Testamentary Trust Issues - High distribution age, adoption inclusion, grandparents

[toddmanqa]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New York

I'm in the process of creating a testamentary trust (with the assistance of an attorney) for my one minor child, and I have a few questions:

The trust will be set up to pay for the health and welfare of the child while they are a minor, buy them a car, pay for their college, help them buy a house, pay for their weddings, and help them save for retirement.

There are no provisions for partial distributions of the remaining trust funds in terms of '1/3 of trust funds at age 18', '1/3 at age 25', etc. Instead, I've specified a 100% distribution at age 50.

1. Would the child be able to challenge that distribution age as an unreasonable age?

2. I only have one child now, but plan on adoptiong one or more children in the future. Can I include these future children in the trust, or would that violate the perpituity prohibition? Should I instead simply revise the trust document to include them when the adoption is complete?

3. I've named the grandparents of my child as beneficiaries of the trust in terms of offering to reimburse them for visitation expenses (airfare, hotel, meals, etc) so the grandparents can visit the child (or the child can visit the grandparents). Is there any legal risk or issue in doing so? Would it give the grandparents any possible unintended claim on the trust funds?

4. I'm planning on naming a close family member as the initial trustee, then switch the trustee to a trust department of a major bank when the child turns 25. I'm doing so because the family member would be in his 90s when the final distrubtion would take place. Any problem with this, or things to consider?

5. I'm planning on naming a Trust Protector with the power to remove and replace the Trustee. Any problem with this, or things to consider?

Thanks!
ToddWhat is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[TrustUser]

1) some trusts are kept alive for many generations, so no age is "unreasonable". you may do what you want with your money.

2) it is typical language to include unborn children and adopted children as equal heirs as part of the trust document.

3) i dont understand this. your children are the beneficiaries. and i certainly would not include your grandparents, understanding your desires. they can always be compensated for airfare, etc.

4) personally, i would never have a trust department for a trustee. there typically is language in a trust as to how a successor trustee is named. trying to predict who is best for that job 50 years from now is to quote the borg, "futile".

5) to a certain degree, i think that this begs the question of "who watches the watchers". having a trust protector to watch the trustee, you need a second trust protector to watch the first trust protector, etc.

i think the best trust protectors are its beneficiaries. tq and i have had this disagreement before, so i no doubt expect to hear from him. LOL.

but giving the beneficiaries the power to appoint trustees does not give the trustee any legal power to do anything but what the trust commands him to do.

and since it is the beneficiary's money, who better to ultimately decide on which person to fulfill the job of trustee, as intended my the trust document.

i dont like giving the trustee too much power.

those are my thoughts.

 

[tranquility]

I almost completely agree with TrustUser on this one. (As a side note, I love how his advice has grown in value through the time he's been here. Good job.) My only problem comes from:

2. I only have one child now, but plan on adoptiong one or more children in the future. Can I include these future children in the trust, or would that violate the perpituity prohibition? Should I instead simply revise the trust document to include them when the adoption is complete?

2) it is typical language to include unborn children and adopted children as equal heirs as part of the trust document.

The RAP is in force in New York as far as I know. My version would be:
"No interest is good unless it must vest, or fail to vest, within 21 years of some life in being at the creation of the interest."

There are clearly RAP problems whenever you try to cover anyone not alive at the time of the trust creation. The usual story to illustrate the problem is the "fertile octogenarian". I'm sure Wikipedia will have a stub.