• 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.

Trust Amendment - wording to reduce an equal share by specific amount

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

bobnsofi

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

Hi All, My father has been helping one of my sisters financially over the past several years

and he wants to reduce her equal share in his living trust, by that amount he has already given to her

The Trust Amendment wording to achieve his wishes?

!!! Thanks in advance !!!
 


curb

Junior Member
If he has liquid assets, the easiest, quickest way would be to open a POD (pay on death) account (outside of the trust) at a bank or his financial institution. Then list the beneficiaries with the percentage how he wants to adjust.
 

TrustUser

Senior Member
is father planning on distributing everything to beneficiaries when he dies ?

or will assets remain in trust, for the benefit of the beneficiaries ?
 

FlyingRon

Senior Member
The problem with POD designations is they are static. There's no way for them to handle things like the beneficiaries predeceasing the account owner. We can't possibly answer the question without the details TrustUser asked for and then some. Primarily, you can't talk about how to amend a trust if you don't know what the nature of the existing trust is. What father should do is go talk to a lawyer (perhaps the one that drafted the trust initially) with his intentions and get it properly amended (or perhaps even just replaced).
 

curb

Junior Member
POD designations are not "static". I have changed them easily in less than 5 minutes. Naturally a person has to pay attention if a beneficiary dies but that shouldn't be difficult. Often the owner would want the remaining beneficiaries to just receive the larger share. What becomes "static" for many people is making another visit to an attorney for their trust or will and getting charged $300-500 to change a few words. Often they end up not doing it because of the charges. I'm not saying they should hesitate seeing an attorney, but that is what often happens.
 

FlyingRon

Senior Member
POD designations are not "static". I have changed them easily in less than 5 minutes.
That's static. You have to change them to reflect the circumstances. There's no provision for a continent beneficiary, or the like. If the beneficiary, predeceases you the funds to go the estate as if the TOD wasn't there.
Naturally a person has to pay attention if a beneficiary dies but that shouldn't be difficult.
It may, in fact, be impossible. Let's say you go driving with your beneficiary and you're both involved? Now what?
Often the owner would want the remaining beneficiaries to just receive the larger share.
And impossible to implement without a new TOD designation chagning it.
What becomes "static" for many people is making another visit to an attorney for their trust or will and getting charged $300-500 to change a few words. Often they end up not doing it because of the charges. I'm not saying they should hesitate seeing an attorney, but that is what often happens.
Nope, if you create the trust appropriately, one doesn't need to make any changes. If my, son let's say, were to predecease me, I don't have to worry about my wife or my daughter as the trust specifically handles all that AS IT STANDS.
 

curb

Junior Member
I agree that there can be all kinds of scenarios that can affect just about any kind of document or intentions. Trusts can have similar problems. I am just suggesting that the POD option can be a "very clean" option.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
I agree that there can be all kinds of scenarios that can affect just about any kind of document or intentions. Trusts can have similar problems. I am just suggesting that the POD option can be a "very clean" option.
Of
Course each account will be its own trust and if there are assets not held by somebody where it is an account that can be designated TOD the tod matter is worthless.

Given we are talking about the guys living trust, it is probable it contains assets held in assignable accounts as well as assets held outside of any institution and could even include real estate.

Rather than causing somebody to chase myriad accounts and holdings, it would be simpler to include verbiage that the sisters share is to be reduced by some specific amount or some amount able to be calculated in the future.


Op would be wise to confer with an attorney to ensure it is written to properly reflect the trustor intent accurately.
 

bobnsofi

Junior Member
WOW, thanks so much for your suggestions and help for our family and those whom follow.

I have all the Trust paperwork, and could post portions. Dad worked it up himself 40 years ago and is very proud of it, a common living trust

Yes, there is real estate and liquid, all in the trust name, under a trust tax id #.

One of my other sisters seems to think we should not bother dad with a family drama potential amendment, and self account for this, post his death, as we, the majority can change the trustee to favor this point of view.

This solution seems outside reasonable minded to me, and could subject this effort into loss in litigation, as I am sure the sister who has unreasonably benefited these past years, does not share our point of view, and would like the remainder of the estate distributed evenly, as a remaining balance. Not to mention this potential litigation would tear apart any remaining family mindedness.

So... ???

!!! THANKS AGAIN FOR HELPING US, AND THOSE WHOM FOLLOW !!!
 

justalayman

Senior Member
Changing the trustee does not change the rules of the trust. The trustee is legally obligated to enforce the rules as written. The trustee could be held personally liable if they deviate from the rules. The person with the debt could sue the trustee for whatever they do not recieve if the trustee should decide to make an arbitrary decision to withhold assets she should have recieved.
 

bobnsofi

Junior Member
ok... so I guess what I am asking is... let's say we sensible children decided the amount was $1,000 received unreasonably by the unreasonable child... How would the wording likely read??? approximately ??? This way I can approach my reasonable family members and suggest we move forward on an amendment action

THANKS for your suggestions!
 

justalayman

Senior Member
ok... so I guess what I am asking is... let's say we sensible children decided the amount was $1,000 received unreasonably by the unreasonable child... How would the wording likely read??? approximately ??? This way I can approach my reasonable family members and suggest we move forward on an amendment action

THANKS for your suggestions!
This really is something you need a lawyer to do. If written wrong it doesn't do what you want it to. If written poorly it becomes arguable and can lead to litigation.

If the amount in question is low such as the $1000, it may be simpler to ignore it and move on. If it is a large amount of money, all the more reason to consult an attorney.

You also need to realize; the money the unreasonable child recieved from her father is, unless agreed to otherwise, a gift from your father. If he wants to withhold money from the one child, it is his choice. Did you ever consider your father looks at the money the unreasonable child recieved was intended to be a gift and not counted against her share of trust?

I realize you say your father wants to withhold the money but you keep invoking the desires of yourself and the other "reasonable" children. You really make it sound like it is your choice and decision here. It is solely within your fathers power to do this. If your father really wants this, he should speak with an attorney who can write directives that accomplish precisely what he wants to happen.
 
Last edited:

TrustUser

Senior Member
since i create my own trust docs, i would probably do it differently, if i was the father

but to be honest, i like pods more than i like adding an amendment to the current trust

the father could set up a few individual bank accounts, place $1000 (i realize it is probably much more) into each one, with the beneficiary as each of the remaining kids

the one sister does not even need to know about it

and then leave the trust alone

it would also solve the problem if father gives more to the one sister

if he desires, he could always deposit that same amount in each of the bank accounts

if a child should die, those funds could simply be placed back into an account owned by the trust
 

curb

Junior Member
Going back to the original post with the attorney being the trustee, the attorney could follow the conditions of the trust and could legally run up a bill that could be larger than what you are trying to accomplish (balancing the assets).

I am also suggesting the possibility that if your father proudly authored this trust 40 years ago, "all of the bases" might not be covered. You can facilitate the situation by doing as much "legwork" as possible such as deciding what the family wants to do with the real estate. It is going to be difficult to "balance" the estate without your father's cooperation and the cooperation of the beneficiary who won't go along with the balancing. This will become extremely difficult (or impossible) after father passes. This needs to be solved before he dies.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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