Heir dies - does wife inherit?

[tranquility]

Provided the trustees are trustworthy, right-minded and fair. Far better to have a neutral party who is not a benefiricary or a corporate trustee handle an estate where they may be the possibilty of underhandedness amongst siblings. Save yourself tens of thousands of dollars in attorneys fees and even hundreds of thousands when it comes to litigation.

And provided the myriad little details are properly covered. And a person is aware of the additional costs through the life of the trust. And a person is ready for the additional complexities and responsibilities of managing assests during the life of the trust. And..

(By the way, although it's great to have a corporate trustee as the last in a list of successor trustees to make sure the trust will always have someone in charge, once they get their hands into a trust it is near impossible to pry them loose. I hate corporate trustees. They don't care about anything except their fee and not doing anything which could get them sued.)

 

[TrustUser]

to me, a corporate trustee is a last resort.

if the beneficiaries cant be trusted, then a good friend.

most of the problems that seem to be posted here are in regards to beneficiaries, but that is because most trusts are handled by them.

i wonder what percentage of trusts handled by a sibling actually result in underhandedness by the trustee-sibling ?

the trust document that i made always allows the beneficiary to get rid of the trustee immediately and for no reason. this is just one of many important clauses that a trust should have.

then a sibling can be gotten rid of, as well. (from the trustee position, that is - lol).

as far as added complexities during the life of the trust, i dont know of many. once titled, there is nothing much left to do, while the grantor is alive.

once deceased, if the assets remain in trust (which i think they should, for protection reasons), there is an extra tax return for the trust, which then typically shuffles all the income produced to the beneficiary.

but if the assets were all held individually, then those assets would be reported individually, thus complicating the individual return. so 6 of one, a half dozen of the other.

every profession, not just attorneys, tries its darndest to protect itself, just like people do - it is called self-survival. everything else depends on it. just remember that the probate system, which is comprised of judges and lawyers, make fees on wills, and nada on trusts.

you just cant expect to get a non-biased opinion from someone who has a stake in the outcome. again, this is true in EVERY WALK OF LIFE. there are very few real consultants. most are attached in some way, to some product. this was equally true in my field of computers.

do you think the dodge car salesman is gonna talk about fords ? etc. etc.

if one looks at everyone who gives advice, as basically a salesman with something to sell and gain from the selling - one makes a much better consumer for one's self.

 

[truthandhonor]

Thanks for the reminder, Trustuser. From a beneficiary's standpoint, I think that if there is a problem with a trust or the trustee and there is no love or respect amongst family members, then the bully of the bunch usually takes over the weak, naive, or the innocent because they can. That's when a good attorney is worth his/her weight in gold. As one Ass't AG told me, the law demands fairness.