Estate Of Louise G. Lovekin, Respondent V State Of Wa Dept Of Revenue, Appellant (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II 20I11 DEC ... 2 AN 8: 59 STATE OF WASHINGTON By IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF ' tNGTON DIVISION II No. 44867 -0 -II ESTATE OF LOUISE G. LOVEKIN, by and through its Personal Representative, OSGOOD S. LOVEKIN, JR., Respondent, v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant. LEE, J. — The Department of Revenue appealed a trial court order ordering it to refund Washington State estate tax paid by the Estate of Louise G. Lovekin on the value of QTIP included in the estate and to pay the Estate' s attorney fees and costs. That order was based on the Washington State Supreme Court' s opinion in In re Estate ofBracken, 175 Wn.2d 549, 290 P. 3d 99 ( 2012). In response to Bracken, the legislature amended the Estate and Transfer Tax Act, chapter 83. 100 RCW, in 2013, retroactive to estates of decedents, like Lovekin, who died on or after May 17, 2005. Challenges to those amendments, including their retroactivity, were brought by estates and considered by the Washington State Supreme Court in In re Estate ofHambleton, No. 89419 -1. This appeal was stayed pending a decision in Hambleton. On October 2, 2014, the Court issued its opinion in Hambleton, upholding the validity of the 2013 amendment. In re Estate of Hambleton, Wn.2d , 335 P. 3d 398 ( 2014). No. 44867 -0 -II The Department and the Estate agree that the Hambleton opinion resolves this appeal in favor of the Department and that the trial court' s order should be reversed. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court' s order in favor of the Estate and remand to the trial court for entry of judgment in favor of the Department without an award of fees or costs to either party. The mandate will issue upon filing of this opinion. A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2. 06. 040, it is so ordered. We concur: 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
