Thanks for your answers. I have studied the trust plenty and there is nothing stated in the trust to suggest any right to hold assets this way. So the question is whether there are trust laws that allow this even if it is not stated in the trust. Would the wording in the trust need to explicitly prohibit this to override such a law?
The trust must be followed. While you want to put things the other way, in that you get what you want unless it is prohibited; that is not the way trusts work. If there is not a specific provision that the property is to be distributed to you now, the trustee is not in violation. At some point, a right must vest or fail to vest. The default is 21 years from the death of some life in being at the time of the creation of the interest. In 2009, the rule was changed with A.R.S. �14-2901 so now a trust can ALSO choose a different time like a flat 90 years or the new 500 years.
Since I once took this trust to a lawyer for another reason, I know that it costs hundreds of dollars to hire a lawyer to even read it, and they will insist on reading every word, even the 90%+ of it that could not possibly apply. That lawyer is not available and wouldn't remember anyway.
Yet, that is the only way you will know.
There is money enough in the trust to pay the taxes, so the question here is whether the trust would be obligated to pay the taxes until the deed is transferred.
It depends on the trust's wording. There is often a taxes clause which shifts the burden to the beneficiaires in order to save taxes. It may not be worded obviously, but may have something to the effect of having a goal of paying the least amount of taxes on the assets. If the trust does not direct liability away, the trust should pay the taxes. If these are, in fact, property taxes, if the trust pays them, the amount going to the beneficiary can be reduced. Everything depends on the trust. I don't think a person who does not have training and some experience can effectively read many trust clauses. That's why an attorney wants to read the parts that cannot possibly apply. Because, they often do.
It was the clear intention of the creators of the trust that I own the property. Since I'm old enough to reasonably be dead before the given time, I wonder whether without the deed I have any right to sell or do any other legal thing related to the property. If not, and if there is a legal provision (unspecified in the actual trust) which would allow a trustee to withhold it, this would suggest a built-in provision for theft by default, which seems implausible, doesn't it? Would the law allow this?
You can always sell your potential rights. There would be a huge discount and I find it unlikely it would be very alienable anyway. But, you never know. The "clear intention of the creators of the trust" are embodied in the trust's words. They make specific law for specific facts. As one court said, "The issue of intent as it relates to the interpretation of a trust instrument is to be determined by examination of the language of the trust instrument itself and not by extrinsic evidence of actual intent."... "A reviewing court cannot rewrite a trust instrument. The expressed intent must control, although this is to be determined from reading the instrument as a whole in the light of the circumstances surrounding the settlor when the instrument was executed, including the condition of the estate, the relations to family and beneficiaries, and their situation and condition. The construing court will put itself as far as possible in the position of the settlor, in the effort to construe any uncertain language used by the settlor in such a way as shall, conformably to the language, give force and effect to the settlor's intention. But the quest is to determine the meaning of what the settlor said and not to speculate upon what he/she meant to say." Where a court has stepped in to rewrite/reform, in the only times I've seen, are where there was a failure of trustee succession for some reason. There could certainly be other reasons, but it is very unusual.
