(c) All property returned to the estate of the testator under this section belongs to the surviving spouse in accordance with article 101, as if the transfer had not taken place. Washington is a state belonging to the community. It`s one of nine (the others are Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Wisconsin). Married couples living in one of these community-based states often mistakenly assume that everything they own is community property. This is not always true. For example, if a spouse bought a property before the marriage,. B for example a house, it is generally considered as a separate property from this spouse. Or, if one of the spouses receives an inheritance during the marriage, it is also generally considered separate property. If a deceased spouse attempts to transfer more than his/her 1/2 interest in the community property by will, the transfer is voidable for the surviving spouse. Although rarely used these days, in situations where one of the spouses is particularly wealthy, a spouse may use a strategy to stipulate in the will that all community property must be held in an irrevocable trust for the benefit of the surviving spouse during their lifetime. The will may also provide that the surviving spouse may either accept this agreement or make the choice to assert the right of the surviving spouse to 1/2 of the property of the community and to waive the right to the execution for life of the deceased`s 1/2 interest in the property of the community. This is called the “forced election” or “widow`s election.” However, if the couple has entered into an agreement that converts their community property into “aggregate theory,” a non-proportional distribution is not treated as barter and is not taxed. Except in the cases provided for in article 224, when spouses who leave communal or quasi-communal property die, and it cannot be proved by clear and convincing evidence that one of the spouses has survived the other: sometimes the problem of the transfer of a particular object of common property can be solved by the spouses accepting the use of the aggregate theory of common property.

The aggregate theory of community property is essentially the idea that each spouse owns 1/2 of the community`s property per value rather than per lot. Therefore, according to the aggregate theory, a spouse can inherit half of his or her assets without mentioning a specific asset. According to the theory of the article, a spouse has only the power to dispose of his or her 1/2 interest in a particular community property. California`s standard rule is to follow the theory of the article, unless the spouses agree otherwise in writing. First of all, what`s the difference? Section 100 of the California Estate Code provides that upon the death of a spouse, half of each property belongs to the surviving spouse and the other half of each property to the deceased spouse. This is commonly referred to as the “proportional” theory of community property. And this can lead to problems. Many community property agreements are automatically revoked by their terms if a spouse resides outside of Washington or if a spouse files a motion for separation or dissolution of marriage.

You may not want to have this type of agreement if you live in a non-EU state. And if someone who has just divorced dies, it can be assumed that they do not want the surviving spouse to automatically receive all their property. Why is it important to have a contract between spouses that implements the aggregate theory of community property? (a) In the event of the death of a person married or in a registered partnership, half of the property in the community belongs to the surviving spouse and the other half to the deceased. While a comprehensive analysis of community versus separate assets is beyond the scope of this blog post, it is important for spouses to understand what a “standard” community property agreement is and whether it could benefit them. Essentially, a community ownership agreement says, “What belongs to me is yours, and what belongs to you belongs to me. As a general rule, on the death of the first spouse, he converts all the property separated from that spouse into common property and transfers all the property of the community to the surviving spouse. Why would anyone want to do that? The States belonging to the Community use a complicated formula used to determine the extent to which the balance of a mixed balance is Community and how much is individual. This formula is used on the death of the first spouse to determine how much of the mixed property account belongs to the surviving spouse as common property. .