Questions about Bank trustee behavior in administering our trust.

[quincy]

He has been told that several times now.

 

[OSV]

It's unclear what "this situation" means. Block whose access?

trustee access, obviously.

circling back to my first post: "Has the bank effectively resigned as trustee?", because of the notarized statement that i just posted a copy of... that was a bank-approved document, they worked it out with my lawyer, it's simple english that anyone out here can intelligently comment on.

1) i gave the bank what they wanted, with that document
2) the bank initially refused to release the trust assets because my sister refused to sign their liability release forms
3) the bank then tried to get my handicapped brother to sign an Appointment of Trustee document(via the lawyer I hired), my sister won't allow it
4) the bank stopped communicating last year, but started up again via a new trust rep that they hired, we've exchanged emails and had two phone conversations
5) a couple of days ago i sent the bank an email asking for the trust to reimburse the $1799 that i spent on the lawyer last year, haven't received a response and probably won't, if the bank has effectively resigned as trustee they can't withdraw funds, but they probably can't admit that without putting themselves in legal jeopardy
6) i asked the new trust administrator if the bank can access the trust funds, couldn't get a concrete answer and she hasn't communicated anything since that last email i sent.

It's no different than any other mental competency determination.

if i knew what that was, i wouldn't have asked.

A trustee doesn't need "grounds" to resign.

that is incorrect, resigning for no reason could in some situations be breach of their fiduciary duty to the trust... lets review basic facts:
"A fiduciary duty is the legal responsibility to act solely in the best interest of another party. “Fiduciary” means trust, and a person with a fiduciary duty has a legal obligation to maintain that trust. For example, lawyers have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of their clients."

defense lawyers for instance can't stop defending clients for no reason, they would usually need to petition the court and provide a good reason for withdrawal.

since you are avidly following legal matters both here and on reddit, perhaps you are a first-year law student, or ?? the takeaway here is that the bank has $2.4 billion in assets, they are the titanic and i'm sitting in a rowboat, trying to block the corrupt direction that they are taking... what i'm going thru can happen to anyone who has a trust.

 

[quincy]

trustee access, obviously.

circling back to my first post: "Has the bank effectively resigned as trustee?", because of the notarized statement that i just posted a copy of... that was a bank-approved document, they worked it out with my lawyer, it's simple english that anyone out here can intelligently comment on.

1) i gave the bank what they wanted, with that document
2) the bank initially refused to release the trust assets because my sister refused to sign their liability release forms
3) the bank then tried to get my handicapped brother to sign an Appointment of Trustee document(via the lawyer I hired), my sister won't allow it
4) the bank stopped communicating last year, but started up again via a new trust rep that they hired, we've exchanged emails and had two phone conversations
5) a couple of days ago i sent the bank an email asking for the trust to reimburse the $1799 that i spent on the lawyer last year, haven't received a response and probably won't, if the bank has effectively resigned as trustee they can't withdraw funds, but they probably can't admit that without putting themselves in legal jeopardy
6) i asked the new trust administrator if the bank can access the trust funds, couldn't get a concrete answer and she hasn't communicated anything since that last email i sent.



if i knew what that was, i wouldn't have asked.



that is incorrect, resigning for no reason could in some situations be breach of their fiduciary duty to the trust... lets review basic facts:
"A fiduciary duty is the legal responsibility to act solely in the best interest of another party. “Fiduciary” means trust, and a person with a fiduciary duty has a legal obligation to maintain that trust. For example, lawyers have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of their clients."

defense lawyers for instance can't stop defending clients for no reason, they would usually need to petition the court and provide a good reason for withdrawal.

since you are avidly following legal matters both here and on reddit, perhaps you are a first-year law student, or ?? the takeaway here is that the bank has $2.4 billion in assets, they are the titanic and i'm sitting in a rowboat, trying to block the corrupt direction that they are taking... what i'm going thru can happen to anyone who has a trust.

For what reason are you trying to access the trust’s funds?

The trust set up for your brother is not going to pay your legal expenses.

 

[Zigner]

trustee access, obviously.

circling back to my first post: "Has the bank effectively resigned as trustee?", because of the notarized statement that i just posted a copy of... that was a bank-approved document, they worked it out with my lawyer, it's simple english that anyone out here can intelligently comment on.

1) i gave the bank what they wanted, with that document
2) the bank initially refused to release the trust assets because my sister refused to sign their liability release forms
3) the bank then tried to get my handicapped brother to sign an Appointment of Trustee document(via the lawyer I hired), my sister won't allow it
4) the bank stopped communicating last year, but started up again via a new trust rep that they hired, we've exchanged emails and had two phone conversations
5) a couple of days ago i sent the bank an email asking for the trust to reimburse the $1799 that i spent on the lawyer last year, haven't received a response and probably won't, if the bank has effectively resigned as trustee they can't withdraw funds, but they probably can't admit that without putting themselves in legal jeopardy
6) i asked the new trust administrator if the bank can access the trust funds, couldn't get a concrete answer and she hasn't communicated anything since that last email i sent.



if i knew what that was, i wouldn't have asked.



that is incorrect, resigning for no reason could in some situations be breach of their fiduciary duty to the trust... lets review basic facts:
"A fiduciary duty is the legal responsibility to act solely in the best interest of another party. “Fiduciary” means trust, and a person with a fiduciary duty has a legal obligation to maintain that trust. For example, lawyers have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of their clients."

defense lawyers for instance can't stop defending clients for no reason, they would usually need to petition the court and provide a good reason for withdrawal.

since you are avidly following legal matters both here and on reddit, perhaps you are a first-year law student, or ?? the takeaway here is that the bank has $2.4 billion in assets, they are the titanic and i'm sitting in a rowboat, trying to block the corrupt direction that they are taking... what i'm going thru can happen to anyone who has a trust.

You certainly are a rude one.

 

[quincy]

trustee access, obviously.

circling back to my first post: "Has the bank effectively resigned as trustee?", because of the notarized statement that i just posted a copy of... that was a bank-approved document, they worked it out with my lawyer, it's simple english that anyone out here can intelligently comment on.

1) i gave the bank what they wanted, with that document
2) the bank initially refused to release the trust assets because my sister refused to sign their liability release forms
3) the bank then tried to get my handicapped brother to sign an Appointment of Trustee document(via the lawyer I hired), my sister won't allow it
4) the bank stopped communicating last year, but started up again via a new trust rep that they hired, we've exchanged emails and had two phone conversations
5) a couple of days ago i sent the bank an email asking for the trust to reimburse the $1799 that i spent on the lawyer last year, haven't received a response and probably won't, if the bank has effectively resigned as trustee they can't withdraw funds, but they probably can't admit that without putting themselves in legal jeopardy
6) i asked the new trust administrator if the bank can access the trust funds, couldn't get a concrete answer and she hasn't communicated anything since that last email i sent.



if i knew what that was, i wouldn't have asked.



that is incorrect, resigning for no reason could in some situations be breach of their fiduciary duty to the trust... lets review basic facts:
"A fiduciary duty is the legal responsibility to act solely in the best interest of another party. “Fiduciary” means trust, and a person with a fiduciary duty has a legal obligation to maintain that trust. For example, lawyers have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of their clients."

defense lawyers for instance can't stop defending clients for no reason, they would usually need to petition the court and provide a good reason for withdrawal.

since you are avidly following legal matters both here and on reddit, perhaps you are a first-year law student, or ?? the takeaway here is that the bank has $2.4 billion in assets, they are the titanic and i'm sitting in a rowboat, trying to block the corrupt direction that they are taking... what i'm going thru can happen to anyone who has a trust.

OSV, you seem reluctant to accept that your situation requires personal attention from an attorney in your area. But I will tell you once again that it does.

Special Need Trusts are set up to meet the specific needs of the specific special needs beneficiary, using the assets available to finance these needs according to the terms of the specific special needs trust. The funds in the trust are used to supplement the needs of the beneficiary without disrupting any government benefits available to the beneficiary (e.g., Medicaid, SSI).

When the person or entity originally chosen to manage and distribute the assets in the trust (the trustee) becomes unable or unwilling to continue serving as trustee, the successor trustee named in the trust takes over as trustee.

There are a few ways that special need trusts end (e.g., the beneficiary dies, the trust runs out of funds, the beneficiary is no longer judged disabled or with the needs for which the trust was set up in the first place, etc).

Please see an attorney in your area for a personal review. The attorney can help you arrange for a competency examination for your brother and assist in the change of trustees should your brother still require a special needs trust.

It is important to note, by the way, that the funds in the trust do not belong to you or your sister, which is why you cannot access them. The funds finance the trust and are managed by the trustee for the benefit of and in the best interests of your brother only.

 

[zddoodah]

trustee access, obviously.

So...your question is: "is it legal for a trustee in this situation to block [the trustee's] access to trust funds"? How does that make any sense?

since you are avidly following legal matters both here and on reddit, perhaps you are a first-year law student, or ?

I don't recall saying that I "avidly follow[] legal matters . . . on reddit [sic]." Could you please point me to the post in this thread where I wrote that (or any other place where I have ever written that)? Of course, you can't do that because you made this up. The reason I found your post on Reddit is because I did some googling in an attempt to respond to this post, and one of the results was your Reddit post. As far as being a first-year law student, what on Earth does that even mean? Are you suggesting that only first-year law students post on forums like this? If so, that seems like a rather absurd assertion.

defense lawyers for instance can't stop defending clients for no reason, they would usually need to petition the court and provide a good reason for withdrawal.

You're right, but that has nothing to do with what we're discussing here.

that is incorrect

So...you're the legal expert now? Then you should have all of this covered. Carry on.

 

[quincy]

… since you are avidly following legal matters both here and on reddit, perhaps you are a first-year law student …

This ^^^ amuses me, thinking that first year law students might have the time to follow legal matters on Reddit.

 

[OSV]

So...your question is: "is it legal for a trustee in this situation to block [the trustee's] access to trust funds"?

I never said that the bank and i were somehow co-trustees, i asked help with confirming who the trustee actually is, relevant to the document i posted, that you asked to see.

of course no one else commented on the legality/applicability of it either; this forum is clearly the wrong place to look for intelligent opinions about simple legal documents.

I don't recall saying that I "avidly follow[] legal matters . . . on reddit [sic]."

i asked a harmless question, it wasn't a claim.

you should be asking yourself why you felt it necessary to parrot that overposted nonsense about getting a lawyer, when you knew that it contributed nothing to the discussion.

You're right, but that has nothing to do with what we're discussing here.

true to some degree, but since fudiciary duty applies in all cases, the example with lawyers was used to clarify the concept.

attempting to help you understand was a waste of time.

 

[quincy]

I never said that the bank and i were somehow co-trustees, i asked help with confirming who the trustee actually is, relevant to the document i posted, that you asked to see.

of course no one else commented on the legality/applicability of it either; this forum is clearly the wrong place to look for intelligent opinions about simple legal documents.



i asked a harmless question, it wasn't a claim.

you should be asking yourself why you felt it necessary to parrot that overposted nonsense about getting a lawyer, when you knew that it contributed nothing to the discussion.



true to some degree, but since fudiciary duty applies in all cases, the example with lawyers was used to clarify the concept.

attempting to help you understand was a waste of time.

Yes. It appears this was a waste of time for all of us.

Thread reported for moderator review.

 

[Zigner]

When you (the OP) realize that your matter (or the document you refer to) is not just a "simple legal document," you may have more luck in getting the answer(s) you seek - hopefully from an attorney.

 

[quincy]

When you (the OP) realize that your matter (or the document you refer to) is not just a "simple legal document," you may have more luck in getting the answer(s) you seek - hopefully from an attorney.

Right. If OSV learns anything at all, I hope he learns that “law” is not always, or even usually, simple. If it were simple, we would not need lawyers.