Successor Trustee not Providing Accounting to Beneficiaries

[caratluvr]

CA trust, created in 1981,but amended in 2004. Successor trustee has refused to provide detailed accounting to beneficiaries ( of which he is one) regarding parents' fairly complex trust worth about $2.5 million. He quotes probate section that says accounting not required if trust created before 1985. Since Amendment dictating trust was signed in 2004, does this exemption apply?
Second spouse to die passed away in August 2010. Trust is not closed. Is this negligence?

 

[FamilyGirl]

CA trust, created in 1981,but amended in 2004. Successor trustee has refused to provide detailed accounting to beneficiaries ( of which he is one) regarding parents' fairly complex trust worth about $2.5 million. He quotes probate section that says accounting not required if trust created before 1985. Since Amendment dictating trust was signed in 2004, does this exemption apply?
Second spouse to die passed away in August 2010. Trust is not closed. Is this negligence?

I don't see how the amendment would create an exception. It was still created before July 1, 1987. Upon examination of California Probate Code he appears to be correct.

16062. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section and in
Section 16064, the trustee shall account at least annually, at the
termination of the trust, and upon a change of trustee, to each
beneficiary to whom income or principal is required or authorized in
the trustee's discretion to be currently distributed.
(b) A trustee of a living trust created by an instrument executed
before July 1, 1987, is not subject to the duty to account provided
by subdivision (a).
(c) A trustee of a trust created by a will executed before July 1,
1987, is not subject to the duty to account provided by subdivision
(a), except that if the trust is removed from continuing court
jurisdiction pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 17350) of
Chapter 4 of Part 5, the duty to account provided by subdivision (a)
applies to the trustee.
(d) Except as provided in Section 16064, the duty of a trustee to
account pursuant to former Section 1120.1a of the Probate Code (as
repealed by Chapter 820 of the Statutes of 1986), under a trust
created by a will executed before July 1, 1977, which has been
removed from continuing court jurisdiction pursuant to former Section
1120.1a, continues to apply after July 1, 1987. The duty to account
under former Section 1120.1a may be satisfied by furnishing an
account that satisfies the requirements of Section 16063.
(e) Any limitation or waiver in a trust instrument of the
obligation to account is against public policy and shall be void as
to any sole trustee who is either of the following:
(1) A disqualified person as defined in Section 21350.5.
(2) Described in subdivision (a) of Section 21380, but not
described in Section 21382.

 

[tranquility]

It is no longer a revocable or "living" trust nor is the OP requesting annual accountings. But, I might make a reasonable request under:

16061. Except as provided in Section 16069, on reasonable request
by a beneficiary, the trustee shall report to the beneficiary by
providing requested information to the beneficiary relating to the
administration of the trust relevant to the beneficiary's interest.

 

[caratluvr]

I don't see how the amendment would create an exception. It was still created before July 1, 1987. Upon examination of California Probate Code he appears to be correct.

16062. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section and in
Section 16064, the trustee shall account at least annually, at the
termination of the trust, and upon a change of trustee, to each
beneficiary to whom income or principal is required or authorized in
the trustee's discretion to be currently distributed.
(b) A trustee of a living trust created by an instrument executed
before July 1, 1987, is not subject to the duty to account provided
by subdivision (a).
(c) A trustee of a trust created by a will executed before July 1,
1987, is not subject to the duty to account provided by subdivision
(a), except that if the trust is removed from continuing court
jurisdiction pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 17350) of
Chapter 4 of Part 5, the duty to account provided by subdivision (a)
applies to the trustee.
(d) Except as provided in Section 16064, the duty of a trustee to
account pursuant to former Section 1120.1a of the Probate Code (as
repealed by Chapter 820 of the Statutes of 1986), under a trust
created by a will executed before July 1, 1977, which has been
removed from continuing court jurisdiction pursuant to former Section
1120.1a, continues to apply after July 1, 1987. The duty to account
under former Section 1120.1a may be satisfied by furnishing an
account that satisfies the requirements of Section 16063.
(e) Any limitation or waiver in a trust instrument of the
obligation to account is against public policy and shall be void as
to any sole trustee who is either of the following:
(1) A disqualified person as defined in Section 21350.5.
(2) Described in subdivision (a) of Section 21380, but not
described in Section 21382.

Thank you so much for your answer. I do not really understand all the code citations of the exceptions, but I gather that trustee is not required, in my case, to provide full accounting.
Do you think that four years is an exceptionally long time to take to settle this estate, which was largely in cash, and had one property to retitle ? I feel that excessive fees have been paid to the consulting attorney and the CPA because of this extended time. The trustee is himself a real estate attorney.
Thank you

 

[caratluvr]

It is no longer a revocable or "living" trust nor is the OP requesting annual accountings. But, I might make a reasonable request under:

Thank you for your answer. I did realize that the operating trust is now the irrevocable trust created when the first spouse died.
My "reasonable requests" have been answered with incomplete facts, and an invitation to peruse the "bank statements that I do have".
I feel that the four years the trustee has taken to settle this estate is excessive, given that it was left largely in cash, the house was sold within a year, and there was one property remaining that he needed to retitle. Trustee is a real estate attorney, and is also the managing partner on the real property for which title needed to be transferred to the beneficiaries. I feel that the four years that he has taken to accomplish this, and to distribute assets has been excessive, and has incurred excessive legal fees to his consulting attorney, and to the CPA doing the tax returns. What are the remedies, if any for excessive fees paid to settle the estate?
Again, thanks for your response.
Caratluvr

 

[tranquility]

Thank you for your answer. I did realize that the operating trust is now the irrevocable trust created when the first spouse died.
My "reasonable requests" have been answered with incomplete facts, and an invitation to peruse the "bank statements that I do have".
I feel that the four years the trustee has taken to settle this estate is excessive, given that it was left largely in cash, the house was sold within a year, and there was one property remaining that he needed to retitle. Trustee is a real estate attorney, and is also the managing partner on the real property for which title needed to be transferred to the beneficiaries. I feel that the four years that he has taken to accomplish this, and to distribute assets has been excessive, and has incurred excessive legal fees to his consulting attorney, and to the CPA doing the tax returns. What are the remedies, if any for excessive fees paid to settle the estate?
Again, thanks for your response.
Caratluvr

An "estate" is not a "trust". I have no idea what you were requesting or what you think you deserve from this complex trust/estate/whatever. A trust can be in existence for years after a death. An estate should be settled long before now absent unusual facts. You have not alleged any fiduciary breach as yet or if the fees were from a breach. There are no "excessive" fees unless the paying of them was a fiduciary breach.

 

[caratluvr]

An "estate" is not a "trust". I have no idea what you were requesting or what you think you deserve from this complex trust/estate/whatever. A trust can be in existence for years after a death. An estate should be settled long before now absent unusual facts. You have not alleged any fiduciary breach as yet or if the fees were from a breach. There are no "excessive" fees unless the paying of them was a fiduciary breach.

Thank you again for clarification. Perhaps you can elucidate for me the difference between the "estate" in this case, and the "trust". I do not believe any assets will remain in the trust once the estate is settled and distributed.
I was, in fact, questioning a breach the fiduciary relationship in this case. The trustee is my brother. My profession for the 15 years prior to my Father's death was Certified Financial Planner. I also personally took care of all my Father's accounting, bill paying, and income taxes. When he was ill, I acted as his representative in his business partnerships.
When it came time to transfer the trusteeship to my brother, I gave my brother all of the account information that I had. In addition, I answered his questions, and I told him how to reach the various account representatives. I also handled the distribution of my Fathers IRA to the beneficiaries, since I was the Registered Representative on the account, and it was not in his revocable trust.
I requested that my brother distribute a certain asset "in kind" - mainly one stock in my father's portfolio. Instead, he had the trust sell all of the shares, and distributed the cash. So the trust paid the income taxes on the gain. He did this a year later than I requested that my share of the stock be transferred to me directly.
The CPA who did my father's personal returns for many years is not a "trust" accountant, and does not do trust returns. And yet, my brother continues to use him for the returns. This CPA has to send the returns to a trust CPA to review before he finalizes them. That has caused excessive charges, in my opinion. I have asked my brother to go directly to a trust CPA, but he stayed with the original accountant out of loyalty. I believe this is a breach of his fiduciary duty.
As far as excessive fees to the attorney, I do not know why he would have needed the legal advice he sought, since he himself is a real estate attorney. The estate attorney would not allow any of the beneficiaries to utilize him, or attend the meetings with my brother, as the attorney stated that he was representing only my brother, the successor trustee. The fees were of course paid by the trust.
There have been other examples of negligence on the part of my brother. He told me he would close the trust out by the end of 2013, but did not do so. He has not distributed all of the assets in the estate. Therefore, we are paying for another year of fees for the CPA and the attorney. He is also, as successor trustee, "calculating" the fee to which he feels he is entitled. His best and only "estimate" he has provided me is $60,000. I have asked him to give the beneficiaries the explanation of the duties performed for the fee he "calculates" prior to closing the trust and distributing all of the assets.
If you do not feel that these actions constitute a fiduciary breach, then I will not pursue any remedies for the beneficiaries. Please let me know if you feel there is fiduciary breach, and what remedies we (beneficiaries) may have. Thank you again. Caratluvr.

 

[tranquility]

Thank you again for clarification. Perhaps you can elucidate for me the difference between the "estate" in this case, and the "trust". I do not believe any assets will remain in the trust once the estate is settled and distributed.

The estate is the entity that holds all property owned by dad at his death that is distributed by probate. A trust is a separate entity that holds property that is distributed by the trustee according to the trust's terms.

I was, in fact, questioning a breach the fiduciary relationship in this case. The trustee is my brother. My profession for the 15 years prior to my Father's death was Certified Financial Planner. I also personally took care of all my Father's accounting, bill paying, and income taxes. When he was ill, I acted as his representative in his business partnerships.

No breach alleged here.

When it came time to transfer the trusteeship to my brother, I gave my brother all of the account information that I had. In addition, I answered his questions, and I told him how to reach the various account representatives. I also handled the distribution of my Fathers IRA to the beneficiaries, since I was the Registered Representative on the account, and it was not in his revocable trust.

Still none.

I requested that my brother distribute a certain asset "in kind" - mainly one stock in my father's portfolio. Instead, he had the trust sell all of the shares, and distributed the cash. So the trust paid the income taxes on the gain. He did this a year later than I requested that my share of the stock be transferred to me directly.

Not following your request is not a breach. Turning assets into cash is often easier for distribution and accounting purposes. Distribution of in kind assets when there are multiple beneficiaries can be problematical. Say I have $1,000 in cash and $1,000 in an IRA, if I distribute them cash to one and IRA to other, there is a problem. Say the IRA is a Roth. Same problem but the equities shift. While it is possible there is a breach here, depending on the reason why he made the sale, having administered many trusts and estates, I tend to turn assets into cash.

The CPA who did my father's personal returns for many years is not a "trust" accountant, and does not do trust returns. And yet, my brother continues to use him for the returns. This CPA has to send the returns to a trust CPA to review before he finalizes them. That has caused excessive charges, in my opinion. I have asked my brother to go directly to a trust CPA, but he stayed with the original accountant out of loyalty. I believe this is a breach of his fiduciary duty.
As far as excessive fees to the attorney, I do not know why he would have needed the legal advice he sought, since he himself is a real estate attorney. The estate attorney would not allow any of the beneficiaries to utilize him, or attend the meetings with my brother, as the attorney stated that he was representing only my brother, the successor trustee. The fees were of course paid by the trust.

A CPA who can't do trust returns? Goodness, the entity must be quite complex with many issues. As to retaining the CPA who knows the assets who then needs the review of a specialized CPA or attorney is often cost effective. Getting a specialist up to speed can get expensive fast. Where, a review is fairly inexpensive. I do not think this is even close to a breach, but good management. As to getting the advice of a real estate attorney, one might recall who has a fool as a client. Also, it is protective to fiduciary breach to get the advice of experts. It is not a breach not to if one has the requisite training and experience. The opposite is not the case. The experts paid by the trust through the trustee are not the experts of the beneficiaries. If you were allowed in any meetings, attorney/client privilege would be broken. There is no breach.

There have been other examples of negligence on the part of my brother. He told me he would close the trust out by the end of 2013, but did not do so. He has not distributed all of the assets in the estate. Therefore, we are paying for another year of fees for the CPA and the attorney. He is also, as successor trustee, "calculating" the fee to which he feels he is entitled. His best and only "estimate" he has provided me is $60,000. I have asked him to give the beneficiaries the explanation of the duties performed for the fee he "calculates" prior to closing the trust and distributing all of the assets.

Sure would like to see the trust and the assets. Then I might guess as to if this is even close to a problem. Intentionally delaying closing to up fees is common with professional fiduciaries. (Banks etc.) They don't get sued for breach much. While this could be a breach, if there is any case that can be made the trust should not be distributed yet, it is probably fine.

If you do not feel that these actions constitute a fiduciary breach, then I will not pursue any remedies for the beneficiaries. Please let me know if you feel there is fiduciary breach, and what remedies we (beneficiaries) may have. Thank you again. Caratluvr.

Without seeing the trust and the assets, I can't tell. The closest might be in regards to the stock sale. However, without knowing the reason why, it is also difficult to tell. Nothing here screams a breach. If you are concerned, get an attorney to review the actual facts. With your knowledge of the assets, a good estimate might be made as to the time required to shut things down and distribute.

 

[caratluvr]

Successor Trustee not Providing Accountig to Beneficiaries

The estate is the entity that holds all property owned by dad at his death that is distributed by probate. A trust is a separate entity that holds property that is distributed by the trustee according to the trust's terms.

No breach alleged here.
Still none.
Not following your request is not a breach. Turning assets into cash is often easier for distribution and accounting purposes. Distribution of in kind assets when there are multiple beneficiaries can be problematical. Say I have $1,000 in cash and $1,000 in an IRA, if I distribute them cash to one and IRA to other, there is a problem. Say the IRA is a Roth. Same problem but the equities shift. While it is possible there is a breach here, depending on the reason why he made the sale, having administered many trusts and estates, I tend to turn assets into cash.
A CPA who can't do trust returns? Goodness, the entity must be quite complex with many issues. As to retaining the CPA who knows the assets who then needs the review of a specialized CPA or attorney is often cost effective. Getting a specialist up to speed can get expensive fast. Where, a review is fairly inexpensive. I do not think this is even close to a breach, but good management. As to getting the advice of a real estate attorney, one might recall who has a fool as a client. Also, it is protective to fiduciary breach to get the advice of experts. It is not a breach not to if one has the requisite training and experience. The opposite is not the case. The experts paid by the trust through the trustee are not the experts of the beneficiaries. If you were allowed in any meetings, attorney/client privilege would be broken. There is no breach.
Sure would like to see the trust and the assets. Then I might guess as to if this is even close to a problem. Intentionally delaying closing to up fees is common with professional fiduciaries. (Banks etc.) They don't get sued for breach much. While this could be a breach, if there is any case that can be made the trust should not be distributed yet, it is probably fine.
Without seeing the trust and the assets, I can't tell. The closest might be in regards to the stock sale. However, without knowing the reason why, it is also difficult to tell. Nothing here screams a breach. If you are concerned, get an attorney to review the actual facts. With your knowledge of the assets, a good estimate might be made as to the time required to shut things down and distribute.

Again, thanks for all of the detailed responses to my concerns. I believe the only other incidents I could cite to you which scream breach to me are 1) taking an account at Dad's bank ( with $100,000 in it)that was outside of his trust, and had his name and my name on it, and managing to convince the bank to fold it into the Revocable Trust, prior to rolling it into the irrevocable trust. It had only my Dad's name and my name on it, so I could pay his bills on a regular basis. 2)His second eggregious error was not stopping the automatic bill paying service for the gardener, pool cleaning service, etc., prior to closing me out of the account. I had managed the automatic payments for Dad's trust account. My brother was unable to change the sign-on for the account, and when a new card came, he did not inform me, so i could not see what accounts were being paid. We paid the gardener for at least a year beyond my father's death without any communication from him and without any knowledge on my brothers part. It may or may not have been appropriate, since he did not sell the house for a full year after my fathers death ( delayed for no reason). 3) One of the assets(a limited partnership) was losing money and heading into bankruptcy when my Dad died. It was worth about $45,000 out of the $100,000 originally invested. It continued to drop in value, and the CPA and my brother failed to write off the loss on on the trust tax returns. We waited every year until the end of September for the K-1 from this partnership. My brother's "expert" adviser has now told him that he can "abandon" this asset. I would like the trust to get the tax deduction for the loss.
4) Finally, and probably the reason for the long delay in the settlement, the remaining asset which is real property will be retained by my Dad's beneficiaries, as a 1/3 partner. My brother wanted to create an LLC for my Dad's beneficiaries, which would have tied all of our interests together. Since 1963, this has been a limited partnership with partners from 3 different families, and my Dad and his partners had an agreement that no partner would sell to persons outside these families. If i were included in my brothers LLC, I would have been limited to selling my interest to only the members within the LLC he was creating, and that would have been out paid for out of their current income (which would have taken 10 years). I told my brother I did not want to be in the LLC, and I wanted to own my individual 1/9th interest. He agreed, however, it has taken him these three years to create the LLC, to clear up the property tax differences between direct heirs and beneficiaries who are grandchildren, and to file the LLC with the State of CA. I know that the expenses paid for this endeavor have been taken out of the trust, and I don't think I should have to pay for the establishment of the LLC, or for the transactions with the attorney or the State Tax Department since I did not want to be part of that endeavor from the beginning. My brother has still not transferred title to me for my 1/9 interest. He is also the managing partner of this limited partnership, and has been for about 8 years after my father gave up that position.
So now I have provided more details about the assets. The trust is very loose about the duties of the trustee. He has full powers over the assets, and has the right to "reasonable" compensation.
I do accept your conclusion that no breach had been committed. If you still feel that way with this further lengthy detailed explanation, I accept your opinion, and truly appreciate your diligence in considering all of the facts i have presented.

 

[tranquility]

Again, thanks for all of the detailed responses to my concerns. I believe the only other incidents I could cite to you which scream breach to me are 1) taking an account at Dad's bank ( with $100,000 in it)that was outside of his trust, and had his name and my name on it, and managing to convince the bank to fold it into the Revocable Trust, prior to rolling it into the irrevocable trust. It had only my Dad's name and my name on it, so I could pay his bills on a regular basis.

This might be breach of his duties as the executor, but more facts would need to be known. Banks are not usually in the business of changing owners of accounts through convincing. If there was a pourover will and he had letters testimentary, there is no problem.

2)His second eggregious error was not stopping the automatic bill paying service for the gardener, pool cleaning service, etc., prior to closing me out of the account. I had managed the automatic payments for Dad's trust account. My brother was unable to change the sign-on for the account, and when a new card came, he did not inform me, so i could not see what accounts were being paid. We paid the gardener for at least a year beyond my father's death without any communication from him and without any knowledge on my brothers part. It may or may not have been appropriate, since he did not sell the house for a full year after my fathers death ( delayed for no reason).

Your loss of control or oversight is of no legal concern. Nor is paying for the maintenance of trust/estate owned property. Not converting empty property for a year to cash might be a problem unless there is a reason. Market going up, need to fix up, don't need cash or something like that might be the reason.

3) One of the assets(a limited partnership) was losing money and heading into bankruptcy when my Dad died. It was worth about $45,000 out of the $100,000 originally invested. It continued to drop in value, and the CPA and my brother failed to write off the loss on on the trust tax returns. We waited every year until the end of September for the K-1 from this partnership. My brother's "expert" adviser has now told him that he can "abandon" this asset. I would like the trust to get the tax deduction for the loss.

I cannot give an answer here without seeing the K-1, tax return and basis calculations. This is almost assuredly a passive income issue with suspended passive losses that cannot be freed up until the final K-1.

4) Finally, and probably the reason for the long delay in the settlement, the remaining asset which is real property will be retained by my Dad's beneficiaries, as a 1/3 partner. My brother wanted to create an LLC for my Dad's beneficiaries, which would have tied all of our interests together. Since 1963, this has been a limited partnership with partners from 3 different families, and my Dad and his partners had an agreement that no partner would sell to persons outside these families. If i were included in my brothers LLC, I would have been limited to selling my interest to only the members within the LLC he was creating, and that would have been out paid for out of their current income (which would have taken 10 years). I told my brother I did not want to be in the LLC, and I wanted to own my individual 1/9th interest. He agreed, however, it has taken him these three years to create the LLC, to clear up the property tax differences between direct heirs and beneficiaries who are grandchildren, and to file the LLC with the State of CA. I know that the expenses paid for this endeavor have been taken out of the trust, and I don't think I should have to pay for the establishment of the LLC, or for the transactions with the attorney or the State Tax Department since I did not want to be part of that endeavor from the beginning. My brother has still not transferred title to me for my 1/9 interest. He is also the managing partner of this limited partnership, and has been for about 8 years after my father gave up that position.

Can't even guess. It sounds like there is a real attempt to resolve a complex issue. I don't know why you think your alienation rights are restricted more through the LLC than just being a minority owner, but, I don't think you would be hurt from agreeing here. Unless you have a serious concern, perhaps it is your intransigence that is slowing down distribution.

So now I have provided more details about the assets. The trust is very loose about the duties of the trustee. He has full powers over the assets, and has the right to "reasonable" compensation.
I do accept your conclusion that no breach had been committed. If you still feel that way with this further lengthy detailed explanation, I accept your opinion, and truly appreciate your diligence in considering all of the facts i have presented.

I think the best two things to look into would be the placing of the money into the trust and the stock sale.

 

[caratluvr]

This might be breach of his duties as the executor, but more facts would need to be known. Banks are not usually in the business of changing owners of accounts through convincing. If there was a pourover will and he had letters testimentary, there is no problem.

Your loss of control or oversight is of no legal concern. Nor is paying for the maintenance of trust/estate owned property. Not converting empty property for a year to cash might be a problem unless there is a reason. Market going up, need to fix up, don't need cash or something like that might be the reason.

I cannot give an answer here without seeing the K-1, tax return and basis calculations. This is almost assuredly a passive income issue with suspended passive losses that cannot be freed up until the final K-1.

Can't even guess. It sounds like there is a real attempt to resolve a complex issue. I don't know why you think your alienation rights are restricted more through the LLC than just being a minority owner, but, I don't think you would be hurt from agreeing here. Unless you have a serious concern, perhaps it is your intransigence that is slowing down distribution.

I think the best two things to look into would be the placing of the money into the trust and the stock sale.

Thanks for looking into all of these issues. Even though I feel that the LLC itself on the real property is the complication, and my ownership distribution is just like it was for all of the existing partners, perhaps that created arithmetic problems for my brother within the LLC. There was a pourover will, but I did not think that applied to an account my father would have had outside of his trust.
In any case, I will accept the final settlement, and I hope to let go of my judgments soon,and keep a brother.
Thanks again for the enlightenment, and the alternative perspective.

 

[colourfastt]

Thanks for looking into all of these issues. Even though I feel that the LLC itself on the real property is the complication, and my ownership distribution is just like it was for all of the existing partners, perhaps that created arithmetic problems for my brother within the LLC. There was a pourover will, but I did not think that applied to an account my father would have had outside of his trust.
In any case, I will accept the final settlement, and I hope to let go of my judgments soon,and keep a brother.
Thanks again for the enlightenment, and the alternative perspective.

That's the purpose of a pour-over will .. to handle those things outside of the trust.

 

[caratluvr]

That's the purpose of a pour-over will .. to handle those things outside of the trust.

The only difference in this outside account is that it was held jointly by me and my father. If that still gives the trustee the right to put it into the trust, then that is fine. I was there, the bank knew me, and they still allowed my brother, the successor trustee, to transfer the account into the irrevocable trust. The account was created when we had trouble with the bill paying service at the bank, so I could get access to the funds to pay my fathers bills. As it turned out, I no longer had access to those funds, or the bill paying account, so some of his regularly scheduled bills continued to be paid long after my father was deceased.
Thank you for your answer.

 

[colourfastt]

The only difference in this outside account is that it was held jointly by me and my father. If that still gives the trustee the right to put it into the trust, then that is fine. I was there, the bank knew me, and they still allowed my brother, the successor trustee, to transfer the account into the irrevocable trust. The account was created when we had trouble with the bill paying service at the bank, so I could get access to the funds to pay my fathers bills. As it turned out, I no longer had access to those funds, or the bill paying account, so some of his regularly scheduled bills continued to be paid long after my father was deceased.
Thank you for your answer.

That would depend on how the account was titled.

 

[caratluvr]

That would depend on how the account was titled.

I am not sure what you mean by how it was titled. The account was titled in my father's and my names, with no qualifying asssociations, or additional titles, or trust ID. It was a regular checking and savings account at the bank in which all of my father's trust accounts were held.
The account was opened in November 2009. My father passed away in August 2010. My brother took over as successor trustee in approximately June 2010, with my father's consent, as my father's health was failing.
Does that explain your question regarding the transfer of this account and how it was titled?
Thank you again.