We dirt lawyers get as much friends-and-family as anyone else in the profession: “We need a simple deed for a gift.” Grab a boilerplate form, get the names, copy-and-paste a metes-and-bounds, fill in the online-fillable transfer tax docs, and send it to the County Clerk. OK for almost all.

But when the tax lawyers who don’t do conveyancing tell their clients to have the local dirt guy do it, or try to DIY, you get stuff like William P. Wells and Ruth E. Wells, Docket No. 13104-24, filed 5/29/25 (to end Palindrome Week).

Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler has this charitable gift deduction case, which, mirabile dictù, is neither façade nor conservation, but a straight-out fee simple.

Bill and Ruth get partial summary J for qualified appraisal, even though said appraiser left his TIN off the written appraisal and the Form 8283; substantial compliance saves.

But the CWA is dubious, and thereby hangs the cliché.

CWA is strict-rules, no substantial compliance. But CWA need not be in any particular form, and documents can be read together to comply. What Bill and Ruth have is (1) the Form 8283, (2) Bill’s letter to the 501(c)(3) identifying the property, stating the appraised worth, and enclosing the quitclaim deed, (3) the handwritten reply from 501(c)(3) thanking Bill and Ruth for the gift and acknowledging the appraised worth, and (4) the deed.

Of course the acknowledgment letter is a nonstarter as it flunks most of the Section 170(f)(8)(B) tests. But how about the deed?

“Looking to the Quitclaim Deed, we acknowledge the language is favorable to petitioners, since it provides consideration of only ‘ten dollars’ and lacks language such as ‘other good and valuable consideration.’ The Quitclaim Deed, however, also references a special warranty deed, or deed of gift, which contains the legal description of the property transferred and states the transfer was made in ‘consideration of the sum of ten dollars, cash paid in hand, and other good and valuable consideration.’ We find this language to be internally inconsistent. We also acknowledge how the Quitclaim Deed is merely that, a document conveying title and signed by petitioner.

“Both parties have filed a motion for partial summary judgment on petitioners’ compliance with the CWA requirements found under section 170(f)(8)(B); which usually causes us to conclude the issue ripe for summary adjudication. After looking to the documents collectively, however, we find the issue of petitioners’ CWA statutory compliance to be a mixed question of law and fact, distinguishable from the foregoing cases. Accordingly, we will decline ruling on the issue until trial and deny the parties respective cross-motions.” Order, at p. 7.

Obviously Judge Speedy Weiler never did any conveyancing either, because I’ll wager that special covenant and warranty deed was referenced to show that what Bill and Ruth conveyed to 501(c)(3) was “being and intended to be the same premises as in SCW Deed dated X from A to B and recorded etc.” It’s standard practice to show that what grantor is conveying now is what grantor got then.

But Judge Speedy Weiler got it right, in that the grantee never signed the Quitclaim Deed. That surely is better practice, even though it’s at least arguable that the acknowledgment letter did serve. See my blogpost “No In Deed,” 3/23/16, wherein I have more to say on this topic, discussing a case cited in Judge Speedy Weiler’s order.

And especially see my blogpost “Yes In Deed,” 7/16/12, wherein I give this warning: “Note to dirt lawyers: Please don’t use boilerplate printed real estate forms for making a conservation easement. The old ‘ten dollars and other good and valuable consideration’ bargain and sale deed form, available at dime-store prices, might be good enough for a routine single-family house sale, but not for a big-time transaction with heavy-duty tax deductions on the table. Read the IRC; draft your language with great care. Have both grantor and grantee sign the deed. Use a proper integration clause. And remember Schrimsher, where somebody’s lawyer used a dime-store form and blew up their client.”