untrusty Trustee??

[TrustUser]

hi tq,

there is no more reason for me to discuss this with you. i have presented an extremely solid case to demonstrate what must be clear to every reader besides yourself - that the trustee is legally obligated to follow the instructions of the trust.

after all, that is what a trustee is for. if the trustee was not obligated to do so, there would be nobody creating a trust, in the first place.

i may as well be trying to argue the point that 2 + 2 = 4.

i do know that you are very knowledgeable about trusts. so i can only guess that you are just trying to be obstinate - because your claim is not accomplishing anything else.

i am sure that we will have other conversations, that i will look forward to.

 

[tranquility]

hi tq,

there is no more reason for me to discuss this with you. i have presented an extremely solid case to demonstrate what must be clear to every reader besides yourself - that the trustee is legally obligated to follow the instructions of the trust.

after all, that is what a trustee is for. if the trustee was not obligated to do so, there would be nobody creating a trust, in the first place.

i may as well be trying to argue the point that 2 + 2 = 4.

i do know that you are very knowledgeable about trusts. so i can only guess that you are just trying to be obstinate - because your claim is not accomplishing anything else.

i am sure that we will have other conversations, that i will look forward to.

You are using the logic of a sovereign citizen or person who believes the income tax amendment was not properly ratified.

I'm sure that when you illegally advise friends and families on trusts everything comes out OK. It may be because there are no tax or gift obligations and the trustees are solid and true and the beneficiaries are happy to get along and the purpose of the trust is to make some small estate transfer on death without probate. (Maybe a little hide the ball on where assets are if the grandmother who drives only on Sundays happens to get in an accident.) Of course, grandmother never does--because she is careful. No one ever tests such things as no one cares.

When you start trying to deny the king his taxes, things get harder. So too, if the beneficiaries hurt someone badly. The little Nolo press book or summaries on Wikipedia are not enough when those things happen. Other than that, and a couple of other exceptions not relevant here having to do with the concept of standing, if the beneficiaries are happy, no one will will care, look at, challenge or otherwise deal with the trust language. Every year many cases come out describing more and more detail on what specific wording or information means in connection to a trust. Those who are plaintiffs in those lawsuits will be a beneficiary or some governmental tax man. Since language is living and some may even question what the meaning of "is" is, there is no "illegality" for not interpreting the trust differently from the way the one who wrote it thought it would be interpreted. Well, at least until a court determines it.

Which will not happen until someone with standing is unhappy.

If there is a phrase in the trust:
Trustee will give beneficiary as much money as needed.

How much money must be given before the trustee's action is "illegal"? That is just one example. While we have ascertainable standards, lawyers are warned to not change the language to expand or contract those much because, once they do--you're looking at another court case to clarify the meaning in that circumstance. When do we get that case? (Insert infinite loop here.)

Unless the trustee steals for himself or his own (no matter how we want to define it), the criminal law won't care. The exceptions to that may be conspiracy to commit fraud if the trust is to hide assets from creditors and/or failing to file and pay taxes appropriately. So all we have is the civil.

Follow the trust, indeed. Once we start trying to do actual things beyond grandmother passing assets on death without probate, things get fuzzy fast and it's all in how you argue it.

 

[TrustUser]

just so i have made myself clear as to your question - my research has shown that there is absolutely no problem with a beneficiary being the trustee.

when and if that trustee should be the sole beneficiary, the only problem regarding merger, is if the trustee has discretionary powers regarding distribution. as you mentioned in your previous post.

if he does not, then he is indeed legally obligated to follow the instructions in the trust, and therefore there is separation between him as an individual, and him as a beneficiary.

when he has other siblings, then he is obviously obligated to them.

if he does not, then he is most likely obligated to someone. in the family trusts that i am referring to, the corpus usually remains in the trust, for following generations.

i was a well paid systems analyst/programmer. so a big part of my forte was analyzing a situation, and coming up with solutions.

it is a horrible solution to force the beneficiary to use someone else as trustee. parents almost never do this. they almost always name one of their kids as the trustee.

the use of a trust protector can be a good idea sometimes, if we are talking about the beneficiary hiring him to look into things. but not as a permanent employee. that accomplishes nothing.

there needs to be some process to hire/fire a trust protector, as well as to hire/fire a trustee. there always is language in a trust regarding appointing and removing a trustee.

here is a solution that i might lean towards. the beneficiary is the trustee, unless he chooses to hire someone else to do the job. and of course the beneficiary can remove and appoint another trustee for whatever reason.

the beneficiary is always free to use trust funds to protect itself. whether it means hiring an accountant, an attorney, or someone to do the job of a trust protector.

there is a tax return filed each year for the irrevocable trust (once parents have died) with its own tax id number. there could be a yes/no question on the form that asks "are you the sole beneficiary".

if so, there could be some sort of process by which the trustee must prove that he is following the dictates of the trust to the next beneficiary.

and of course, if there is someone trying to sue the trust - i would think that the trustee would already currently need to show that he does not have discretionary powers if he is attempting to claim spendthrift protection ?

in any case, if i was part of the process of bringing in a system, things could be accomplished and still not place the beneficiary in possible danger by requiring him to use an outside trustee.

personally, i do not think that the govt will ever do this.

the problem of a truly sole beneficiary/trustee spending the trust funds in some other fashion that dictated is not a problem that i think the govt should get involved with. the main point we have been debating in this regard is whether there is merger or not. well if someone sues him, and he claims there is no merger, it is up to him to prove that he is indeed following the instructions of the trust, and that those instructions do not allow him to make decisions as if he was an individual. there is no need for the govt to pass laws to deal with this.

 

[TrustUser]

one reason i like this sort of solution is that we do not punish or inconvenience the majority for problems with the minority.

i still chuckle at a post ant made quite some time ago.

it went something like he was waiting for a poster to write that everything was great, there were absolutely no problems.

the point he was making is that the posts that we see here, and the court cases that you see or are involved with - are still the extreme minority.

the vast majority of trusts work fine for those involved.

i think we need to keep this in mind when we start trying to impose changes to a system.

i never liked the idea of punishing the whole class, in order to convince someone to snitch.

as i have stated many times, i am not a big fan of giving the trustee much unilateral power. there should be some sort of agreement process that occurs regarding the purchase of a large asset, like a house.

making the kid with business senses the trustee is a good idea. for he is much better able to make good investments, etc. but i still want him to go over why it is a good investment, etc. with the other beneficiaries before just unilaterally purchasing the asset.

and i dont want the beneficiary to ever be saddled with a trustee that they cant easily dismiss.

 

[tranquility]

just so i have made myself clear as to your question - my research has shown that there is absolutely no problem with a beneficiary being the trustee.

Nowhere near my question, nor is it related to my statement on the matter.

THE beneficiary cannot be THE trustee no matter what your research says.

when and if that trustee should be the sole beneficiary, the only problem regarding merger, is if the trustee has discretionary powers regarding distribution. as you mentioned in your previous post. if he does not, then he is indeed legally obligated to follow the instructions in the trust, and therefore there is separation between him as an individual, and him as a beneficiary.

No. It is not a "problem". The trust has the legal and beneficial owner in the same hands so....disappears. The former trustee no longer has to follow the terms of the trust. The trust is no longer. You are simply wrong in your assertion. I have provided legal references and yet you continue with the nonsense. THEY HAVE NO LEGAL DUTY TO FOLLOW THE TRUST. No court will consider the trust in existence. If a creditor wants to get the money, they can. All of it. Not just the amount the trust says the former trustee had to give the former beneficiary. Merger. Get over it.

In re Szwyd, 346 B.R. 290 (2006)

It is axiomatic that a purported trust in which the sole trustee is also the sole beneficiary is a nullity. Where the same person holds both legal and equitable interest in the res, a trust is one in form only and not in function. Vittands v. Sudduth, 49 Mass.App.Ct. 401, 409 n. 15, 730 N.E.2d 325, 334 (2000) (quoting Cunningham v. Bright, 228 Mass. 385, 389, 117 N.E. 909 (1917)) ("[o]ne cannot in the same instance be both the single trustee and the sole beneficiary of the same estate."); see also, Restatement (Second) of Trusts � 99 (2006) ("[t]he sole beneficiary of a trust cannot be the sole trustee of the trust").

When the entirety of legal and equitable interests in property vests in one person, those interests are said to merge and the trust terminates by operation of law; there are no duties or rights running between separate persons and the sole trustee/beneficiary is accountable to no one but him or herself. See generally, Atkins v. Atkins, 279 Mass. 1, 7, 180 N.E. 613, 614 (1932); Cunningham, 117 N.E. at 909; In re Lyons, 193 B.R. 637, 645 (Bankr. D.Mass.1996); see also, Restatement (Second) of Trusts � 341(1) (2006) ("if the legal title to the trust property and the entire beneficial interest become united in one person who is not under an incapacity, the trust terminates"). The trust then becomes a mere alias for the person acting simultaneously as sole trustee and sole beneficiary. Cunningham, 117 N.E. at 909.

And for one that directly contradicts your position, here is In re Pugh, 274 BR 883 (2002) where there was a purported spendthrift trust with the provision:

The trust contained a spendthrift provision in Article V, and provided in Article VII that "each beneficiary [i.e., the son and the daughter] shall become the trustee of his or her own share, but before any money is withdrawn from the trust share, the beneficiary must name a person of suitable age and discretion to serve as co-trustee. No beneficiary acting as Trustee may exercise Trustee's discretion to make distributions of principal to a beneficiary without the agreement of the co-trustee."

Beneficiary acting as trustee takes out money without following the provisions. The court discussed the law:

A valid spendthrift trust cannot exist where the sole beneficiary is also the sole trustee. In re Kaplan, 97 B.R. 572, 577 (9th Cir. BAP 1989)(applying Arizona law, which looked to the Restatement of the Law for the appropriate common law rule prior to adoption of a statute). "The primary consideration in determining whether a trust qualifies as a spendthrift trust is the debtor's degree of control over his trust."

The result is the trust is gone.

Consequently this Court concludes that a spendthrift trust provision is not valid under either A.R.S. � 14-7706 or under Kaplan if the trustee(s) other than the beneficiary is either not capable of exercising informed discretion as to distributions to the beneficiary (either because of lack of knowledge, as here, or otherwise) or does not in fact do so. In the absence of such a knowledgeable and discretion-exercising trustee, the beneficiary is in reality the sole trustee, so the spendthrift trust provision is invalidated by A.R.S. � 14-7706B and by the common law relied on in Kaplan. Because the statute does not evidence any intent to change the common law in relevant respects, decisions such as Kaplan and Morris remain good law except to the extent expressly overruled by the statute, and the statute should be construed consistent with the common law. A.R.S. � 1-201; United Bank v. Mesa N.O. Nelson Co., Inc., 121 Ariz. 438, 590 P.2d 1384 (1979).

For the foregoing reasons, the Trustee's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is granted. The spendthrift trust provisions are declared invalid and the Debtor's share of the trust is declared to be, and always has been, property of the estate pursuant to Bankruptcy Code � 541. Because this Partial Summary Judgment does not grant the Plaintiff Chapter 7 Trustee any particular remedy, however, this is not a final appealable order as it does not finally resolve this dispute.

In re Szwyd, 370 BR 882 - Bankr. Appellate Panel, 1st Circuit 2007

The debtor, Edward R. Szwyd, was the sole trustee and sole beneficiary of the nominee trust holding legal title to his principal residence. He attempted to acquire an estate of homestead by recording a declaration as beneficiary of the nominee trust holding title to the property. The chapter 7 trustee's primary objection is that the debtor, as the holder of a beneficial interest, is not eligible for a homestead as an "owner" of real estate within the meaning of the exemption statute, MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 188, � 1 (2007).

In a well-written opinion, the bankruptcy court determined that: (a) the nominee trust had ceased to exist as a separate entity when the debtor became its sole trustee and sole beneficiary; (b) at that moment, all legal and equitable interests in the property had merged and vested in the debtor making him the sole owner of his principal residence; (c) as the owner, the debtor was eligible to acquire an estate of homestead under MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 188, � 1 (2007), by the time he recorded his declaration; and (d) the debtor's acquisition of the exemption was perfected under MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 188, � 2 (2007), because the nominee trust was nothing more than an alias when he executed and properly recorded the declaration. See In re Szwyd, 346 B.R. 290, 293-94 (Bankr. D.Mass.2006).

In addition to the "basic trust law" you keep talking about (aka Restatement of Truste):

if the legal title to the trust property and the entire beneficial interest become united in one person, the trust terminates.

See also:
http://www.klgates.com/files/Publication/df335cb2-70d9-4e33-991d-01a029caeb45/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/13072894-8f3e-44a2-a26b-11835a70092d/CAIL.pdf
http://www.fredfranke.com/estate-trust-planning/revocable-inter-vivos-trusts/1-general-considerations/1-1what-constitutes-a-trust/1-1-6lack-of-separation/
http://www.florida-probate-lawyer.com/probate/divorce-does-not-dissolve-beneficial-interest-in-trust/
http://jay.law.ou.edu/faculty/KGuzman/Selected%20Issues%20in%20Trusts/Unit%201%20Handout%206%20Merger.pdf

 

[TrustUser]

the trustee must is legally obligated to follow the trust - GET OVER IT !!

so i looked up your url link of fredfranke.

the case was about a trustor who had written in the trust language that would allow the trustee to forego supplying accounting info to the beneficiary.

and it was established that the trustor could not remove this language from trust law. you know, the law that you say does not exist !!

in this particular case, there were real beneficiaries complaining that the trustee would not supply them with accounting. trustee was claiming that the trust allowed him this privilege.

the court said no.

nothing whatsoever to do with our current conversation.

 

[TrustUser]

The UTC, as previously drafted, did not specifically
address the issue of whether a creditor of a
beneficiary may reach the beneficial interest
of a beneficiary who is also a trustee. However,
Restatement (Third) of Trusts §60, comment
g, which was approved by the American Law
Institute in 1999, provides that the beneficial
interest of a beneficiary/trustee may be reached
by the beneficiary/trustee’s creditors. Because
the UTC is supplemented by the common law
(see UTC Section 106 ), this Restatement rule
might also apply in states enacting the UTC. The
drafting committee has concluded that adoption
of the Restatement rule would unduly disrupt
standard estate planning and should be limited.
Consequently, Section 504 is amended to provide
that the provisions of this section, which generally
prohibit a creditor of a beneficiary from reaching
a beneficiary’s discretionary interest, apply even
if the beneficiary is also a trustee or cotrustee.
The beneficiary-trustee is protected from creditor
claims to the extent the beneficiary-trustee’s
discretion is protected by an ascertainable standard
as defined in the relevant Internal Revenue Code
sections. The result is that the beneficiary’s
trustee’s interest is protected to the extent it is also
exempt from federal estate tax. The amendment
thereby achieves its main purpose, which is to
protect the trustee-beneficiary of a bypass trust
from creditor claims.

 

[TrustUser]

over and OVER AND OVER AGAIN, research on the net says that as long as the trustee is limited to an ascertainable standard, it is okay.

when he is not limited, then he has what is called a general power of appointment, and the trust falls apart.

 

[tranquility]

the trustee must is legally obligated to follow the trust - GET OVER IT !!

Reading is FUNdamental. Please at least read what I supply before making me write again. This is tiresome. I'm sorry you think you know what you are talking about, but you really are not doing a good job showing it. What's the quote? A pipe gives a wise man time to think and a fool something to put in his mouth. Choose wisely.

In re Pugh, 274 BR 883 (2002)
The facts:

Debtor's mother had lung cancer. She had a son and a daughter, but knew that her son was suffering financial difficulties. In September of 2000, she met with an attorney to arrange for the disposition of her assets upon her death. She created a trust into which most of her assets would flow upon her death. The son and daughter were to be both trustees and beneficiaries of their own trusts, and could distribute the assets of the trust to themselves equally. The trust contained a spendthrift provision in Article V, and provided in Article VII that "each beneficiary [i.e., the son and the daughter] shall become the trustee of his or her own share, but before any money is withdrawn from the trust share, the beneficiary must name a person of suitable age and discretion to serve as co-trustee. No beneficiary acting as Trustee may exercise Trustee's discretion to make distributions of principal to a beneficiary without the agreement of the co-trustee." Trust Article VII � A.

The mother died on December 27, 2000. The Debtor purportedly executed a disclaimer on February 21, 2001, so that his one-half of the inheritance would flow to the trust rather than to himself directly. On that same date the Debtor purportedly executed a certificate naming his sister, Candice Lee Butcher, as co-trustee.[1] In March and April, 2001, proceeds from the mother's estate were deposited into a World Savings Bank account designated in the name of the trust and reflecting the Debtor and his sister as co-trustees. Additional, smaller amounts of income were subsequently received by the mother's estate in May and August of that year, which the Debtor deposited into the bank account and then wrote a check to his sister for her one-half. The Debtor filed his Chapter 7 case on May 4, 2001.

The Debtor made deposits into, and drew checks upon, the trust account without his sister's signature or even her consent or knowledge. In his Separate Statement of Facts, the Chapter 7 Trustee has summarized the rather lengthy deposition of the Debtor into the following undisputed statement of fact, to which the Debtor has not objected:

That [trust] bank account had been set up and was controlled exclusively by [the Debtor]. From there, [the Debtor] has controlled and spent the proceeds of the assets that were paid over to him, without the involvement of [his sister]. [Debtor], without [his sister's] knowledge, consent or involvement, has paid his house payments, his car payments, and his other personal debts from the alleged trust bank account without the knowledge or participation of [his sister]. In fact, [his sister], having received her share of [the mother's] assets, claims no interest of any nature in the alleged trust or its assets and has nothing to do with it. (Citations omitted).

So, under your theory, the trust is still in effect, right? From some still unnamed criminal law you can't come up with (because it is not there), the trustee committed a crime, right? Heck, he committed a tort too, right? Against who? Who has been harmed? Who can complain? Who will listen?

No one.

The trustee did not follow the trust. He did not follow the trust on purpose. Heck, let's say, with malice and aforethought, the trustee violated the main terms of the trust designed to prevent him from doing the specific acts he did.

Is the trust still in effect? Can creditors collect against the trust funds left? Is the trustee going to get in any trouble from the courts?

No. Yes. NO.

The court recognized the purpose of the whole thing:

The concept of a spendthrift trust is to provide a trustee who exercises discretion as to when to distribute trust principal or income to the beneficiary, to protect the beneficiary from his spendthrift proclivities. This essential concept of trustee discretion not only underlies the Arizona statute but is also expressly found in its language: "If a trust instrument allows the trustee to exercise discretion in the use of income or principal, a transferee or creditor of the beneficiary may not compel the trustee to pay an amount that may be paid only in the exercise of his discretion." A.R.S. � 14-7704A. Obviously a trustee who does not know she is a trustee cannot possibly exercise such discretion. The facts here are undisputed that she exercised no such discretion, because the Debtor made withdrawals from the trust bank account and spent the money without her knowledge.

But, concludes (emphasis mine):

Consequently this Court concludes that a spendthrift trust provision is not valid under either A.R.S. � 14-7706 or under Kaplan if the trustee(s) other than the beneficiary is either not capable of exercising informed discretion as to distributions to the beneficiary (either because of lack of knowledge, as here, or otherwise) or does not in fact do so. In the absence of such a knowledgeable and discretion-exercising trustee, the beneficiary is in reality the sole trustee, so the spendthrift trust provision is invalidated by A.R.S. � 14-7706B and by the common law relied on in Kaplan. Because the statute does not evidence any intent to change the common law in relevant respects, decisions such as Kaplan and Morris remain good law except to the extent expressly overruled by the statute, and the statute should be construed consistent with the common law. A.R.S. � 1-201; United Bank v. Mesa N.O. Nelson Co., Inc., 121 Ariz. 438, 590 P.2d 1384 (1979).

For the foregoing reasons, the Trustee's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is granted. The spendthrift trust provisions are declared invalid and the Debtor's share of the trust is declared to be, and always has been, property of the estate pursuant to Bankruptcy Code � 541. Because this Partial Summary Judgment does not grant the Plaintiff Chapter 7 Trustee any particular remedy, however, this is not a final appealable order as it does not finally resolve this dispute.

For those who don't know what is meant by "estate" in the above quote, it has to do with Bankruptcy law. There, the "estate" is the corpus of a person's assets that the bankruptcy trustee now manages to satisfy the creditors. It is the stuff the PERSON owned.

Nemo potest esse dominus et haeres.

 

[TrustUser]

first, let me state that i thoroughly read the url that you gave me, and that i quoted back to you. and it was exactly as i stated. you did present several of them. i only read the first one that i picked out. and because it was so out of place, i felt little desire to read any of the other ones.

you are presenting a different case to me. but it does not contest what i have stated.

the trustee is legally obligated to follow the instructions of the trust.

you gave us an example of where the trustee/beneficiary decided to ignore such instructions.

if you want to blame me for not reading, dont move your face from the mirror. just how many times did i say that the trustee, if he wanted to claim asset protection, he had better be able to prove that he was following the instructions of the trust, NOT HIS OWN !!!!

so i will reiterate back to you, that this is tiring. if you want to quote me, quote me correctly.

since you are having problems with that, i will repeat for you.

the trustee is obligated to follow the instructions of the trust. not only that, but he is held up to fairly high standards, in doing so. assuming that the trust does not specifically give him the ability to spend the money, and said trustee does follow the instructions, then there is no merger, and he can claim asset protection (assuming proper spendthrift clauses).

here is some advice for you. the next time you defend a trustee, tell the judge that your client has no legal responsibility to follow the instructions of the trust. let me know how that defense works for you !!!!!

just about every living trust uses one of the kids as a trustee. so to say that a beneficiary can not be a trustee is foolish, at best. there are very, very few cases in which there is actually a sole trustee and a sole beneficiary. just about all living trusts that live on past the death of the grantor, have contingent beneficiaries to replace current beneficiaries when they die. and that alone gives the trustee someone he is obligated to. i dont really care about the extremely small number of trusts that may truly have just one and one. for i dont usually spend time learning something that has no value to me, unless it is a field of interest.

i dont find trusts the slightest bit interesting. they are simply a good financial tool. good enough, that i became knowledgeable, so that i could use it effectively.

and your little blurb about me giving illegal advice ? well let me tell you, if you attorneys did your job correctly, perhaps i would not need to give said advice. the percentage of people who have living trusts made out for them by an attorney is almost non-existent, if you ask them if their attorney explained to them that they could have their trust live on afterwards, instead of simply giving their assets away at death.

that the parents could create a corpus from which their kids could derive some income each year, and help keep food on the table, a roof over their head, and clothes on their back. every single parent that i have ever talked to wants this option for their kids. and almost none of them were told about it.

i dont know if this was because the attorney was simply not knowledgeable, or he just didnt bother. in any case, they failed miserably at doing their job. so i would advise you attorneys to get your act together. it is about the single most important thing you can tell a client.

 

[TrustUser]

you are so keen with law numbers, did you read post #52 ?

here is a short blurb from it.

Consequently, Section 504 is amended to provide
that the provisions of this section, which generally
prohibit a creditor of a beneficiary from reaching
a beneficiary’s discretionary interest, apply even
if the beneficiary is also a trustee or cotrustee.

instead of giving you 5000 pages to read, i gave you a short paragraph, with section 504, just so you would be happy.

for even a shorter read here are the last 10 words - even
if the beneficiary is also a trustee or cotrustee.

so now we are even making laws for when a beneficiary is trustee or co-trustee even when it goes against the tq-lawbook that states that a beneficiary can not be a trustee !!!

are you beginning to feel foolish yet ????

 

[TrustUser]

this is the url that i was talking about, that you posted.

http://www.fredfranke.com/estate-trust-planning/revocable-inter-vivos-trusts/1-general-considerations/1-1what-constitutes-a-trust/1-1-6lack-of-separation/

first sentence

If there is no separation between the identity of the trustee and the beneficiary, then there would be no one to enforce the fiduciary obligations.

and what example does this article give as a trust with no separation ?

from this very same article, here is the quote

The doctrine of merger is properly applicable only if all beneficiary interest both life interest and remainders, are vested in the same person, whether in the settlor or someone else. An example of a trust to which the doctrine of merger would apply is a trust of which the settlor is sole trustee, sole beneficiary for life, and with the remainder payable to the settlor’s probate estate.

 

[TrustUser]

are you beginning to feel foolish yet ?

if not, here is some more. the start of the article says

The Court of Special Appeals had adopted this essential aspect of a trust in Jacob v. Davis, 128 Md. App. 433 (1999) when it quotes the observation in Bogert on Trusts that there must be an obligation to account:

and what is jacob v davis ?

http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/cosa/2009/126s08.pdf

if you go to the end of page 12, you will see that this case is just what i stated. the court ruled that the trustor can not override trust law, with regards to limiting the trustee's LEGAL DUTY to provide accounting to the beneficiaries !!!

 

[TrustUser]

so tq,

it must be extremely obvious to everyone reading that you are incorrect. you got beaten by little old trustuser, that non-attorney who gives out illegal advice.

but he sure knows what he is talking about. and he used your ammunition to let it backfire on you.

i am not gonna waste any more time with these nonsensical claims of yours.

i will repeat for the last time - the trustee is legally obligated to carry out the instructions of the trust, and is held to high standards to do just that. the beneficiary can certainly be the trustee. and if he is not given powers that allow him to use trust assets as his own, and he follows that guideline, then he can indeed claim asset protection to the same degree that he could if the trustee was a non-beneficiary.

sorry, but you simply lost your argument.

 

[TrustUser]

but i want to thank you. if it wasnt for you, i would not have been so strongly motivated to do this research.

it positively confirms what i thought in the first place.