Rights as beneficary in CA

[ashley11229]

What is the name of your state? California.

Gonna try and make this short.

Grandparents passed away and I was named as beneficiary of the trust. I received the will and trust and paper that said I was a beneficiary and that I have 180 days to object anything. I talked to my uncle who is a executive of the trust and he told me I will not be receiving my share in a lump some like everyone else and that I will be getting a monthly check in a set amount every month tell it runs out and I won't be able to touch the money other then getting my monthly checks. He claims that this is written in the packet that was sent to me, and I went through every page over and over and didn't see a thing stating that is how I am to get my share. Does he have any right to do this cause he is a executor or do I have to object and get a lawyer. Any advise or information would help.

 

[adjusterjack]

How old are you?

He claims that this is written in the packet that was sent to me, and I went through every page over and over and didn't see a thing stating that is how I am to get my share. Does he have any right to do this cause he is a executor

He might have that discretion.

I have to object and get a lawyer.

Wouldn't hurt to have a trust lawyer read the documents and advise you.

 

[justalayman]

The trust must be controlled as the trust documents state. If the controlling documents state you are to only receive some payment from the trust as opposed to a distribution of the corpus of the trust, that’s what you get.

Whether the trustee can alter the terms or not will also be stated in the creating documents.

 

[HRZ]

The trustee of the trust might have such discretion to meter it out slowly ...read the trust docuements carefully ...it's not rare to have such discretionary powers.

 

[TrustUser]

not sure what you mean by "packet" ?

is this some sort of explanation that the trustee sent you ?

as justalayman pointed out, you simply need to read the trust document itself. in most situations (if not all), beneficiaries have the right to a copy of the trust document. and forget about any packet, or any other set of explanations.

the document should refer to the distribution of the funds. it does not usually take a rocket scientist to understand it. but you can certainly show it to someone with trust knowledge, and get their opinion.

 

[Taxing Matters]

the document should refer to the distribution of the funds. it does not usually take a rocket scientist to understand it.

I've seen actual rocket scientists have trouble reading some legal documents. For the most part, though, a well drafted trust should be understood by most people. I draft my legal documents as much as possible in plain language and avoid legal jargon where I can. I wish all my colleagues did that.

but you can certainly show it to someone with trust knowledge, and get their opinion.

That person had better be a lawyer since in most states it would amount to the unauthorized practice of law for a non lawyer to interpret the trust document for you. I realize this kind of reply irritates nonlawyers who think they know the law well and want to advise others, but the law is what it is, and in most states that is something that a lawyer must do.

 

[LdiJ]

I've seen actual rocket scientists have trouble reading some legal documents. For the most part, though, a well drafted trust should be understood by most people. I draft my legal documents as much as possible in plain language and avoid legal jargon where I can. I wish all my colleagues did that.



That person had better be a lawyer since in most states it would amount to the unauthorized practice of law for a non lawyer to interpret the trust document for you. I realize this kind of reply irritates nonlawyers who think they know the law well and want to advise others, but the law is what it is, and in most states that is something that a lawyer must do.

Would you consider it to be an interpretation if the language is pretty plain? I realize that there can be a fine line, but some people are just better readers than others and need help. They should not have to pay an attorney for that.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Would you consider it to be an interpretation if the language is pretty plain? I realize that there can be a fine line, but some people are just better readers than others and need help. They should not have to pay an attorney for that.

In general, yes I would. If the problem is simply that the person doesn't know the meaning of a word, someone can give him/her the definition of the word (or hand him a dictionary) and that would not be a problem. If the person does not read English and needs a translation, someone could translate the document and that should be ok, too. But once you cross the line to explaining what the document means to the beneficiary, you are likely crossing into unauthorized practice of law.

 

[TrustUser]

I've seen actual rocket scientists have trouble reading some legal documents. For the most part, though, a well drafted trust should be understood by most people. I draft my legal documents as much as possible in plain language and avoid legal jargon where I can. I wish all my colleagues did that.

thank you for doing your best to refrain from using lawyerese. i also wish all your colleagues did that.

 

[TrustUser]

That person had better be a lawyer since in most states it would amount to the unauthorized practice of law for a non lawyer to interpret the trust document for you. I realize this kind of reply irritates nonlawyers who think they know the law well and want to advise others, but the law is what it is, and in most states that is something that a lawyer must do.

i deliberately did not attempt to define who such person should be. i realize that the following reply irritates lawyers, but so be it.

i place a huge distinction between interpreting a document versus interpreting the law. interpreting a document is a process in understanding what is being said, in english. it is an exercise in english, in which an english professor would probably be the best expert.

interpreting the law would then be about making a conclusion about whether this written document conforms to the law. and within this context, a professor of the law would probably be the best expert, i.e. a lawyer.

many people put up roadblocks with regards to any sort of lengthy reading, and immediately give up. an excellent example of this is any sort of instructions on how to put something together.

so interpreting a trust document is explaining what is being said in the document, itself - WITHOUT MAKING ANY JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER SAID DOCUMENT CONFORMS TO THE LAW.

 

[LdiJ]

In general, yes I would. If the problem is simply that the person doesn't know the meaning of a word, someone can give him/her the definition of the word (or hand him a dictionary) and that would not be a problem. If the person does not read English and needs a translation, someone could translate the document and that should be ok, too. But once you cross the line to explaining what the document means to the beneficiary, you are likely crossing into unauthorized practice of law.

What if someone was dyslexic/couldn't see well/ and a friend read the document aloud to them? Part of the reason why I am asking is that many of our elderly clients ask us for assistance with documents that are not necessarily related to tax. A lot of the time its because they simply cannot see well enough anymore to read the document themselves.

 

[Zigner]

What if someone was dyslexic/couldn't see well/ and a friend read the document aloud to them? Part of the reason why I am asking is that many of our elderly clients ask us for assistance with documents that are not necessarily related to tax. A lot of the time its because they simply cannot see well enough anymore to read the document themselves.

Simply reading the document verbatim without interjecting anything does not cause a problem.
Telling the person that a certain passages means that XYZ will occur for the person...that's a problem.

 

[Taxing Matters]

interpreting the law would then be about making a conclusion about whether this written document conforms to the law. and within this context, a professor of the law would probably be the best expert, i.e. a lawyer.

No. Legal advice is more than just saying whether the document “conforms to the law”. It is also telling the person what rights or obligations he may have as a result of that trust. If you are interpreting that document for him and telling him “you are entitled to _______ under this trust” that too is legal advice.

What if someone was dyslexic/couldn't see well/ and a friend read the document aloud to them? Part of the reason why I am asking is that many of our elderly clients ask us for assistance with documents that are not necessarily related to tax. A lot of the time its because they simply cannot see well enough anymore to read the document themselves.

Simply reading the trust verbatim is not a problem. That is not providing legal advice. It is when you start telling the person things like “this trust provision means you are entitled to get the car” or “this trust was not properly executed” that you cross the line into giving legal advice — and if you are not a lawyer that then becomes the unauthorized practice of law.

 

[Dandy Don]

Please consult with a local trust and probate attorney to get your questions/concerns answered.

The will and the trust are two separate legal documents that will be distributed separately and perhaps independently of each other.

If you are named as a beneficiary in the will, you will receive whatever the will says you get. The "180 days to object" provision most likely applies only to the will.

Does the trust document specifically mention a total dollar amount of what you are supposed to receive?

Does the trust specifically mention that you are supposed to receive a certain dollar amount per month?

 

[TrustUser]

No. Legal advice is more than just saying whether the document “conforms to the law”. It is also telling the person what rights or obligations he may have as a result of that trust. If you are interpreting that document for him and telling him “you are entitled to _______ under this trust” that too is legal advice.
.

i think i can agree with that. again, what i am saying is that an explanation of the english-meaning of a set of statements is different from defining whether it conforms to any given law.

note: you did not correcty interpret what i said. since i never said that stating whether a document conforms to the law is the only sort of legal advice that there is.

the following may seem like a subtle difference to you and others, but in actually it is HUGE. your example of "you are entitled to" is way different than saying "the document says you are entitled to".

again, i am only referring to a correct english interpretation of the sentences, as written on paper. if it is in lawyerese, it may not actually be written in proper english. in this case, that could ultimately be challenged and defeated - since in america we speak english.

also, if one wants to be extra specially careful, they can always preface an explanation with "i am not a lawyer, and this is my opinion".