Follow
Share

My friend and her sister are co-executors of their (recently deceased) father's estate. A living trust was set up to care for their mother who has dementia. I've urged my friend to get her own attorney to represent her interests in the estate and perhaps serve as a buffer (the sisters are in continual conflict). When my friend mentioned the idea of getting an independent attorney, the trust administrator apparently hit the ceiling, telling her that if she did so their firm would resign from the trust. This type of intimidation seems unethical and possibly even worse, but perhaps I'm wrong. Is there some reason why my friend should not have her own legal advocate?

This question has been closed for answers. Ask a New Question.
Find Care & Housing
I like the accountant (CPA) idea. As Executors of Dads estate, this would be something they could have a right to check out if Probating. Guess it could be said the info is needed for the final accting of the estate.

Mom was advised not to have 2 Executors. I was the one who lived in the same town. Brother was 7 hrs away and other brother didn't care. So I was it. I don't understand Trusts completely. Now is the trustee different than a trust administrator? I am looking at this as a trust administrator its the firms responsibility to see that Moms care is paid for, she is getting what she needs personally bills being paid and monies in the trust are getting the highest yield in investments? Are the sisters trustees or beneficiaries? And if beneficiaries are they not allowed to make sure the firm is handling the trust as it should be? I would think so.

As Executors to the estate there is a Will? And that Will stipulates how Dad wants his estate carried out. So why the conflict? The trust cannot be probated, right?
Helpful Answer (0)
Report
notgoodenough Nov 2020
My mom had set up a living, revocable trust. She was the owner of the trust; she was also the trustee. That meant she was responsible for what went into the trust, how it was funded, etc.
I was her successor trustee; upon her death, administration of the trust became my responsibility. But, upon her death the trust went from revocable to irrevocable, meaning I could not change the terms of the trust.
The trust spelled out how her estate was to be distributed to her beneficiaries.
I am also the executrix of her will. But, in conjunction with the trust, her will is a "pour over" will, in that any assets not specifically mentioned "pour over" into the trust - for example, if there were certain pieces of jewelry she might have wanted one specific person to have, she would specify this in her will; but any other jewelry is to be distributed to her beneficiaries as the new trustee of the trust (me) sees fit.
By setting up her estate like this, there has been no need for me to go to probate court. I have had to provide a copy of her death certificate and the certificate of trust to the various institutions holding assets, and have the proceeds sent to me. Her accounts are still set up in the name of her trust; they just have a different tax ID number, and a different successor to administrate the account.
Since it is not unheard of for probate attorneys to charge 10% of the value of the estate to probate a will, this saved us considerable money. The whole idea of this was to not have to involve lawyers.
I'm guessing there has been tension between these 2 sisters for sometime, which is why dad set up a third party trust administrator. If, for instance, the sisters can't agree on what sort of care mom needs, this ensures mom is taken care of the way dad thought she would be taken care of.
It's a pretty big legal process to set up a living revocable trust, and it can be pricey; but the advantage is the ease of the estate being settled after the owner of the trust passes. My mom died in October; I am trying to get her estate settled by the end of the year, which would have been impossible if I had to go through probate court (especially now with courts being way behind due to covid).
(2)
Report
See 1 more reply
There's nothing wrong with your friend having her own lawyer. If the law firm administering the trust are having tantrums and threatening to resign, then there's something fishy going on with how they're managing the trust and how much money they're drawing for it themselves as their fees and expenses. I think your friend would be better served hiring an accountant to look over the law firm's books then she would by hiring and paying another lawyer which she would have to pay privately out-of-pocket herself. The law firm is likely ripping off the trust.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

Trusts are tricky. I'd at least have your own attorney look at it, but don't tell the attorney handling the trust.

I advise this because a friend of my MIL is the beneficiary of a trust. Only child so no siblings or other family to bicker or fight or contest. However, once her very wealthy parents passed, it was revealed that her parents had changed the terms of the trust, unknown to her.

Instead of inheriting a sizeable estate, with enough income to live comfortably for the rest of her life, she was told that because she took care of her parents for the last several years of their lives, quitting her job and moving many states away, since she had lived with her parents "for free", she was limited to a very small quarterly disbursement. Not nearly enough to live on. She had not worked in years, and was now so ill herself that she could not commit to working. She is not old enough for SS, and has not been able to jump through the hoops to get SSDI and keeps getting denied. She is, on paper, modestly wealthy, but cannot support herself. She relies on food banks and kindness of friends.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report
BurntCaregiver Nov 2020
That's ridiculous. If you MIL's friend is an only child of both her parents, she should have been the only heir and inherited everything they had. This nonsense thinking about people "living for free" who are live-in caregivers to elderly relatives has to stop. People who aren't doing the work have no idea what living with and taking care of elderly people is like. They think that it's easy living for the caregiver. Free room and board, partying, and spending money. Like it's fun and games. It's not. The woman's parents should have made her the sole beneficiary to the trust. Not only because she's their only child and rightful heir, but because she earned it by taking care of them in their "golden years". Instead their final act was to screw over their only child and all but leave her in the street. And them being wealthy people. That's disgusting. So many seniors who have money act this way. They lord it over their family as an insurance to make sure they're taken care of by them in their old age. I also hope it's possible for your MIL's friend to hire a lawyer who might be able to break the terms of that trust for her to maybe get what's fair. Sometimes this can happen if the parents had dementia and it's proven that they weren't able to think rationally. If this is not possible, then I hope those parents are burning in H*ll because they deserve it.
(0)
Report
See 1 more reply
Did mom choose the firm to administer the trust because she knew sisters would be feuding? I have a hunch this is the case. Leave it be, let the firm do their work which is to watch over mom's care and funds. The more the sisters bicker over the administration of the trust, the less money there will be for mom's care and sisters to eventually inherit.

Friend could have another attorney look at it, but I would advise she not tell the firm she is doing so. Maybe having a consultation with another attorney she will realize that the firm's only job is to work in mom's best interest, sisters have nothing to do with that.
Helpful Answer (2)
Report

I’m not really clear as to why the administrator can’t or isn’t acting as the “buffer” if the conflict between sisters is that bad. I can see why they would balk at more outside attorneys getting involved, they should be acting neutral and in the best interest of Mom so it should t be necessary anyway. Is this the same law firm that drew up the will and trust to begin with making them the parents attorneys who hound have a good idea of what parents wanted and no bias of sides? Sometimes “lawyering up” from the get go only serves to indicate you plan to be very difficult and make people suspicious of you before even trying to get to know and work with you.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report
Countrymouse Nov 2020
I think being the buffer between two combatants can become extremely uncomfortable. Especially if professional standards prevent you from banging their heads together.
(3)
Report
Where is the conflict between the sisters coming from? What are the pressure points?

The thing is. It seems to me that two threads are getting tangled here: the father's estate and the division thereof on the one hand; and the living trust set up to care for the mother, the administrator of which is having kittens at the thought that the warring co-executor sisters are now about to lawyer up and he will have to deal with lawyers ON TOP of siblings at loggerheads, and every letter to and fro is going to cost the trust money which is supposed to be ring-fenced for mother's care.

Why do you think your friend needs an advocate? - apart from relieving her of any disagreeable necessity of speaking to her sister, I mean.
Helpful Answer (4)
Report
AlvaDeer Nov 2020
That makes it more clear to me, Countrymouse. That there could be a Trust being adminstered for the care of the Mom, and then an estate that has the sisters at Co-Executors. Actually, it's clear as mud to me, but there you are. I think what you say makes sense.
(1)
Report
You say "there is a revocable Trust set up to care for the mother" That Trust set up for her care is now IRREVOCABLE and no one can change it, not the sisters and not any law firm. It cannot be changed by anyone. You say the Law Firm that Administers the Trust. Then that the sisters are co-executors. There is no executor of a trust, only the Successor Trustee(s). The Successor Trustee administers the trust unless the Trust dictates otherwise.
There is nothing to be accomplished, in my own opinion, with there being another lawyer added to what is already a problem.. The Successor Trustee(s) becomes the Trustee upon the death of the original Trustor who created the Trust.
Trusts are pretty much written in stone. The Trust likely protects the Mom until her death, and then is distributed to the heirs. That is how they are often written. There is no reason that the Sister/friend cannot take the Trust to a Lawyer, let that Lawyer read it, and then advise her of questions she should ask going forward of the Lawyer who is assisting with the Trust.
To be honest, if you don't have legal expertise, I would consider staying out of what already may be a mess going forward with bickering and carryings on which you cannot know details of, nor rightness of actions being taken. Just wish them luck. Trusts, as I said, can be complicated, but usually are pretty well written. Sadly the Trustor put two bickering people in as co. They will be "co-ing" everything from now on, I imagine, every little investment and every move. It will be a nightmare. I would steer clear. Let them do what they do, which is apparently bicker. Just my humble opinion. I would recommend Mediate.com to these two, and steer clear.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report
notgoodenough Nov 2020
I would actually be surprised if dad went through the legal rigamarole to set up a trust, if his will wasn't written as a "pour over" will; any assets not mentioned specifically in the will (usually, sentimental items, such as specific pieces of jewelry, etc) "pour over" into the trust, and become the responsibility of the successor trustee. I am actually settling my mom's estate as the successor trustee, and that is how her will is written.
Alva is 100% correct, unless mom was a co-trustee with dad, that now the trust is irrevocable. It is likely the trust attorney doesn't want to eat into assets to fight a legal battle with another attorney.

To the OP - I think you need to step out of this. That you say your friend wants to "represent her own interests" in regards to dad's estate sounds a little like a money grab - not saying it is - but right now, your friend has no "right" to anything from dad's estate - mom is the rightful beneficiary, and it looks like dad knew what he was doing setting things up so mom would always have care. Good for him!
(0)
Report
This question has been closed for answers. Ask a New Question.
Ask a Question
Subscribe to
Our Newsletter