<p>JHS, one thing that the girls could do, is to pay the new property taxes late, incrementally, as that will “buy” them time – should there truly be any “recourse” they have access to or can afford or be of minimal cost. And in the meantime, they could then file for change of trustee, but of the many lawyers I have talked to in the last 5 years (including initial consultations as well as those who have done initial work), I haven’t heard any of them suggest that a beneficiary would not need a paid attorney to handle such a request for change in trustee. As you know, a proper case would have to be written and presented.</p>
<p>I’d suggest also calling the local bar association in the state where the property and trust are located and see if the girls could possibly get the voluntary legal services for that state bar to appoint someone to help them file for a change in trustee. It’s sad that you & the girls are being put through this & I’m sure it isn’t at all what the trustor would have wanted.</p>
<p>Thank you, HImom. I haven’t had any luck so far with that attempt, but I’ll keep trying. Tomorrow I’m going to visit a local attorney for a consult. He said he will suggest options and talk costs.</p>
<p>Just to reiterate on the “non-wisdom” parts of my post that JHS may have objected to ;)…</p>
<p>Of course not every possible contingency can be anticipated and prevented “40 years” down the line, and that sort of thing. One would drive oneself crazy with the mathematical possibilities of what could go wrong. It’s just important – because I once also “fell in love” with the idea of trusts, and most people do, when first learning about the freedom & flexibility they offer the trustors – to enter into this realistically, with the drawbacks in mind. The drawbacks do not have to portend disaster; they are just opportunities for further protection.</p>
<p>(1) Foolproof planning is impossible. The best trustee in the world could undergo a personal crisis and the replacement trustee prove less conscientious. As to the property itself, any number of changes could result in surprising changes in value. But it is precisely because of these vagaries that trustors need to consider ahead: timelines relative to market volatility, accountability of the trustee, legal recourse, and more.</p>
<p>(2) JHS sounds like one of the better-informed (more professional) attorneys in this area; not all attorneys are equal. So I don’t care if you feel you can “do it yourself.” Please when it comes to the final draft, run it by an attorney on whom you have done research. </p>
<p>It’s to be noted that I’ve been on the good side of estates as well. In one case, I was appointed Executrix of a simple, dictated Will. I felt honored to execute it, and I did so justly, and within my own family, despite “bad blood” on the part of a member who self-induced an exile from the family and then wondered where his share was. Ditto for my father’s trust; my OCD brother drove us all crazy as the trustee, but at least he was similarly impeccable in administering every detail “to the letter” and “reviewing” with each of us the steps over and over and over and over…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>What do I think about those outcomes? I got lucky; that’s what I think. And the other beneficiaries got lucky. Btw, in both cases there was a shadow of the self-exiled member in the wings; he appeared shortly after the deaths. We had encouraged both parents to include him some how, to avoid the pain of final separation. We had even pleaded with this person to rejoin the family (on MANY occasions), so that the parents could die in peace, knowing he had been reconciled with both of them, and that he could share in their estate. Only because he did not have money himself, was he not able to challenge the trust (which excluded him) and create nightmares for us.</p>
<p>But your estate vehicles should not depend for their efficacy on accidents of circumstance and fortune. A tiny estate or a large estate: it doesn’t matter, although obviously it tends to matter more with the larger. Any estate is a symbol of the benefactors’ feelings (and practical care) for the beneficiaries. We can intellectualize this away all we want to, including as HImom graciously did above: that it wasn’t what the trustors “wanted.” Unfortunately, though, the grandchildren do know how vigorously the grandparents were advised to do other than what they did; the trustors chose to ignore that advice. At the very least, my children now feel ambivalent about their grandparents and near loathing toward their aunt. (Surprise!)</p>
<p>I guess this validates what the profs who taught wills & trusts admitted sheepishly to us about their personal estate plans. It was “All to my wife.” They knew that trusts & other vehicles had tax advantages but didn’t want to tie assets or surviving spouses up or bind the survivors in any way & trusted that their wives would use the assets wisely, presumably for their kids & survive these men. </p>
<p>I guess they figured those benefits were worth giving the government a larger share than estate planning might accomplish.</p>