combination of two bills, HB 60, the Uniform Transfer on Death Act, and HB 61, which repeals the prohibition of joint tenancy with the right of survivorship in real property. These bills both relate to the transfer of real property for efficiency and to reduce costs. 4:12:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that the Uniform Real Property Transfer on Death Act allows a person to execute a transfer on death (TOD) deed that becomes effective upon one's death. The process would be to sign the transfer and record it and it becomes effective when the person dies. The person can revoke it or issue another superseding deed, and the person designated to receive the property can disclaim the transfer of property. He stated the only requirement is to ensure that the document is recorded. In other words, a "wild" deed or will that is not recorded will not affect the property. This bill, HB 60, will make it very easy to determine who owns the property. Federal and state law allow that TOD bank accounts, securities, and personal property can be owned jointly and transferred on death, with the advantage that it avoids probate and is taxed as a transfer on death. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said this matter was brought to his attention when a retired attorney, Stan Titus, who owns property in various other states, indicated that he would like to prepare his estate. He pointed out that 21 other states have this provision, with the latest state to adopt this provision being South Dakota. Currently, three other states besides Alaska are considering this change. He characterized it as being "the coming thing," and he is not aware of any opposition to the bill except by a couple of individual probate lawyers. He admitted that in complex estates it probably is a good idea for lawyers to be involved; however, the TOD deed process is a simple method for parties who have limited assets, such as owning a house in Big Lake and having a pension, since the TOD deed process avoids probate and legal fees. 4:15:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Section 5, the repealer section of HB 60. This bill even provides forms that can be used, although it isn't required that these forms be used. He pointed out that this act is uniform except for one provision in which an inter vivos deed that doesn't expressly revoke a transfer on death deed (or a part of the TOD deed) creates a rebuttable presumption that the inter vivos deed is effective to revoke a recorded TOD deed, or a part of the recorded TOD deed if the deed meets certain requirements. He said this requires that the deed completely divest the transferor of the transferor's interest in the real property that is the subject of the transfer on death deed. This provision was suggested by a witness who testified before the District of Columbia city council. It seemed to be a good idea, and Representative Gruenberg discussed it with the [uniform law] commissioners, and they do not have any objection, he said. 4:16:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG highlighted one other provision that is not part of the uniform act and that is the repealer in Section 5. Currently, the state has an old statute from Alaska's territorial days that says a person cannot hold real property jointly with a right of survivorship; instead, it has to be by tenancy in common. The difference between a tenancy in common and joint tenancy with a right of survivorship is that in both cases a present ownership in property exists. He explained it is not like a TOD deed, in which the person receives the ownership upon death, but a present ownership exists. However, with a tenancy in common if you die, your estate obtains your interest. In instances with joint tenancy with a right of survivorship, the other co-owners obtain it. In those instances, it really isn't necessary to prepare a will to transfer the property, so it is a simpler method. He explained that previously an old legal term, the four unities existed, which is rarely used. That's the reason why they didn't allow joint tenancy with the right of survivorship. The courts now look to peoples' intent so most states have gotten away from the old statutes that don't allow joint tenancy in real property. He said that this just goes with the normal law in most places. He said that Alaska is a not a "code state" but follows the common law, and this will just put it back in the common law, he explained. 4:18:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to page 2, lines 27-30, and asked for further clarification on the process. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that many uniform acts are drafted by a committee of commissioners on uniform state law, with one professor - in this instance a professor from the University of Iowa law school. This particular hypothetical situation was apparently overlooked when the uniform act was drafted. This provision means that if a second deed exists and the person doesn't revoke the original deed, which normally would contain a revocation clause, a rebuttable presumption exists, such that it is presumed that the earlier TOD deed is revoked. In instances in which the new deed completely divests the grantor of his interest in the real property and also satisfies AS 13.48.070 (1)(A)(2) means that it is "acknowledged by the transferor after the acknowledgment of the deed being revoked and recorded before the transferor's death in the recording district where the deed is recorded." He emphasized that it must be signed in front of a notary and recorded. He said that there can be a rebuttal, but normally if one deed is recorded and another deed is recorded and both indicate TOD deed, it'd be clear that the person's intent is to follow the later deed; however, a circumstance might exist where that doesn't occur. In the District of Columbia ruling it is absolute; however, he cautioned that he did not want to make it absolute since he has found there will always be some factual situation that wasn't anticipated. This language would make it rebuttable to cover any unusual circumstance. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER acknowledged it should never be absolute. 4:22:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG agreed. He pointed out that Alaska is the first state to adopt this provision. He indicated that it does not disturb uniformity and it is possible the [uniform law] commissioners may decide to pick up the provision later. In the meantime, this will provide legislative history, he said. 4:23:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a question, said that the next committee of referral, the House Judiciary Standing Committee, will examine things related [to the judiciary]. BENJAMIN ORZESKE, Legal Counsel, Uniform Law Commission for Real Property, Trust, and Estate Acts, National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), acknowledged that Representative Gruenberg did a good job describing this bill. He offered to answer any questions. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to his written testimony in members' packets. 4:24:48 PM DEBORAH RANDALL, Attorney, stated she is an estate planning attorney. She said she was absolutely delighted when the uniform bill was presented to the estate and probate section. She said she is a total believer in this. This bill will simplify matters for clients who only own a piece of real property. She explained that her typical client will have real estate, such as a house and bank accounts that can be passed through a joint account or with a beneficiary designation. Thus, the only property that can't be transferred in that manner is real property, and this bill will simplify this for countless people. She supports the proposition to keep it simple and said this bill will make it simple for people and she is not concerned that this bill will adversely affect her workload. She thinks that people will likely still use lawyers for advice, but this will provide "one more quiver in our arsenal" that we can use. She said she favored revoking the prohibition on joint tenancy by survivorship of real property and offered her belief that every state does this, including Arizona and Hawaii, which works great for parents who wish to leave property to surviving children. She reiterated that this will definitely simplify estate planning for many people. She characterized this as a "win-win" situation for everyone. 4:27:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that Ms. Randall was very involved on the probate and real estate sections. He pointed out that [lines 22-27, page 5, of Version C,] carefully advises that this action may have important legal consequences and if the party has any questions, that he/she should consult an attorney. He asked whether this was of considerable discussion. MS. RANDALL said that the main consideration was that people would be doing transfers without understanding what they were doing. She expressed that this specific language will put people on notice that more issues could exist besides the transfer of property, like creditor claims or issues surrounding children with disabilities. She said that she thought perhaps this warning would make them stop and think before they act. 4:28:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked to place on the record the reason for the prohibition during territorial days and carried forward. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he not been able to do extensive research, but he recalled one case, Carver v. Gilbert 387 P.2d 928 (1963). The case discussed the genesis of this statute. He recalled that this was taken from Oregon laws, and at the time of the Organic Act in the late 19th Century, many laws were taken from Oregon, and the four unities were important, including unity of time, title, possession, and interest. He characterized the time period as being more formal than now, and the court did not consider intention of the parties, such as how to get out from under joint tenancy and revoke it. He noted the difficultly researching Oregon laws that date back to the 1890s. 4:31:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how much property is transferred on transfer on death provisions in other states. He expressed an interest in the market share that would be taken away from probate courts by TOD provisions. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG deferred to Mr. Orzeske. MR. ORZESKE said he doesn't have hard statistics, but the first state that allowed these was Missouri in 1989, and the second state followed about eight years later. Even in Missouri, TODs represents a small percentage of transfers. He estimated it is 5 to 15 percent of transfers. 4:32:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if this action is outside the will. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG answered that [under the bill] the transfer would not be done with a will, which would generally go through probate. He added that this [transfer on death deed] can be done 20 years prior to a will or a few weeks prior to death, but it is definitely not part of the will. 4:33:20 PM KEN HELANDER, Associate State Director, Legislative Advocacy, AARP, offered support for HB 60 including the repeal of the prohibition of joint tenancy with right of survivorship. He stated that probate laws which govern the transfer of property at death vary significantly from state to state. The variations and complexity of these laws have contributed to a misunderstanding of this process. In fact, this has led to the development of uniform model legislation to simplify the process for the average consumer. Non-probate transfers, such as payment on death accounts, accounts passing by beneficiary designation, and joint accounts passing by right of survivorship do not involve the court system and thus give people a way to transfer control of personal assets without the costs and unwanted side effects of probate litigation. He said this bill would authorize TOD deeds to enable revocable non-probate real property transfers. Many older people have fixed or limited incomes and very often their principal asset is their home. Placing survivors through complex, costly, and lengthy probate procedures to settle simple matters is an unnecessary burden during a time of bereavement and stress. Transfers on death deeds also protect the property interests of the owner by avoiding many of the pitfalls that occur with deeds in common, which can even lead to financial exploitation of a vulnerable elder. The AARP believes that HB 60 will serve the best interests of Alaskans, and he encouraged passage of the bill. 4:35:39 PM MARIE DARLIN, Chair, Legislative Advocacy, AARP, said she agreed with Mr. Helander. She said the work on HB 60 started last year and the bill has had some good work since then. She urged members to please finalize the bill. She acknowledged that the AARP membership is often involved in these types of issues more than others. She offered AARP's support for the bill. 4:37:29 PM ERROL CHAMPION, Chair, Alaska Association of Realtors, Inc., stated he provided written testimony a year ago in support of HB 60, and the Alaska Association of Realtors continues to support the bill. He said this is the right direction, since the most important asset many families often have is their home. This bill will allow the right of passage without surviving relatives having to go through legal costs and the length of time to go through probate. He urged adoption of HB 60. 4:38:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER appreciated him putting this on the record. He said he had received a letter of support from realtors in Eagle River so he was pleased to have his testimony. MR. CHAMPION said it was amazing how many real estate transactions are related to the passage of ownership due to a death. [HB 60 was held over.]