Clarification and Additional Details
Now, I might think differently if the friend gets 70% of the trust and the other three beneficiaries only get 10% each, but it doesn't sound that way.
Please read on and note that the second successor
trustee gets more than 98% of the trust's $3,000,000+ proceeds.
= = = = = = = = =
PART ONE OF TWO
Thanks to all of the respondents so far! I can now see that my original post was woefully lacking in detail. Being new to this sort of situation, I first thought I might be giving too much information. O.K., I was certainly wrong about that!
FURTHER DETAILS:
Lowball estimate of cash and liquid securities is $3,500,000, although I suspect it to be substantially more than that. I have not seen the estate’s financial statement.
Lowball estimate of real and personal property is $350,000. Again, it may be significantly more than that because I have not seen the estate’s financial statement.
Any creditor claims or accounts due would be less than $10,000. The settlor always paid his accounts in full on or before any due date.
The settlor is my paternal uncle. The four beneficiaries consist of the second successor trustee, a social friend of the settlor, myself, and my brother (biological nephews of the settlor). There are no other listed beneficiaries and no other living relatives of the settlor.
Under the terms of the trust, the second successor trustee will receive in excess of 98% of the trust proceeds. It is my contention that this was not the settlor's intention and that he was ill-advised (or bamboozled) by the first successor trustee in order the enrich the first successor trustee.
According to the second successor trustee’s attorney, she (the second successor trustee) was unaware the she had been named as second successor trustee. That lady was the daughter of one of the settlor’s social friends as well as also being a social friend of the settlor. In conversations with me regarding the trust, the settlor continually and incorrectly referred to her by her mother’s given name even though the settlor attended the mother’s funeral many years ago. Although I am uncertain, I have good reason to believe she is more than seventy-years old.
The settlor stated to me in 2014 that he had amended the trust to reflect changes in trust assets.
However, the attorney that created the trust in 2005 recently stated in writing by e-mail that she had not created any subsequent documents or amendments to the original trust document. I have no idea where that later trust document might be. Unfortunately, it appears to be conveniently “lost”.
It is my contention that the settlor was unable (by his own admission and facts of an accident head injury) to make any sort of informed decisions in the matter of his estate when the trust document with executed. When I discussed the estate plan in person with the settlor in 2010, he explained that he intended the bulk of the trust proceeds to be given to both my brother and myself. Further details are below.
The settlor’s residence was in a private community near Santa Cruz, California.
In the 1980s, I worked for what was then the oldest and largest unmerged financial firm on “Wall Street”. I worked in firm’s European headquarters in Paris, France, and then in one of their southern California offices. I left my post there in 1989. Unable to then secure any challenging career opportunities in California, I cast my net globally. Since 1989, I’ve taken several short-term overseas jobs in teaching, writing, and project administration. I’ve even tired two unsuccessful private business ventures, one of which left me lying on the street in a Bulgarian city with a gunshot wound.
I stayed in contact with my uncle (the settlor) throughout that time period. Whenever I would visit my uncle, he always wanted to discuss the financial markets. As early as approximately 2000, those talks always seemed to end-up with him asking my advice about whether or not he should get his ordinary will converted into a trust. I always demurred and suggested he speak to an attorney.
So, over the ensuing fifteen years, the settlor continued to solicit my comments and/or advice in the matter of his estate plan as well as his investments. This was done on a non-professional basis because I had long since changed professions. My remarks to him simply centered around capital preservation, safety, and liquidity because of his advanced age. During that time period also he inherited cash, securities, and real property from two estates that today account for roughly one half to two thirds of the current estate value.
Finally, when I visited my uncle to celebrate his eighty-seventh birthday in early-August 2005, he disclosed to me that he intended to convert his will into a trust. He explained that for several years the first successor trustee had been suggesting/pestering him to make that change. My uncle again asked my opinion on the planned change. I knew and recited only the ideas of privacy and expediency that a trust would offer in estate settlement when compared to an ordinary will.
Perhaps importantly, between that early-August 2005 conversation and the execution of the new trust document in late-August 2005, my uncle suffered a head injury when he “fell” and hit his head in the stairwell of the first successor trustee’s condominium building in San Francisco. The first successor trustee lived in San Francisco at the time. He was a social friend and frequent guest of the settlor in the Santa Cruz area.
It was disclosed to me during a Christmas visit to the settlor in December of 2005 that the first successor trustee had “partially” moved-into the successor’s home and was now living there four or five days each week. This was because the settlor wanted a caretaker or guardian due to the fact he felt unwell after his accidental fall in August. Unbeknownst to me, during that time the settlor executed a durable power of attorney document giving the first successor trustee that power.
Subsequent to the first successor trustee moving into the settlor’s home, and with few exceptions, I was unable to discuss any matters over the telephone or in person with the settlor because the first successor trustee would always listen to and interrupt our conversations from a telephone extension in the settlor’s house or be fast at the side of the settlor during my in-person visits.
I discussed the matter with local authorities in 2006. The authorities visited the settlor’s home and reported to me that the first successor trustee initially stated he would not allow the settlor to come to the door. When the authorities insisted, the settlor came to the door and told them there was no reason for them to be concerned. I was told that because of the settlor’s statement and the fact that he appeared healthy for his age, nothing more could be done by the authorities.
CONCLUDED IN PART TWO