Federalized Special Needs Trust Abuse

[truthandhonor]

What is the name of your state? CA

I'm curious if anyone knows the answer to this??

Is it lawful to use Federalized statutory Special Needs Trusts, which are used for beneficiaries on SSI/ Medi-Cal to protect them from losing their SSI/MediCal benefits, for any other lawful purpose?

The trustees must have duped the trustor into believing a benefiiciary is on SSI. And they are conveniently grouping one beneficiary who is on SSI with anotherwho is not, in the guise the trustees get to keep the portion of the person not on SSI for themselves and their kids as was verbalized in a taunting manner.

It can be proven this beneficiary is not on SSI, never has been, and never can ever qualify for SSI or Medi-Cal. The trustor was misinformed by one or both trustees at the time of the drafting of the trust and the trustor's lawyer failed to ask for any proof if the person was on SSI. It should be wrong for lawyers to go around making trusts without determing the truth before drafting things under false pretenses and confusing the elderly with such confusing language.

Interestingly, after the trustees got called on the carpet for it, and they were provided paperwork to show the beneficary has never had SSI, they changed their tune and are now using every excuse they can come up with to try and say that even if the benefisiary is not on SSI, they can still now go about administering the trust on the beneficiarfy who is not even on SSI nor under any such strict restictions. It's an extremly large estate and, if administered under the false pretenses of an SSI-MediCal status and SNT, the trustees and their kids and grandkids stand to gain the bulk of the beneficiaries fair "share" upon their death since the benefiicary has no kids of their own. It seems like highway robbery when the trustees portions get paid out to them entirley free of trust. The trustor was fooled by the co-trustees lies about the beneficiary. It can be proven the trustees acted on the false presumption that the beneficiary is on SSI. So, can a SNT be used to withhold assets from a person who is not even on SSI?

 

[tranquility]

Trusts are designed to accomplish a purpose. An SNT with the purpose to support the special needs of a beneficiary so the beneficiary can still receive governement benefits is written in such a way to acccomplish it. If the beneficiary does not qualify for government funds, the trust is still there but the beneficiary is limited on receiving the trusts assets/income according to the terms of the trust.

So, if I understand your question, there is nothing wrong or illegal to administer a trust according to its terms. If another beneficary is harmed because of an administration benefiting one beneficiary over another, that is a problem. If there was fraud in the creation of the trust, that is a problem. A trust where the beneficary does not "qualify" for the goals of the trust is not void, but will follow a different path as dictated by the trust.

 

[truthandhonor]

I;m sorry, the answer is very unclear. Obviously, a co-trustee was creating a myth and told the 80 yr old mother a lie. Now, that they've been caught and it was proven the beneficiary is not on SSI. The other sister is on SSI and needs someone but these brother did nothing to lift a finger to help her. Both of us were abused by the elder brothers.

It gets worse. The one co-trustee suborned SSI Medi-Cal fraud. He told my sister she has no shares of stock in our family business. By doing that, he suborned SSI and Medi-Cal FRAUD. He also stopped holding shareholder's meetings and is know throughout the extended family as the "family crook." I am very hard-working and was a dutiful daughter but I do not command a large salary and cannot also support my sister. Under the trust, they don't have to do anything except dispurse one check per year in any amount but not more than $2,000! There are millions of dollars at stake. The trust details and provides for virtually everything under the sun but nothing can be given given to either daughter only that "a ricpient of governmental benefits is permited to retain without the loss of such benefits." If a benefiicary is not on SSI and it was proven they are not on SSI, then can the trustees still cheat theirother heirs out of their rightful portion like this?

Can it be said, that people can just go around and abuse the FEDERALLY STATUTORY "Special Needs Trust" laws for any reason except for other than the beneficiary is on governmental beneifts they can lose (SSI) if the receive an inheritance??

The co-trustees have made it abundantly clear they want it for their kids and grandkids and will not give us antyhing. This is NOT what our mother intended! These thiefs will do anything to their own self-serving interests. We just like to know, and attorney's don't seem to know the answer...Can anyone abuse the system like this? Can anyone just go out and claim something that is not true, that a beneficiary is on SSI so they can steal the beneficiaries rightful portion? I read everything I can and there is nothing on the subject. Everything says that a SNT is for people who will be in worse shape if they lose their SSI and MediCal. So, what if a benefiicary will not lose anything because they are not on SSI and the thing they are losing is their ENTIRE INHERITANCE to the trustees and their kids whose lavish lifestyles powered by greed are self-serving?

 

[tranquility]

The answer was clear, you just didn't like it. The trust will be administered as written. That you or yours do not get as much as you think you deserve or anything is irrelevant.

If there was fraud in the creation of the trust, that is another story. A story which will be difficult to prove and requires an attorney and an expensive court battle before being resolved.

 

[truthandhonor]

The answer was clear, you just didn't like it. The trust will be administered as written. That you or yours do not get as much as you think you deserve or anything is irrelevant.

I think you misunderstood me. We each got an equal "share" of our mother's estate. But the trustees refuse to tell me how much the etstate is actualy worth because if they did, an attorey would easily see he can get paid if he fights for my beneficiary righs. In addition, I was given far and above over the others: 1/2 the antique heriloom furnishings, and my choice of one of the grand pianos over and above that. That was written in the trust. But the trust contradicts itself by sayiing I have special needs on SSItherfore canpt have any of it, but I am not. My sisteris. The two elder brothers who are trustees, have essentially stolen everything from us. My sister is so mentally ill, she doesn't understand what's going on.

If there was fraud in the creation of the trust, that is another story. A story which will be difficult to prove and requires an attorney and an expensive court battle before being resolved.

Well, if they admitted and acted as if i was on SSI, then I proved I was not, what does that say? BYW, Whatever happened to the importance of the facts in courtrooms these days? I'm not on SSI. Never was, never can be. I don't think a person can be under a Special Needs Trust if they are not in that legal category. My sister is on SSI (illegally because it was fraud since our wonderful brother who breached his fiduciary duty lied and told her she has no stocks.) The trustee has been giving her cash under the table to appease her. That too is against the law. I've talked to attorneys and no one has ever heard of anything so redicuous ever happening before. Simply put, a SNT is for children who are on SSI and stand to lose their SSI and/or Medi-Cal or Medicade. That's all it is supposed to be for. A SNT is not meant to be a vehicle for trustees to commit fraud! Used in this manner, it's a hiest. It is incredulous that this could happen. As I talk to attoreies, the laws are so complex concerning these thins and the administration of SNT, that there doesn;t seem to be any answers. At least, so far....
I'd appreciate any pointers as to where I can go to find out if there are other cases like mine?

 

[tranquility]

Simply put, a SNT is for children who are on SSI and stand to lose their SSI and/or Medi-Cal or Medicade.

Even though I keep telling you to ignore this theory, you don't. A trust is a trust. It does not become invalid because it was meant to deal with a certain situation that is not true or has not come to pass. Clearly, a special needs trust is designed to not be an asset to the beneficiary to the point of losing other benefits. It is also designed to prevent the beneficiary of getting all the money without a legitimate need as the beneficiary under such trust often have impulse control problems. (They are set up for children with a drug or mental problem as a matter of course.)

The trust should be administered as written.

There is no little box to be checked on any form which designates the type of trust a trust is. "Special needs" trust is a shorthand/jargon for a trust written with certain provisions. Since there is a need for the certain provisions on a fairly regular basis, attorneys have created the term so that with a few words, many provisions can be explained. Governmental regulations and court decisions often list the characteristics which, when contained in a written trust, cause income or equity owned by the trust to be taxed or not, to be included as income or not, or to be counted against the payments to the beneficiary or not. Other things or not as well. It is not the status of the beneficiary which determines the trust.

In a well written trust, however, the status of the beneficiary can determine how much of a distribution the trust can make. There are certain things called ascertainable standards which a trustee uses to guide his distribution decisions. If the trustee does not use sound discretion when applying the standards or does not follow the trust language, he could be in breach of his fiduciary duties.

A SNT is not meant to be a vehicle for trustees to commit fraud! Used in this manner, it's a hiest. It is incredulous that this could happen. As I talk to attoreies, the laws are so complex concerning these thins and the administration of SNT, that there doesn;t seem to be any answers. At least, so far....

No trust is meant to be a vehicle to commit fraud. Your claim of fraud is specious from the facts you've laid out. I'm not even sure I know what your claim is as it seems like speculation and accusation without proof. If you think the trustee is breaching his fiduciary duties, see an attorney and sue him for the breach. It's not "illegal" in the sense that it's a crime (although it could be), it's illegal in the sense that a wrong was committed against other income or residual beneficaries of the trust. The reason it is so difficult to get a straight answer from an attorney is that it *is* complex. Reading a trust is a long and boring process which takes a lot of skill and experience because there are not really any "standard" clauses. An attorney can read a clause and know what the meaning and purpose is, but be tripped up by an errant or incongrous word. Litigation can be the result of an inartful sentence. A sentence which seemed unimportant until a case was decided years after the trust was created can completely change the powers of the trustee. It is impossible to find answers after an hour consultation no matter how many attorneys you go to.

Finally, the facts make a difference. As I wrote before, you don't have many facts. You have suspicions and accusations. Because of the shorthand, an attorney can usually guess as to what the fiduciary duties will be of a trustee of certain types of trusts. He can help guide you as to if there is any smoke in your story where a fire can be sought in discovery. But I think that will require some time with you to draw out what is happening in detail. I am not willing to read and re-read and re-read your posts to try to focus on what is happening.

My advice, see an experienced estate attorney. Pay him money. Get his advice. If he takes the case on contingency, great. If he doesn't, do a gut check and see if you want to pay lots and lots of money to see if you are right.

 

[truthandhonor]

I am already in court and have an attorney who took it on contingency or rather "deffered pay." I replaced my former attorney because I come to find he is friends with one of the trustee brothers, and belongs to his club! That, and the fact, that brother goes around bribing anyone with cash to do his bidding screams conflict of interest.

I appreciaite the feedback because I trust no one anymore and many attorneys out there will do anything just to get paid.

You mentioned SNT can be set up for drug addicts and people with mental problems who have "impule control" problems. Well what if that is not the case here? What if the trustees are boozers and themselves spendthrifts? They will not tell us anything of what is in the trust and I know there are numerous properties from my Dad's trust. I get a "share" but they refuse us a valuation of the assets and no accounting. They keep a disinherited drug adict son in my mothers house rent free,m all at the good graces of the trustees whilke my sister are forced to live down at heal. What if it is just another scheme of the wrongdoing elder brothers to abuse the finannces of the womern in the family? There are laws against abusing women. No perpetrator should be legally permited to continue abusing a woman via the administration of any trust.Does a trust have more power than state and federal laws? These elder brothers care less of me. They abused me and continue to abuse the women in the family. There are hostile towards me, hostile towards one another. They are fighting eah other not just me..and trying to use me play against the other one to control this massive estate for their own benefit. Not my benefit. They are druggies and alcolohoics batterers. There has been no loving relationship ever. They are olod enough to be my parents. Their kids are my age.One verbalized he was going to keep my money for his kid and grandkids because I have no children. The trustees permitted my mother to be abused by a third brother whom she disinherited. I believe a court can deem them to have predeaced the decedent because they made my mother suffer and let it happen. and when I reported it to Elder Abuse, they sent an inept social worker who asked my mother if she wants to press charges and she said she was afraid of her perpetrator son so she didn't. But it came out in the bath water because she wrote a letter disinherited for the very reasons I stated..that he abused her and she was afraid of him.
The brothers not only kinew it was going on and did nothing to intervene on her behalf or mine and my sisters.

I am seeking to have them removed on the basis they are chronic abusers both pychscially, emotionally, and pysychologically. The DA intervened before and ordered them to stop harrassing me. They failed to act, failed to divuldge anything about what they are doing with the trust and the assets, lied to me I woudl recieve my rightful portion from my father's trust upon my mother's death. Before our mother died, one brother tried to tell me to sue the other one to get the trust away from him and give it to the him to handle so he can be sole trustee. Once he realised how it was "rigged" he didn't have to give us anything on false premises. Ther excuse is, that my mother wanted me and my sister to have a roof over our heads and food on the table.Anything to say I am too dumb and too stupid to own my own property and controlo my own money. They's be hard pressed to prove I am incompeptant when I have a credit score in the upper 5% of Americans. When a woman is abused...they can become depressed. Because a felame is abused by elder brothers, she usually seeks help and goes to counseling. By getting help through counseling, it does not mean they are the ones with the "mental problem." The ones who are sick are the abusive men who don't think they need help because they are perpetrators. You're stance frightens me that judges and courts could even be remotly uneducated as to these issues. I am in a very unsafe position and propose to begg the court for mercy to emanciapte me from my abusers. This whole attitude that because a person is a male gives them the right to control the women they abuse and be trustee is scary and an atrocity. I believe it woulkd be reprehensible to abuse a woman then control her through her finances and be permitted to control as to whether or not she can get medical care not covered by insurance, like in cases of cancer. There are treatments I can get because my parents worked their hinds off for us. That includeds me as a dutiful daughter. BYT, she disinerited three other daughters and i was gifted far and above the rest. I was the youngest and there was alwayd jealousym hatefulness and strife. There are papers that show my mother didn't want to sign things that went into action: "my son, ___, and his wife stood over my bed and forced me into it I feel."

Financially, I thought it is a breach of duty of a trustee to not disclose what's in the trust and what the valuation of the assets are. I inherited a sahre. But a share of what? How much is in the trust? They adamnatly refufe to ooperate and are playing hard ball at every juncture. Is this arrogance powered by greed? Also, one trustee tried to bribe me with cash to sign over my sharehokder rights to our coroporation and my right to contest his actions as a trustee "until 2 months after your mother dies" in exchasnge for a small amount of cash I needed because of being out of work due to a strike. 60 days? I would have given up my right to file in court so he coulkd get away with this scheme and trickery to dupe my mother with his dishonesty. If he is so loving and responsible, he wouldn't be defiant. He'd be wanting to come to the table and talk. Right?

 

[tranquility]

What if the trustees are boozers and themselves spendthrifts?

This is of no import unless they breach a fiduciary duty or there is a "protector" (Super trustee who does not manage the trust but who can replace the trustee at his discretion.) who will remove the trustee. Trustees should be chosen carefully as they can use the wealth of the trust to defend their position.

Does a trust have more power than state and federal laws?

I'm not sure what you mean here, but pretty much yes. A trust can set it's own rules and can superseede the probate general rules. There are certain things which cannot be overcome, but how the trust treats people is how the trust treats people.

The trustees permitted my mother to be abused by a third brother whom she disinherited.

A trustee's duties would not extend to here. Such a thing, if true, would not be a fiduciary breach. (Absent very specific language of the trust. Even that is speculation as I have never seen it.)

I am seeking to have them removed on the basis they are chronic abusers both pychscially, emotionally, and pysychologically.

Then, you will probably fail. Trustees can be felons in prison. If the abuse is a breach of fiduciary duties then you have something.

Anything to say I am too dumb and too stupid to own my own property and controlo my own money.

The trustee may not be saying it. The grantor of the trust may have felt you may have problems in managing your money and set up this trust in order to give you the most benefit for his gift. Dumb or stupid has nothing to do with it. Heck, the grantor may just have been a control freak.

You're stance frightens me that judges and courts could even be remotly uneducated as to these issues.

Judges and courts deal with these issues every day. It is not the court's job to have families make nice with each other. If it is a crime, they deal with it. If they breached their legal duties, they deal with it.

I am in a very unsafe position and propose to begg the court for mercy to emanciapte me from my abusers.

Of course, you don't need the courts for this. You just give up the rights to the trust assets and walk away.

Financially, I thought it is a breach of duty of a trustee to not disclose what's in the trust and what the valuation of the assets are.

It may very well be. However a trust could state an accounting is required and then you could not get one unless you petitioned the court with facts indicating some malfeasance. (At least in my state, each state has different rules.) Other things could depend on if the trust is still revocable or you are a contingent beneficiary.

I'm glad you have an attorney. I hope he helps you get to the bottom of this.

 

[truthandhonor]

I don't know about a "Super trustee" but the trust language provides for a successor trustee, a bank who is a neutral party. In California, a beneficiary has every right to know what is in the trust, all trust assets and valuation fo those assets.

As to abusive trustees, in CA, a trustee can be removed for hostilities toward each other (because as co-trustees they have to agree on everything) and can be removed for hostilities towards the beneficiary. A neutral successor trustee provided within the language of the trust can take over. No court should allow an abuser men to control their victims. if it isn;t against the law, it most definitly should be. This is 2008 in America.

To tell women to walk away from their rightful inheritances because their perpetrators connived their way into becoming trustees is morally and ethically wrong. It's high time the courts start standing up for abused women. State laws? There are laws against assault and and battery. I'm sorry, but I do not believe a felon can serve as a trustee. A trustee must exhibit pristine fiduciary respnsibliity, not a long history of corporate breach, and elder abuse.
In Calfi, a person may be deemed to have predeceased the decedent if they abused an elder or a dependant adult or allowed them to be abused by another without intervening.

The language of the trust does not say anything about a spendthrify trust. It says only that it is supposed to be for the benefit of the named beneficiary, not the tustees wanton kid, nor for the trustee to keep it for his kid. If a trustee verbalizes that's what he intends to do, then he cannot be trusted. If he changes his story when the truth comes out, then he's grasping at straws. I suppose there are countless injustices because poor women, abused women (and men for that matter) walk away and let the batterers and wrongdoers take what's rightfully theirs. I have everything in writing. Bottom line? My parents wanted me to inherit. If they wanted it to go their nere-do-well son's spendthrift kid, they would have included their kid as a beneficiary.They didn't. I sacrificed a lot for my parent's sake and for fighting for my mother's rights, my sister's rights, and now my rights. Women do not have to be abused in order to obtain their inheritances. Sorry.

 

[tranquility]

In California, a beneficiary has every right to know what is in the trust, all trust assets and valuation fo those assets.

This is not true. I understand California law and you are mistaken.

As to abusive trustees, in CA, a trustee can be removed for hostilities toward each other (because as co-trustees they have to agree on everything) and can be removed for hostilities towards the beneficiary. A neutral successor trustee provided within the language of the trust can take over. No court should allow an abuser men to control their victims. if it isn;t against the law, it most definitly should be. This is 2008 in America.

While there may be some case law on the matter, you overstate things. I don't want to write an article so I won't go further, but you are incorrect in what I percieve you to be saying.

There are laws against assault and and battery.

This accusation is wholely beyond trust law. The courts, in such law will not help you. If you get the criminal courts to help you here, you *may* have a case.

In Calfi, a person may be deemed to have predeceased the decedent if they abused an elder or a dependant adult or allowed them to be abused by another without intervening.

This seems reasonable to me, do you have a citation?

The language of the trust does not say anything about a spendthrify trust. It says only that it is supposed to be for the benefit of the named beneficiary, not the tustees wanton kid, nor for the trustee to keep it for his kid.

Super. Perhaps it is true. Do you have the specific language or case which would support your postion?

If a trustee verbalizes that's what he intends to do, then he cannot be trusted.

I guess. If that's what he does, then you have something.

If he changes his story when the truth comes out, then he's grasping at straws. I suppose there are countless injustices because poor women, abused women (and men for that matter) walk away and let the batterers and wrongdoers take what's rightfully theirs. I have everything in writing.

I bet you have less things related to fiduciary duty than you believe, but I've seen none of it in your constantly increasing story. Perhaps you might win. Perhaps.

Bottom line? My parents wanted me to inherit. If they wanted it to go their nere-do-well son's spendthrift kid, they would have included their kid as a beneficiary.They didn't. I sacrificed a lot for my parent's sake and for fighting for my mother's rights, my sister's rights, and now my rights. Women do not have to be abused in order to obtain their inheritances. Sorry.

One of the major problems about trusts is that it is what it is. Other considerations can be brought in in certain circumstances, but generally no. If they had the intent of A, but wrote B, B tends to be what guides. This is because the person is DEAD. What did they mean? What Joe Schmoe thought he meant or what they spent time with an attorney talking about things for a long time and the attorney wrote down what they said meant? Your call.

 

[truthandhonor]

Law enforcement said I have a good case and to get an attorney and sue my brother; ';d be better off going Civi in this case.. preponderance of evidence as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt. You asked for codes.... For the specific one you asked for, please scroll down.

(Please forgive me, but I've yet to learn how to work the copy paste method for a forum)
I stated, " In California, a beneficiary has every right to know what is in the trust, all trust assets and valuation fo those assets."
You stated,. "This is not true. I understand California law and you are mistaken."

You mean a person inherits a portion, called a "share" but we're not allowed to know what the portion amounts to?? You mean we're not allowed to know how many properties are still there, or left since the death of our father? A crooked trustee can say we only get so much and take everything for themselves otherwise:
CA Prob Cade 16061.
" Except as provided in Section 16064, on reasonable request
by a beneficiary, the trustee shall provide the beneficiary with a
report of information about the assets, liabilities, receipts, and
disbursements of the trust, the acts of the trustee, and the
particulars relating to the administration of the trust relevant to
the beneficiary's interest, including the terms of the trust."


I've spoken to a President of a bar association who told me by not telling the benficiaries what's in the trust, the trustees have breached their duty. I'm no accusing them, I just have a right to my fair share. If they play dirty, I can bring out the guns I suppose, again, I want only my fair share.

You stated that a trust is what it is. I believe, the facts are the facts and taking in to context what the trustor was actually getting at in the language of the trust, and even the trustees will admit to...
Carrying out the intention of the trustor:
15409. (a) On petition by a trustee or beneficiary, the court may
modify the administrative or dispositive provisions of the trust or
terminate the trust if, owing to circumstances not known to the
settlor and not anticipated by the settlor, the continuation of the
trust under its terms would defeat or substantially impair the
accomplishment of the purposes of the trust. In this case, if
necessary to carry out the purposes of the trust, the court may order
the trustee to do acts that are not authorized or are forbidden by
the trust instrument.

Quote:
"In Calfi, a person may be deemed to have predeceased the decedent if they abused an elder or a dependant adult or allowed them to be abused by another without intervening."

"This seems reasonable to me, do you have a citation?"

CA Pro Code 259; CA Penal Code 368.

Section 259
(a) Any person shall be deemed to have predeceased a decedent to the extent provided in subdivision (c) where all of the following apply:
(1) It has been proven by clear and convincing evidence that the person is liable for physical abuse, neglect, or fiduciary abuse of the decedent, who was an elder or dependent adult.
(2) The person is found to have acted in bad faith.
(3) The person has been found to have been reckless, oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious in the commission of any of these acts upon the decedent.
(4) The decedent, at the time those acts occurred and thereafter until the time of his or her death, has been found to have been substantially unable to manage his or her financial resources or to resist fraud or undue influence.
(b) Any person shall be deemed to have predeceased a decedent to the extent provided in subdivision (c) if that person has been convicted of a violation of Section 236 of the Penal Code or any offense described in Section 368 of the Penal Code.
(c) Any person found liable under subdivision (a) or convicted under subdivision (b) shall not (1) receive any property, damages, or costs that are awarded to the decedent's estate in an action described in subdivision (a) or (b), whether that person's entitlement is under a will, a trust, or the laws of intestacy; or (2) serve as a fiduciary as defined in Section 39, if the instrument nominating or appointing that person was executed during the period when the decedent was substantially unabIle to manage his or her financial resources or resist fraud or undue influence. This section shall not apply to a decedent who, at any time following the act or acts described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), or the act or acts described in subdivision (b), was substantially able to manage his or her financial resources and to resist fraud or undue influence within the meaning of subdivision (b) of Section 1801 of the Probate Code and subdivision (b) of Section 39 of the Civil Code.
(d) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) Physical abuse as defined in Section 15610.63 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(2) Neglect as defined in Section 15610.57 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(3) False imprisonment as defined in Section 368 of the Penal Code.
(4) Fiduciary abuse as defined in Section 15610.30 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the severance and transfer of an action or proceeding to a separate civil action pursuant to Section 801.

 

[truthandhonor]

California Penal Code, Section 368
? (a) The Legislature finds and declares that crimes against elders and dependent adults are deserving of special consideration and protection, not unlike the special protections provided for minor children, because elders and dependent adults may be confused, on various medications, mentally or physically impaired, or incompetent, and therefore less able to protect themselves, to understand or report criminal conduct, or to testify in court proceedings on their own behalf.
? (b)
o (1) Any person who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any elder or dependent adult, with knowledge that he or she is an elder or a dependent adult, to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any elder or dependent adult, willfully causes or permits the person or health of the elder or dependent adult to be injured, or willfully causes or permits the elder or dependent adult to be placed in a situation in which his or her person or health is endangered, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison for two, three, or four years.
o (2) If in the commission of an offense described in paragraph (1), the victim suffers great bodily injury, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 12022.7, the defendant shall receive an additional term in the state prison as follows:
? (A) Three years if the victim is under 70 years of age.
? (B) Five years if the victim is 70 years of age or older.
o (3) If in the commission of an offense described in paragraph (1), the defendant proximately causes the death of the victim, the defendant shall receive an additional term in the state prison as follows:
? (A) Five years if the victim is under 70 years of age.
? (B) Seven years if the victim is 70 years of age or older.
? (c) Any person who, under circumstances or conditions other than those likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any elder or dependent adult, with knowledge that he or she is an elder or a dependent adult, to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any elder or dependent adult, willfully causes or permits the person or health of the elder or dependent adult to be injured or willfully causes or permits the elder or dependent adult to be placed in a situation in which his or her person or health may be endangered, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
? (d) Any person who is not a caretaker who violates any provision of law proscribing theft or embezzlement, with respect to the property of an elder or dependent adult, and who knows or reasonably should know that the victim is an elder or dependent adult, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison for two, three, or four years, when the money, labor, or real or personal property taken is of a value exceeding four hundred dollars ($400); and by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the money, labor, or real or personal property taken is of a value not exceeding four hundred dollars ($400).
? (e) Any caretaker of an elder or a dependent adult who violates any provision of law proscribing theft or embezzlement, with respect to the property of that elder or dependent adult, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison for two, three, or four years when the money, labor, or real or personal property taken is of a value exceeding four hundred dollars ($400), and by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the money, labor, or real or personal property taken is of a value not exceeding four hundred dollars ($400).
? (f) Any person who commits the false imprisonment of an elder or dependent adult by the use of violence, menace, fraud, or deceit is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.
? (g) As used in this section, "elder" means any person who is 65 years of age or older.
? (h) As used in this section, "dependent adult" means any person who is between the ages of 18 and 64, who has physical or mental limitations which restrict his or her ability to carry out normal activities or to protect his or her rights, including, but not limited to, persons who have physical or developmental disabilities or whose physical or mental abilities have diminished because of age. "Dependent adult" includes any person between the ages of 18 and 64 who is admitted as an inpatient to a 24-hour health facility, as defined in Sections 1250, 1250.2, and 1250.3 of the Health and Safety Code.
? (i) As used in this section, "caretaker" means any person who has the care, custody, or control of, or who stands in a position of trust with, an elder or a dependent adult.
? (j) Nothing in this section shall preclude prosecution under both this section and Section 187 or 12022.7 or any other provision of law. However, a person shall not receive an additional term of imprisonment under both paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (b) for any single offense, nor shall a person receive an additional term of imprisonment under both Section 12022.7 and paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (b) for any single offense.

 

[tranquility]

You mean a person inherits a portion, called a "share" but we're not allowed to know what the portion amounts to?? You mean we're not allowed to know how many properties are still there, or left since the death of our father? A crooked trustee can say we only get so much and take everything for themselves otherwise:
CA Prob Cade 16061.

Look further in the code. I am well aquainted as to the many instances where a beneficiary is required to receive an accounting. You have not yet proven you are entitled to an accounting.

I've spoken to a President of a bar association who told me by not telling the benficiaries what's in the trust, the trustees have breached their duty. I'm no accusing them, I just have a right to my fair share. If they play dirty, I can bring out the guns I suppose, again, I want only my fair share.

Maybe so, depending on the facts which you have not adequately presented. What does the trust say regarding an accounting? If the trust says an accounting is not required, the statute does not override. As I already wrote:

However a trust could state an accounting is [not--my error in the previous post] required and then you could not get one unless you petitioned the court with facts indicating some malfeasance. (At least in my state, each state has different rules.) Other things could depend on if the trust is still revocable or you are a contingent beneficiary.

Thanks for the cite on elder abuse. Please go through each element and give me the fact, provable or not (which will make it harder than you believe) which fulfills that element.

 

[truthandhonor]

I appreciate this. It's like sharpening the saw, so thank you.However, I find it disconcerting you ask that I list all the pieces of evidence over the internet to present the facts. This is a case pending in court. Suffice to say, in hopes I get answers to strengthen my case:

There are two seperate trusts here: my mother's and my father's.

Mother's:
It's irrevocable now because she died.It states nothing about accountings. Only that laws of the state of CA apply and that the state can intervene at any time. It has no language about waivers of accountings and from what I understand, a beneficiary has the right to know about the trust which I quoted you. When I initially shoped for attornies it was the same question: What's in the trust? Where are the listings of all the bank accounts? The stocks and bonds,commerical properties and real other real properties?

When my Uncle died, I was given a copy of the trust which included a run down of the entire estate listings. He was a very wealthy man and there was pages and pages of listings provided with the trust document itself. But he had a responsible trustee. So what's the deal with this conning sibling, and what is he hiding?

Refusal to pay for our medical expenses when the trust explicitly says they are supposed to. Claiming my mother did not want me to have anuy medical care when she helped me before (have proof) and it's written in the trust he's supposed to pay it over and above this rediculous and bogus SNT which restricts these sizable dstricubtions of which I would never see even a small percentage of in my lifetime. Gross malfeasance at least since the only way my mother would have been duped is by wondersul son told her an viscous lie that I am on SSI thus not capable of having anything over $2,000. The trust contradicts that premise entirely by willing only me and my sister the home furnishings. Where do these wonderful co-trustees expect my sister and I to put a huge house full of expensive antque furniture? On the sidewalk?

I'm so sorry you disagree with what the law has to say... But it is illegal to subject my sister, a Dependent Adult to abuse... nor my mother and elder (age 94) to abuse without risking the court to deem trustees to have predecased the decedent and therefore lose their entire inheritance outright no matter what the trust says were to otherwise recieve.

Evidence of malfeasance:
Too numerous to mention.. But part of the trust assets are shares in our corporation which has been in exsistance for over 70 years. (This is an extremely sizable estate).

Fact:
I have a hand written letter in my mother's pen which states (in reference to the shares of which she held when she was alive) about the wonderful co-trustee sibling, "(trustee brother) and his wife stood over my head and forced me into it" (signing over her proxy) Then she stated her desire (which wonderful trustee went directly against). "I do not agree with (said action)..,and have been asking to review the books of our business... (again refusal of wonderful trustee son)I insist on being represented in any proceedings...."

The facts are the control freek self-serving trustee son went against my mothers explicit wishes on several points including keeping disinherited abuser son in her house, then letting him ransack the house to her disgrace, never affecting repairs, failure to make trust assets prosper (like get a good tenant in her house or let me or my sister (or our mother!) live in the house since we are benficiaires and the abuser put my mother out to live the last 9 years in a nursing home never to see her house again. When Elder Abuse stepped in, trustee son went against them too and said, oh well, I'll just put her away in a nursing home (against her wishes) when she could have easily lived in her house??

Fact: If anything was said in her defense (she begged) he would threaten to "make her disinherit me." (Four others were disinherited, uh, uh....!) The only reason why he could not get away with it with me is because the entire community and extended family knows how much my parents adored me. Refusal to pay my medical expenses when the trust explicitly says they are supposed to supply that.

Father's trust:
My father's trust was never accounted for in 17 years. I am clearly a beneificiary. It is written down in the trust papers of my father's trust.
Upon the death of our mother, his half of all holdings are supposed to be distributed. I was promised large sums of cash due to an incident of imminent domain on one of the poreperties. My attorney advised after a letter of reasonable request for an accounting, I can petition the court for such accounting. Is that not so?

Mother's trust:
Again, no waiver of accounting, No mentions in the trust of no accounting allowed.

The code? "Regardless of a waiver of accounting in the trust instrument, upon a showing that it is reasonably likely that a material breach of the trust has occurred, the court may compel the trustee to report information about the trust and to account."

Corporate misdealings, breakage of Ca corporate law:
Failure to hold shareholder meetings. Failure to account. Trustee living off the corporation (only family member). Attempts at bribery to halt the investigatin when the law was called on by Elder Abuse. Evidence of cominlged assets (checks) and actions based on "Mumma says, she says" but not written down, in fact the oppsitise of what she said and wrote down. Entirely ludicrous and self-serving actions on the part of the trustee sibling, such as
when taking things for himself stating our father or our mother wanted him to have it: the family yacht! Letting the disinhetied abuser druggie brother live for free in our mother's house for years while throwing my mother into a nursing home against her will, and me and my sister on the street to fend for ourselves with no one to protect us save the Lord God Himself? While co-trustees lived shameless lavish lifestyles? Pocketing a $15,000 gift from Uncle to help pay for the other co-trustees free yacht (because he failed to pay our mother back for it since he connived her into doing that), then getting disinherited by out Uncle?

Refusal to pay for my medical expenses when the trust explicitly says they are supposed to supply that. Hence, I am incapable of obtaining further medical and dental care I need because it costs money and I am incapable of commanding that kind of money, and I am a single householder. No husband supporting me either. My sister collecting SSI, living on the street? Telling my sister she has no shares in our coporation, subborning Medi-Cal fraud, giving her no other options because he was too selfish to let her lend her a hand or so much as giver he a drink of water or a piece of bread?

Father's Trust:
My father's trust was never accounted for in 17 years. I am clearly a beneificiary. It is written down in the trust papers of my father's trust. Upon the death of our mother, it's supposed to be distributed. All real property is in both names as a married couple. Half and half. My father's half, my mother's half. My mother dishinherited some of the siblings and gifted me over and above all the rest. I was advised after a letter of reasonable request for an accounting, I can petition the court for such accounting. Is that not so?
Again, the wrongdoing co-trustee brother took charge of his estate. Took my mother;'s checkbook and accounts overafter Dad died with no power of attorney in place. Copies of checks from differing accounts in the wife's name too.

Code:
"Regardless of a waiver of accounting in the trust instrument, upon a showing that it is
reasonably likely that a material breach of the trust has occurred, the court may compel the trustee to report information about the trust and to account."

I am not convinced trustees are given a thrown and a skeptor to wield their own interests
over and above the other beneficiaries. They have a duty not to jsut hide and keep everything for themselves and their kids. They should have a duty to account and to administer the trust assets "for the benefit of the benficiaries" of which they are not the only beneficiaires! True??

 

[tranquility]

You can't "sharpen" by adding things. Keep focused on your goals.

(1) It has been proven by clear and convincing evidence that the person is liable for physical abuse, neglect, or fiduciary abuse of the decedent, who was an elder or dependent adult.

I have a hand written letter in my mother's pen which states (in reference to the shares of which she held when she was alive) about the wonderful co-trustee sibling, "(trustee brother) and his wife stood over my head and forced me into it" (signing over her proxy) Then she stated her desire (which wonderful trustee went directly against). "I do not agree with (said action)..,and have been asking to review the books of our business... (again refusal of wonderful trustee son)I insist on being represented in any proceedings...."

Nope, although it may be evidence towards that end.

The facts are the control freek self-serving trustee son went against my mothers explicit wishes on several points including keeping disinherited abuser son in her house, then letting him ransack the house to her disgrace, never affecting repairs, failure to make trust assets prosper (like get a good tenant in her house or let me or my sister (or our mother!) live in the house since we are benficiaires and the abuser put my mother out to live the last 9 years in a nursing home never to see her house again. When Elder Abuse stepped in, trustee son went against them too and said, oh well, I'll just put her away in a nursing home (against her wishes) when she could have easily lived in her house??

Nope.

You have provided no facts there is a violation of even the first element of section 259. Let alone the later, harder ones. I'd go through your other claims (with what I bet are similar results) but this is not my job and have already spent too much time on the thread.

Look, it is impossible to know if you have a case. I'm glad you have an attorney as continued unfocused accusations are not going to win you anything. From the focus issues, I sense there may be some legitimate reason for you to be under a SNT in the mind of those who gave you these gifts. To me, the only thing which has any traction is the lack of accounting. But, the remedy will not be to give you all the money, it will be to get an accounting and, if there is a problem (or not depending on how harsh the judge is) and if there is to get a successor trustee. I'm not sure how much better a position you will be in then.