• 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.

My dead grandmothers lawyers are screwing us over.

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

TrustUser

Senior Member
i would like to submit a 4th. when held in trust, funds (the trust assets themselves) are not attachable by the beneficiary's creditors.

it functions very much like a pension plan, in that it provides a monthly income

parents like the idea of helping their kids meet their monthly expenses, etc.

not so much into helping them buy a sports car, or travel to europe !!!

there are a lot of adult children who really are not good financially, and are never gonna be

that is not unusual - i hear that comment from a lot of people, regarding their kids
 


I live in Nevada and my grandmother recently died last month. My mother and her had the will and trust and all assets completely taken care of as to whom gets what. Since she has passed we are now finding out that the lawyers left out several pertinent assets. Mostly being my grandparents house. Since my grandmother is no longer with us we can’t have the will corrected. In short my grandmothers lawyer is screwing my entire family over. Is there anything that my mother and I can do?
Typically the will, with a trust, will have a "pour over" provision to capture assets that did not make it into the trust. I would look at the residuary clause of the will and I would consult a local attorney.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Typically the will, with a trust, will have a "pour over" provision to capture assets that did not make it into the trust. I would look at the residuary clause of the will and I would consult a local attorney.
This was already addressed several times in the thread.
 

Taxing Matters

Overtaxed Member
parents like the idea of helping their kids meet their monthly expenses, etc.

not so much into helping them buy a sports car, or travel to europe !!!
There are some parents who are controlling enough that they want to limit their kid's use of his/her inheritance that way well into adulthood. I don't see many of my clients wanting that, but there are a few. Personally I think that in most situations that's overkill; if the kid wants to use his/her money for trips or cars or whatever, so be it. As a parent I might disapprove my kid's choices in spending, but when the kid is an adult well past college age those are his/her mistakes to make. However, if the kid is a drug addict, has significant medical needs that will be ongoing, already has huge debts he cannot pay, or other really significant problems that would make giving him/her the money outright then of course it can be a very wise thing to limit the inheritance that way. It's up to the client, though, what he/she wants to do. The key thing is that the client is informed of all the options so they can decide the best way to go for themselves. Firms that strongly push one particular "product" limit their clients' options, and I think that's poor practice.
 

TrustUser

Senior Member
gosh, i do not like the description "controlling", in this particular regard !!

because many of the people that i have talked to, are not controlling people

i would call it a "wise understanding of your child", and doing what is best for him/her

but we both agree that the client should be informed of his options !!

just as a note : there are connotative and denotative meanings to words. so dont write back, telling me that you used an accurate denotative description. because i would not disagree. however the word "controlling" has a negative connotation, in this sense.

for example, let's say you did not know anything about any particular topic. if i referred to you as being uniformed on that topic, it would be no big deal. but on the other hand, if i referred to you as being "naive" on that topic, that would be taken much more like an insult.

both words might be correct in a denotative sense. but one of them is apt to irritate you - LOL
 

TrustUser

Senior Member
it may not be as much of an issue at the present, but in the past it was also a good way to keep assets from being looked at again for estate tax purposes.

trump has increased that limit to 10 million or whatever big number. but if the globalists ever get back into control, that will go away.

that is a 5th reason. and actually these last 2 reasons are my biggest reasons for setting up my trust this way. i want to ensure that my beneficiaries have some sort of monthly stability in their lives. if they are doing well, they can always use their own money for splurging !!
 
Sponsored Ad

Top