• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Found the "Directives for establishment of the trust"...thoughts??

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

tomgavin

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? PA

The biggest issue is that my father is 85 years old and is slowing down cognitively. He's been acting as Trustee for 15 years and has dispersed a good bit of the monies in both my daughter's and nephew's trust funds. My daughter is 22 and my nephew is 21. My father does not want to handle this any longer and does not want to go through the process of establishing an alternate or altogether new trustee.

He believes both individual are more than ready to manage the monies they are owed through the remaining funds. He's taken care of the taxes responsibly each year. and will do so again for 2015. He'd like to release the funds before 12/31. We just don't see any issues here. Does anyone else? Thanks for the feedback. It is MUCH appreciated.

The specific Directives for Establishment of the Trust" reads as follows:

"I direct that the legacy or share of real or personal property falling to any person under the age of twenty-five years...shall be paid to and retained by my trustee (name of person)..., in Trust, to invest and reinvest the same, to collect the income and paying all expenses incident to the management of the trust, to use and apply as much of the net income and principal as may be necessary for such person's support, well-being and education, and that the balance of principal and any accumulation of support, well being and education, and that the balance of principal and any accumulation of income remaining in the hands of the trustee be paid to such person upon attaining the age of twenty-five years. If my Trustee, in my trustee's sole discretion determines that it is desirable to do so, my trustee may, without further responsibility terminate any trust under this will and pay the then-remaining principal and income of that trust to the person then eligible to receive income therefrom...
If any such person is a minor, or is, in my trustee's opinion disable by illness or other cause, my trustee may pay any amount distributable to him or her parent or guardian or to any person or organization taking care of him or her, or in the case of a minor, may deposit it in a savings account in the minor's name payable to him or her at majority. I direct that such payments be made without the intervention of a guardian and the receipt of such person as may be selected by my trustee to disburse the same shall be a sufficient acquittance."
 


justalayman

Senior Member
Yes I see some possible issues so as was recommended in your other threads, your father should run this by an attorney who can read the trust documents in their entirety prior to closing the trust.

It nothing else you are relying on verbiage in the will. Whether that verbiage was carried over in identical intent or not can only be determined by reading the trust documents.
 

curb1

Senior Member
It is his trust. He is the trustee. He can distribute the assets of the trust any way he likes. Distribute and terminate the trust. This is a pretty simple situation.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
It is his trust. He is the trustee. He can distribute the assets of the trust any way he likes. Distribute and terminate the trust. This is a pretty simple situation.
It is NOT his trust. He is the trustee. He lords over the trust. The possession of the assets are not his but his as the trustee. He is required to comply with the terms of the trust lest he could be liable for any variety of matters.

No, he does not get to act in contrast of the terms of the trust and so far, we have been given what the will that funded the trust states. from the statements provided it is likely to be a testamentary trust but that is not certain. It could be a pre-existing trust with a pour over will. No way to know for sure from here. If the trust was pre-existing, then the terms of the trust would be whatever the trustor wrote them to be, regardless what the will stated. Even if it is a testamentary trust, the exact terms of the trust may not reflect exactly what the will states. Mistakes even in simple transference do happen. So, the terms of the trust must be read to determine what the terms of the trust are.

It may be a very simple situation but, again, reading the actual terms of the trust itself would be required to determine that.
 

curb1

Senior Member
If I am not mistaken (and I could be) the OP said the language of the will and the trust were exactly the same. Regardless, who is going to protest this action? If the only two people involved are the daughter and nephew and no other beneficiaries, no one will oppose to what OP and Trustee are wanting to do. No outside party is there to object. I say liquidate the trust and forget it.

You said, "It may be a very simple situation but, again, reading the actual terms of the trust itself would be required to determine that."
I agree but an attorney probably isn't necessary in this case. If the only people involved are the trustee and the two beneficiaries this is a very simple situation to disburse and liquidate the trust. No one else cares.

I don't think this can be stated any more clearly, "If my Trustee, in my trustee's sole discretion determines that it is desirable to do so, my trustee may, without further responsibility terminate any trust under this will and pay the then-remaining principal and income of that trust to the person then eligible to receive income therefrom."
 
Last edited:

justalayman

Senior Member
curb1;3375916]If I am not mistaken (and I could be) the OP said the language of the will and the trust were exactly the same.
well seriously, do you really think the terms of the will creating the trust (if it is in fact a testamentary trust and not a pre-existing trust) are identical? Ill accept there is a lot of duplicated verbiage but everything identical?

and you are accepting that the directives in the will were transferred exactly as written in the will. Crap happens sometimes and things get changed. Either refer to the actual trust or understand it is a guess and speculation.








when a person is so resistant to a suggestion they run something passed a lawyer, which is going to be a relatively minimal cost, yet they continue to want to avoid it, it really makes me wonder why. Right now there is about $120k in the trust yet OP balks at spending a couple hundred dollars, which can likely be charged off to the trust if he doesn't want to pay it out of his pocket.
 
Last edited:

LdiJ

Senior Member
well seriously, do you really think the terms of the will creating the trust (if it is in fact a testamentary trust and not a pre-existing trust) are identical? Ill accept there is a lot of duplicated verbiage but everything identical?

and you are accepting that the directives in the will were transferred exactly as written in the will. Crap happens sometimes and things get changed. Either refer to the actual trust or understand it is a guess and speculation.








when a person is so resistant to a suggestion they run something passed a lawyer, which is going to be a relatively minimal cost, yet they continue to want to avoid it, it really makes me wonder why. Right now there is about $120k in the trust yet OP balks at spending a couple hundred dollars, which can likely be charged off to the trust if he doesn't want to pay it out of his pocket.
I am actually agreeing with curb here. Every single interested party in this particular case seems to be in agreement with what should/could happen, and there appears to be no interested parties that could contest what is proposed.

The trustee is also 85 years old and even if one of the parties would decide to dispute the trustee's actions down the road, after agreeing to it now, what sense does that make?
 

justalayman

Senior Member
LdiJ;3375934]I am actually agreeing with curb here. Every single interested party in this particular case seems to be in agreement with what should/could happen, and there appears to be no interested parties that could contest what is proposed.
we know what the OP told us.



The trustee is also 85 years old and even if one of the parties would decide to dispute the trustee's actions down the road, after agreeing to it now, what sense does that make?
again, we know what the OP told us



OP can do whatever. I am simply cautioning the OP that a couple dollars is cheap assurance the terms of the trust are met. I couldn't care less whether 47 people sue the trustee or not. It's nothing off my back but the fact the OP was here asking means he nor the trustee are all that clear and accepting of what they have read, and realize they have both been able to read this trust for the previous 15 years and are still not comfortable with what is written.



Insurance is cheap. A lack of insurance can be very expensive.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top