untrusty Trustee??

[Zigner]

it is obviously a law, cuz that is why a trustee can get in big trouble if he disobeys the trust.

Until a civil court finds that the terms of the trust have been broken, nobody is getting in "big trouble."

That's just a matter of reality. I'm sure you will find it eventually.

 

[tranquility]

I've asked the question at least three times in this thread, what criminal law is broken if the trustee does as the beneficiary wants? Specifically. Use code numbers.

As to other legal information for those who waded in this far:

http://www.ackermanlevine.com/CM/Custom/Power-to-Replace-a-Trustee.asp

http://books.google.com/books?id=OONYE8-Y0YkC&pg=SA10-PA75&lpg=SA10-PA75&dq=beneficiary+power+to+remove+and+replace+trustee&source=bl&ots=ZfDnG4u0N4&sig=J_TdXKMgQKFfqKOcnu-OcCm8-Wc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cVWmUempBaOpiQKL-IHQDg&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=beneficiary%20power%20to%20remove%20and%20replace%20trustee&f=false

http://katzbaskies.com/katzbaskies/articles/def/F1%20-%20Recent%20Ruling%20Affects%20Powers%20to%20Remove%20and%20Replace%20Trustees%20(00015711).pdf

http://files.ali-cle.org/thumbs/datastorage/skoob/articles/14_thumb.pdf

http://www.honigman.com/files/Uploads/Documents/Lentz%20Article%20-%20Trustee%20Powers.pdf

 

[TrustUser]

i have already answered that question - at least 3 times.

it is part of basic trust law.

either the trustee is responsible for carrying out the instructions or he is not. that is a 100% true statement.

if he is not responsible, then there is no legal reason for a claim against the trustee.

but we all know that there are valid claims against trustees.

therefore it logically follows that the trustee is legally responsible for carrying out the instructions.

you know i am not a lawyer, and so want to obfuscate the issue by asking me to cite you article 3, section 2, paragraph 48 of so and so code, etc. etc. see i can use lawyerese as well - only a lawyer uses the word obfuscate. the minute i hear that word in normal conversation, it is close to a 100% chance that he is a lawyer. i know my lawyers well !!!!!

you do this because my logic has such a stranglehold on your statements that your horse has left, and you are swinging your feet for your last couple of breaths.

i will turn the tables on you and tell you to go before a judge and tell him that there is no law that requires a trustee to follow the dictates of the trust. tell him that the trustee can do whatever he darn wants to.

after the judge has stopped laughing in disbelief, let us all know what sentence he gives you in terms of numbers of hours of correct research about common trust law.

you simply have no way to combat irrefutable logic.

 

[TrustUser]

here is a 23-page pdf article that talks about trust law. it is from some guy at harvard - JOHN M.OLIN CENTER FOR
LAW, ECONOMICS, AND BUSINESS

i am not interested enough to read the actual article. but there is one section where he describes the powers and DUTIES of the trustee.

you mean common trust law actually states that the trustee has duties ? i never would have believed it !!!!!

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/Sitkoff_711.pdf

 

[anteater]

Just when I thought it was safe to poke my head above ground...

 

[TrustUser]

hi ant,

i love your cute saying. do you know where that comes from ? boy, is it ever true. people in my family tend to over-react. when if you wait for awhile, very often problems have a way of clearing up, or at least clearing our heads so that we can deal with them in the best way possible.

 

[TrustUser]

i found it - from lawrence of arabia

Colonel Brighton: Look, sir, we can't just do nothing.

General Allenby: Why not? It's usually best.

 

[TrustUser]

i dont know how self-settled trusts have any bearing on this thread.

but according to one url, a self-settled trust is - Self-settled trusts are also known as domestic asset protection trusts. These are irrevocable trusts for which the same individual is both the person setting up the trust (the settlor) and also a discretionary beneficiary of the trust.

it was my understanding that when a trustor sets up an irrevocable trust, he can't be the trustee or the beneficiary. once done, the trustor is completely out of the picture.

by the defintion that i posted above, i would not even think that a self-settled trust was legal.

this is why i wanted to know (tq) what you were defining to be a self-settled trust.

as i have stated many times before, my niche is with the typical mom and pop revocable grantor trusts that become irrevocable upon the death of both grantors.

and believe you me, the trustee is legally responsible to carry out the instructions of the trust.

it is this type of trust that affects 99.9% of the population. and is growing in ever-larger numbers as the parents of baby-boomers are dying.

 

[anteater]

i found it - from lawrence of arabia

Colonel Brighton: Look, sir, we can't just do nothing.

General Allenby: Why not? It's usually best.

Very good.

Almost as good as:

General Murray: I can't make out whether you're bloody bad-mannered or just half-witted.

Lawrence: I have the same problem, sir.

 

[TrustUser]

i recently ordered that movie on blu-ray.

i know it is a big big hit movie - but i dont think i have ever seen it.

 

[tranquility]

i have already answered that question - at least 3 times.

it is part of basic trust law.

So, you have no answer to what the state prosecutor will put in the caption of the criminal complaint. Thank you for admitting it. For those following at home, it is not a criminal offense for a trustee to not follow the terms of a trust.

That the utmost defender of such a theory cannot point it out is additional evidence.

If trustuser disagrees, I am sure he can come up with a citation.

"Basic trust law" had to do with denying the King the land he thought his. Modernly, most things are codified. Let me know when you find the purported statute.

 

[TrustUser]

good try tq,

was that your last gasp ? i think i see your legs have stopped kicking !!!!

i am resting my case, and simply allowing my logic to drown yours.

anyone who can truly believe that there is no law requiring a trustee to uphold the instructions in a trust is beyond help, in that regard.

a bigwig from harvard also disagrees with you.

i get it now. of the millions and millions of people who have gotten trusts made for themselves so that their wishes can be followed, now must be told that the trustee can do anything he wants. he does not have any legal obligations to follow anything.

by gosh, you have just killed the trust industry single-handedly !!!!!!!

let me know how long the judge laughs at your statement !!!!!

 

[TrustUser]

someone needs to make funeral arrangements for tq - his arguments just died.

here is a blurb regarding irrevocable trusts in california, where tq is supposedly most knowledgeable.

here is the first sentence - Whoever acts as the trustee of an irrevocable trust in California acts as a "fiduciary" and is responsible for performing the legal duties of a trustee as prescribed by law.

http://www.estateplanningsocal.com/trustees-duties.asp

Duties of a Trustee when Administering a California Irrevocable Trust
Whoever acts as the trustee of an irrevocable trust in California acts as a "fiduciary" and is responsible for performing the legal duties of a trustee as prescribed by law. If the trustee fails to do so properly and is challenged in court, he or she may be liable for any loss the trust incurs. Additionally, the trustee may be liable for punitive damages claimed by one or more of the trust's beneficiaries and have to pay all court costs involved in the settling the case, including the legal fees for both sides.

If challenged in court, the trustee will have to prove that his or her actions were proper and were done for the benefit of the trust and its beneficiary or beneficiaries.

By its nature, an irrevocable trust can only be changed or amended by a court order, one that is extremely difficult to receive. The trustee of an irrevocable trust can still invest the trust's assets, which can be sold or purchased, and make payments to the trust's beneficiary or beneficiaries in accordance with the trust's provisions, but little else.

Blood relationships do not exempt the trustee from the legal responsibilities, and it is not unusual for a child or children to sue a parent they feel has mismanaged a trust. Nor is it uncommon for siblings to sue each other. The children who are set to receive the proceeds of an irrevocable living trust retain legal rights, even if the trustee is the sole surviving parent. They may demand an accounting of the trust and its activities, they may inquire as to the nature of any investments, and question payments of principal made from the trust for the surviving spouse's health or support. They may even claim mismanagement of the trust and bring legal proceedings against the surviving spouse.

 

[TrustUser]

game, set and match to trustuser. he aint called trustuser for nothing.

 

[tranquility]

game, set and match to trustuser. he aint called trustuser for nothing.

Responsible to who? (Whom?)

Also, I don't think you understand anteater's literary reference either.