1% owner, 99% Trust: ben. trustees can't be located

[justalayman]

She cannot seek money from the trust because there is no trustee to ask to pay the trust's share of the property taxes. If there was a trustee, I am sure that they would pay the trust's share. I wonder though, is there no method to ask a court to appoint a trustee?

That is exactly what I said ldij (other than being certain the trustee would pay the taxes etc. personally I would refuse as op has the benefit of living there so at least morally should cover those expenses) and I have no idea if it is possible to ask the courts assign a trustee. That is way beyond my comfort zone

 

[LdiJ]

That is exactly what I said ldij (other than being certain the trustee would pay the taxes etc. personally I would refuse as op has the benefit of living there so at least morally should cover those expenses) and I have no idea if it is possible to ask the courts assign a trustee. That is way beyond my comfort zone

Personally, I think that both parties should pay their proportional share of the property taxes, homeowners insurance and major upkeep. I can see the OP paying for minor repairs, but not major ones.

I would move out of a house that I only owned 1% of before I agreed to pay what could add up to more than reasonable rent for an apartment, just for the pleasure of living in the home. CA property taxes are quite high, as well as homeowner's insurance costs.

 

[justalayman]

Personally, I think that both parties should pay their proportional share of the property taxes, homeowners insurance and major upkeep. I can see the OP paying for minor repairs, but not major ones.

I would move out of a house that I only owned 1% of before I agreed to pay what could add up to more than reasonable rent for an apartment, just for the pleasure of living in the home. CA property taxes are quite high, as well as homeowner's insurance costs.

There is little effective difference between this and s life estate and in a life estate the tenant does pay for taxes, general maintenance, and a calculated share of major repairs.

If the tenant doesn’t like it she is welcome to move out and rent or buy another place.

 

[LdiJ]

There is little effective difference between this and s life estate and in a life estate the tenant does pay for taxes, general maintenance, and a calculated share of major repairs.

If the tenant doesn’t like it she is welcome to move out and rent or buy another place.

Well, in this case nobody knows if the trustee would pay for those things because there is no trustee. I think that the OP's mother needs a consult with a local attorney who can advise her on options.

 

[justalayman]

Well, in this case nobody knows if the trustee would pay for those things because there is no trustee. I think that the OP's mother needs a consult with a local attorney who can advise her on options.

Absolutely


Btw; if I was trustee and op demanded I pay taxes or general upkeep, op would have lots and lots of roommates. As an owner each would have rights to possess the property with neither being able to override the other.

If op acted to exclude my guests, that will allow me to demand she compensate me as I would be losing 1/2 the rental market value of the property

Of course she could offer to pay the taxes and general maintenance and I might accept that.

 

[LdiJ]

Absolutely


Btw; if I was trustee and op demanded I pay taxes or general upkeep, op would have lots and lots of roommates. As an owner each would have rights to possess the property with neither being able to override the other.

If op acted to exclude my guests, that will allow me to demand she compensate me as I would be losing 1/2 the rental market value of the property

Of course she could offer to pay the taxes and general maintenance and I might accept that.

The trustee isn't the owner. The trustee merely manages the trust. The trustee doesn't have the rights of an owner. You also know that either OWNER would have the right to live in the property but that doesn't mean that one of the owners can take it as far as you are insinuating. You have absolutely no idea whether or not a trustee would feel it appropriate, with this specific set of facts. You only know that you would get emotionally angry about being "asked" to share in the costs. You are the only person who used the word "demanded".

 

[justalayman]

The trustee isn't the owner. The trustee merely manages the trust. The trustee doesn't have the rights of an owner. You also know that either OWNER would have the right to live in the property but that doesn't mean that one of the owners can take it as far as you are insinuating. You have absolutely no idea whether or not a trustee would feel it appropriate, with this specific set of facts. You only know that you would get emotionally angry about being "asked" to share in the costs. You are the only person who used the word "demanded".

The property is put in the name of the trustee as trustee for the trust. Such as: Jim bob smellypants as trustee for bikini (no bottoms) trust; 2018 [the year of the creation of that particular trust.

Regardless the trustee as agent for the trust does have the right to act as an owner. Who did you think got to control the real estate within a trust?

And of course the 1% owner has a right to live there with all of the guests I allow to stay there. It would be real cozy. Yes I do know I absolutely would have the right as trustee to do precisely as I stated. And take note; I said thatvis what I would do if I was trustee. I do not believe the trust should bear the cost of the taxes and general maintenance if the trust doesn’t also benefit in some way such as the op does living in the property. So, the co-tenant could choose to pay me (the trust) 1/2 the rental market value, pay the taxes and general manintenance, or plan on seeing a bunch of people I allow to live there.


If we’re talking about suing, demand is the appropriate word.

If you want to leave it at a request, then don’t be surprised if the response is: um, no. You live there so it’s only fair younoay those expenses.

Why should the trust share those costs with no benefit to the trust?

 

[LTD93]

...And of course the 1% owner has a right to live there with all of the guests I allow to stay there. It would be real cozy. Yes I do know I absolutely would have the right as trustee to do precisely as I stated. And take note; I said thatvis what I would do if I was trustee. I do not believe the trust should bear the cost of the taxes and general maintenance if the trust doesn’t also benefit in some way such as the op does living in the property. So, the co-tenant could choose to pay me (the trust) 1/2 the rental market value, pay the taxes and general manintenance, or plan on seeing a bunch of people I allow to live there....

...Why should the trust share those costs with no benefit to the trust?

Wow. That's terrible. The payment of taxes and maintenance on the home protects the value of the 99% owner's asset, btw. That might be a benefit to the trust?

Summary and final query: My mom’s friend Mrs. Smith relied on my mom for many years before passing. In return, Mrs. Smith wanted my mom to have a place to stay; and so gave her the 1%. My mom has had no issue with paying the taxes, and maintaining the home. It was the person who has been helping my mom manage her expenses for the last few years that decided that she didn’t need to pay taxes, and that’s why they are unpaid. I recently found out about the whole situation and have taken over my mom’s financial life. I have been doing financial planning for many years, and though I have no expertise, I have a familiarity with trusts, insurance, taxes, and brokerage accounts; the information I’ve presented is reliable. My mom doesn’t have a lot, and I primarily want to protect her from putting everything she has into the home and then being forced out without being compensated by the other owner(s); and at the same time I’m trying to arrange things so that she doesn’t have to move before she is ready.

The discussion here has been very helpful in to me in thinking things through. Questions remain regarding the ability/likelihood of the 99% escheating to the state, and what could happen after that. But, as with legal questions that run into dark corners and grey areas, I gather I should see an attorney to get a better idea.

Thank you one and all, even the guy who would be mean to old lady 1% owners.

 

[justalayman]

Wow. That's terrible. The payment of taxes and maintenance on the home protects the value of the 99% owner's asset, btw. That might be a benefit to the trust?

Summary and final query: My mom’s friend Mrs. Smith relied on my mom for many years before passing. In return, Mrs. Smith wanted my mom to have a place to stay; and so gave her the 1%. My mom has had no issue with paying the taxes, and maintaining the home. It was the person who has been helping my mom manage her expenses for the last few years that decided that she didn’t need to pay taxes, and that’s why they are unpaid. I recently found out about the whole situation and have taken over my mom’s financial life. I have been doing financial planning for many years, and though I have no expertise, I have a familiarity with trusts, insurance, taxes, and brokerage accounts; the information I’ve presented is reliable. My mom doesn’t have a lot, and I primarily want to protect her from putting everything she has into the home and then being forced out without being compensated by the other owner(s); and at the same time I’m trying to arrange things so that she doesn’t have to move before she is ready.

The discussion here has been very helpful in to me in thinking things through. Questions remain regarding the ability/likelihood of the 99% escheating to the state, and what could happen after that. But, as with legal questions that run into dark corners and grey areas, I gather I should see an attorney to get a better idea.

Thank you one and all, even the guy who would be mean to old lady 1% owners.

it surely protects the interest of the trust but here is the resident using the building and the trust paying the cost of her being there. If not for her the trust could liquidate the asset or rent it at full market value. It is costing the trust for her to be there so yes, your damn straight i fee she should bear the cost of the taxes and general maintenance.

It’s not being mean. It’s being realistic.

Better yet; it’s being fair.

 

[justalayman]

But the reality is;

If she doesn’t pay the taxes and upkeep, the house will fall apart and the state will do whatever it does with houses with delinquent taxes.

 

[LTD93]

it surely protects the interest of the trust but here is the resident using the building and the trust paying the cost of her being there. If not for her the trust could liquidate the asset or rent it at full market value. It is costing the trust for her to be there so yes, your damn straight i fee she should bear the cost of the taxes and general maintenance.

It’s not being mean. It’s being realistic.

Better yet; it’s being fair.

Yeah, it's mean. There are arguments to be made re whether it's fair or realistic, but those arguments are moot. I do understand that it's legal.

 

[justalayman]

She owns a mere 1% yet is using 100% of the value and still wants others to chip in and pay more. If seeing that as inequitable is mean, then call me me grinch.

You never did explain if the trust became irrevocable at the death of the man and his wife was merely a successor trustee. If it did your mothers ownership may not even be valid.

And since you have a copy of the trust you are welcome to search for the beneficiaries. Then you can tell them your mother wants them to pay for her to live in the house. For some reason I doubt they would be thrilled.

 

[LTD93]

She owns a mere 1% yet is using 100% of the value and still wants others to chip in and pay more. If seeing that as inequitable is mean, then call me me grinch.

You never did explain if the trust became irrevocable at the death of the man and his wife was merely a successor trustee. If it did your mothers ownership may not even be valid.

And since you have a copy of the trust you are welcome to search for the beneficiaries. Then you can tell them your mother wants them to pay for her to live in the house. For some reason I doubt they would be thrilled.

As I said, there are arguments to be made either way. I'm not going to debate you, though. There are plenty of things that are legal, and are still terrible things to do. If that's how you roll, bully for you. We could hang out together and be great friends, but I would never do business with you.

I didn't explain whether the trust became irrevocable because that wasn't my issue. I'm satisfied for now that the transfer was valid, and I'll leave it to the attorney who eventually reviews the documents to tell me different.

I haven't and won't detail everything here, because I was looking for general answers - but give it some thought: if an insurance company that employs people to track down beneficiaries cannot find them, what hope have I with an old rolodex?

I appreciate your posts along with everyone else's, and I wish you well!

 

[justalayman]

because I was looking for general answers - but give it some thought: if an insurance company that employs people to track down beneficiaries cannot find them, what hope have I with an old rolodex?

And the banks and insurance companie are only obligated to send notice to the last known address (state law regarding abandoned property). There is no benefit for them to be found. If not found the assets get turned over to the state and the bank/insurance company doesn’t have to deal with it anymore.

You would be amazed at what you can find on the internet anymore with just a little information about them. If you’re willing to spend a couple bucks and the fact you have a couple? Several? people you’re looking for; I wouldn’t be surprised that you could find them.

 

[LdiJ]

And the banks and insurance companie are only obligated to send notice to the last known address (state law regarding abandoned property). There is no benefit for them to be found. If not found the assets get turned over to the state and the bank/insurance company doesn’t have to deal with it anymore.

You would be amazed at what you can find on the internet anymore with just a little information about them. If you’re willing to spend a couple bucks and the fact you have a couple? Several? people you’re looking for; I wouldn’t be surprised that you could find them.

Since they are of the same generation as the husband and wife who have passed, there is a better than even shot that they are also deceased, and that is why they cannot be found. I am amazed that the trust did not build in anything for a younger generation or a charity as another level of successor beneficiaries.