question on living trust
Stuart Spern
forms in Dacey's "How to Avoid Probate." My question relates to the
wording for the beneficiaries, to effect the following result:
1. Primary beneficiary,if surviving, <girlfriend>
2. Else, secondary beneficiary, if surviving, <girlfriend's daughter>
with successor trustee named further in text.
3. Else,tertiary beneficiary <brother>.
The forms don't allow for three selections, but there is mention,in the
forms that allow multiple contingent beneficiaries, of the concept of "per
stirpes", whereby the surviving issue share equally in the parent's
share. Does this apply if the the share is 100%? could I rewrite the
preceeding as:
1. Primary beneficiary,if surviving, <girlfriend, per stirpes>
2. Secondary beneficiary, <brother>
with successor trustee for underage beneficiaries(if any) named further in text?
If not, what would be the appropriate latin phrase to accomplish what I want?
What I'm trying to accomplish, in plain English, is to transfer assets to
my girlfriend if I expire, to my girlfriend's daughter(through the
successor trustee) if both myself and my girlfriend are killed together,
and to my brother if myself, my girlfriend, and her daughter are killed
together(e.g.,in an auto accident).
Thanks in advance,
Stuart Spern
--
Stuart Spern
e-mail:ss...@cornell.edu
school ph.:(607)255-3480
William H. Hinkle
>
>I'm in the process of setting up inter vivos trusts on my assets using
the
>forms in Dacey's "How to Avoid Probate." My question relates to the
>wording for the beneficiaries, to effect the following result:
>
>1. Primary beneficiary,if surviving, <girlfriend>
>
>2. Else, secondary beneficiary, if surviving, <girlfriend's daughter>
>with successor trustee named further in text.
>
>3. Else,tertiary beneficiary <brother>.
First, keep in mind that a lot of lawyers have made a lot of money
thanks to Mr. Darcy, usually in circumstances where the legal cost
would have been much less if the deceased hadn't decided he needed to
"avoid probate". But assuming you're wedded to the inter vivos trust
--
NO, do not try to use <girlfriend>, per stirpes; that is only used
when you leave your estate to a class of persons, some of whom may
predecease you, e.g. "to my brothers and sisters, the share of any
deceased sibling to his or her children, per stirpes". Per stirpes
merely designates how many shares the estate is to be divided into: the
number of members of the class living when the will is made, rather
than the number living when the testator dies.
Whatever the language is that causes the estate to go to the second
choice <girlfriend's daughter> if the first choice <girlfriend>
predeceases you or dies in a common disaster should be easily
susceptible to modification to create a third choice <brother>. E.g.,
"in the event both girlfriend and gf's daughter fail to survive me by x
days, then . . . ."
R.Cammer
an inter vivos trust based on one of leading the self-help books but that
he is having troube finding the best "wording for the beneficiaries" since
"the forms [in the how-to book] don't allow" for a "primary beneficiary . .
. else secondary beneficiary . . . else tertiary beneficiary" (and what the
heck is "per stirpes" anyway?), and he concludes by explaining,
>What I'm trying to accomplish, in plain English,
>is to transfer assets to my girlfriend if I expire,
> to my girlfriend's daughter(through the successor
>trustee) if both myself and my girlfriend are
> killed together, and to my brother if myself, my
>girlfriend, and her daughter are killed together
This would seem to be a question which answers itself, where "in plain
English" is the key.
Assuming, among other things (and perhaps too charitably) that an inter
vivos trust is indeed appropriate for the poster, that the trust elsewhere
will deal with or that ss...@cornell.edu(StuartSpern)'s assets won't be
sufficiently sizeable to care about >$600K tax effecting issues, that the
document will contain suitable language to account for a potential "infant"
as a beneficiary and for suitable invasion of principal and duty-to-account
discretion, that the designation of fiduciary provision will deal with who
becomes a trustee when, that (if he wants to think about this) what "killed
together" means in that "e.g." accident where, e.g., one dies immediately
and another lingers in a coma for six weeks until dying and a third lingers
for seven weeks until dying but where these latter two have living
statutory distributees (such as, if these are the two, Girl Friend's mother
and Girlfriend Daughter's father), and that ss...@cornell.edu(StuartSpern)
and his girlfriend and her daughter and his brother aren't in the business
of together piloting/crewing the Miami-Havanna leaflet and weapons-drop
run, how about:
" . . . to Girl Friend, if she survives me and, if Girl Friend does not
survive me, then to Girlfriend Daughter, if she survives me; but if neither
Girl Friend nor Girlfriend's Daughter survive me, then to Brother, if he
survives me" ?
Stuart Spern
<contents in first article of string>
I've received quite a few informative e-mail messages, as well as the
follow-ups in this thread. I ended up using the Dacey forms, filled out
in the following way:
1. For the use of:<girlfriend>, if not surviving, her daughter<daughter's name>
2. If above beneficiary not surviving, for the use of :<brother>
with <girlfriend's brother> listed as successor trustee for minor
beneficiaries. We also have separate, self-consistent wills to handle
unexpected assets.
Thanks for the advice
Dan Evans
>One respondent intimated that Dacey was responsible for many lawyer's fees
>associated with actions to challenge the trusts created with the tear-out
>forms in his book, yet it is established that no properly filled out
>trust-form(out of 12.5 million) has ever been successfully challenged in
>court.
I don't think that the question was the validity of the trusts, but the
interpretation and administration of them. One of the most complicated
and time-consuming administrations that I was ever involved in was
a revocable trust, not an estate.
Also, the last I heard, the revocable trust of one of the Ford heirs was
still in litigation. Not over the validity of course, but it was still in
litigation.
>1. Assets under trust are exempt from probate-hence, no lawyers(and their
>fees) or probate judges(AND their fees) are required to convey my assets
>to my beneficiaries. The only front-end cost is the book(about $25),
>photocopies of the completed documents, and notary fees(usually waived at
>your bank, as they were at mine)
I think it depends on what state you live in. No lawyer is needed to
administer an estate in New Jersey or Pennsylvania, and the "probate"
itself usually takes about 20 minutes in Pennsylvania.
>2. My assets are conveyed immediately, with no probate process that can
>take years(I've personally witnessed half a dozen instances where probate
>has taken years, when the intent was to convey assets from a husband to
>his wife and kids)
In Pennsylvania, there is nothing to prevent the distribution of an estate
almost immediately. An executor who distributes an estate without
court approval takes the same risks that a trustee of revocable trust
takes, that there may be unknown creditors with claims or that the
death taxes may be more than expected.
>3. It is virtually impossible to challenge a trust(which is a private
>document), whereas wills, being public documents, are frequently(and
>successfully) challenged all the time.
This is a misconception. The grounds to challenge a trust are
identical to the grounds to challenge a will. And the rate of success
for will challenges are about the same as the rate of success to trust
challenges. (I.e., very rare.)
Dan Evans ************************
http://www.netaxs.com/~evansdb
This is not a legal opinion unless
you agreed to pay for it.
**********************************
sheldon berger
> >I'm in the process of setting up inter vivos trusts on my assets using the
> >forms in Dacey's "How to Avoid Probate." My question relates to the
> >wording for the beneficiaries, to effect the following result:
> >2. Else, secondary beneficiary, if surviving, <girlfriend's daughter>
> >with successor trustee named further in text.
>
> I'm not familiar with the Darcy book, but I hope it's clear in that book
> that the beneficiary and the trustee of a trust can't be the same person.
>
>
I would be very careful using the darcy books(or any) since this is
somthing that if an error is made it will not be discovered till
years later. I had a trust set up by my dad that was signed by me
even though his money set the document up. His lawyer handled all the
paper work and it was never questioned. You did not state if you
were a lawyer?
REMEMBER YOUR HEIRS WILL LIVE WITH YOUR ERRORS!