Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"My Mom wanted to "gift us" each $92K until my brothers said no."
Sounds to me as if your father made a wise decision in setting up this trust. No one in his or her right mind would appoint 4 Co-Trustees. So, the question to ponder is, "Why should your father have chosen you and another sibling to manage the Trust rather than your two brothers?"
What you don't seem to be getting, is I am in agreement with not gifting the $92K. Like I said, my mother could end up needing very expensive care.
Four trustees were not appointed. Two rich ones were and two poor ones were not.. I have no issue with keeping all the money for my mom, what I have an issue with is my brothers having complete control and also being able to spend my dad's trust at their will.
Well, when a sprinkling trust is used to protect against creditors, the key to the protection is that the trustee is not legally required to give any specific beneficiary any money at all. So when the creditor comes knocking, the trustees say that they are not distributing to that beneficiary. They can choose among a population of beneficiaries, in this case the descendants. That is why a sprinkler works as a "spendthrift" trust, particularly in state that do not recognize spendthrift trusts. So that's the goal. Problem is that then the beneficiaries are subject to the discretion of the trustee. When I do this, I try to get two trustees who are not beneficiaries themselves and are not aligned with each other and provide that they have to agree on distributions. Then I give them a non binding instruction letter that the grantor would like to see the beneficiaries treated equally. That way, unless they both get co-opted by one or more beneficiaries, there will be no favoritism. I like to use the wife's sister and the husband's brother or similar because they will want to see all the siblings treated well.
Properly drafted, this type of trust will also allow the surviving spouse to qualify for Medicaid if that is an issue. And it used to be over a million, but who knows what my brother have done with it..
Anyway, the choice of two brothers who are also beneficiaries is not a very good choice by a grantor who is trying to achieve equality without creating a legal right to equality. So the legal advice or the grantor's choices might have been not so good. But since there waassn't much money involved (relatively speaking), they may have taken some shortcuts.
Well, while half a million might not be much to most, it is to me. And my mother has Medicare.
Well, while half a million might not be much to most, it is to me. And my mother has Medicare.
Medicare is different from Medicaid. Medicare pays a doctor to give momma a shot.
Medicaid is a means tested benefit (if you have got any money it has to be spent first) that is what provides a nursing home bed to the chronically ill. You know, the $6,000/month thing that old people are all in a twitter about?
So what happens is that people fear losing their savings to a long chronic illness when taxpayers can foot the bill. Don't blame me, I'm just the technician.
There is a lot of finesse involved and some time periods to pass, but it can actually be accomplished that dad's big pile of cash can be passed on to his heirs notwithstanding momma's 6 year stint in the nursing home.
I'm just telling you why people fund intervivos trusts with sprinkling powers in the trustees.
Last edited by Wilson513; 11-17-2010 at 12:05 AM..
What you don't seem to be getting, is I am in agreement with not gifting the $92K. Like I said, my mother could end up needing very expensive care.
Four trustees were not appointed. Two rich ones were and two poor ones were not.. I have no issue with keeping all the money for my mom, what I have an issue with is my brothers having complete control and also being able to spend my dad's trust at their will.
Hello, read my thread again! I am completely in agreement with her keeping the money! For all I know her care could cost $15K a month or more. I want her taken care of. One really needs to read the thread!
Hello, read my thread again! I am completely in agreement with her keeping the money! For all I know her care could cost $15K a month or more. I want her taken care of. One really needs to read the thread!
Duh. My point was that your mother's initial willingness to distribute such a large sum of money (gift tax would be horrendous) suggests that your father made a wise decision in creating a trust. My second point was that he needed to make a decision as to whom should administer the trust and you have not articulated a rational decision as to why you should have been one of the trustees.
For some reason, you feel that a "poor" child should be appointed trustee, versus a wealthy child. Are the brothers wealthy because they are thieves? If so, then, yes, your father would have been mistaken in appointing them as trustees.
Before you go further in blasting posters that are trying to point out the obvious, you might want to read over your prior posts on other threads. For example, your father died in late August and six weeks later you posted the following on the relationships forum:
"But how we went from inheriting 80K to nothing in a week is beyond me. She says it's because she might need the money beyond her years. Well, she gets $3K in social security each month (her rent is $2K) and she has Medicare. I don't know what my brothers are up to, but it doesn't pass the smell test here. BTW, did I say they both have lots of money and can defer any inheritance? I, OTOH, am not so fortunate, not that I am in this for the money. I'm really not."
Last edited by lenora; 11-17-2010 at 06:39 AM..
Reason: clarity
Just a point to the OP. SS as Income TO YOUR FATHER (or his estate) stopped with his death. SS Survivor benefits to your Mother are not his estate income - they are your Mother's income - and that is what she is most likely now receiving.
Good luck with the situation. Whether you have a reason to be concerned or not, I have no idea. But clearly you are, and I hope you're able to find some answers out that satisfy you that everything is being done legally and above board - or, if that's not the case, that you're able to get independent trustees appointed to act fairly.
Just a point to the OP. SS as Income TO YOUR FATHER (or his estate) stopped with his death. SS Survivor benefits to your Mother are not his estate income - they are your Mother's income - and that is what she is most likely now receiving.
Good luck with the situation. Whether you have a reason to be concerned or not, I have no idea. But clearly you are, and I hope you're able to find some answers out that satisfy you that everything is being done legally and above board - or, if that's not the case, that you're able to get independent trustees appointed to act fairly.
I realize this and I WANT her to have it. Look, this animosity goes WAY back. I am not sure my dad was even of sound mind when he signed that amendment, and neither is my mom. In fact, she thinks he was NOT of sound mind. This is more about giving my brothers COMPLETE control than anything else. I am not a spendthrift. I do own my own home free and clear. My car is paid for. I'm not starving. But I do have many years to be concerned about as a single woman on her own, and my brothers have none of these concerns. And (not to interject politics here), but I am literally screwed if the republicans are successful in rolling back healthcare reform, as I have pre-existing conditions and I am paying a FORTUNE for insurance each month. I am not asking for *more* than my share. I am asking for fairness here. I am asking that a man with Alzheimer's was not coerced into signing a document he did not even understand. Even my mom didn't know about the amendment. I think women SHOULD be informed in these matters.
At this point, I am ready to throw in the towel. I don't have the kind of money my brothers do, but I would like to understand just how effed over I've been. Is that too much to ask? So I'll pay the lawyer to confirm I'm screwed and that will be the end of it. Oh, and she'll never appoint an independent trustee. That won't happen. And for some reason in the amendment she is SPECIFICALLY precluded from appointing anyone she is related to (like me or my sister).
Duh. My point was that your mother's initial willingness to distribute such a large sum of money (gift tax would be horrendous) suggests that your father made a wise decision in creating a trust. My second point was that he needed to make a decision as to whom should administer the trust and you have not articulated a rational decision as to why you should have been one of the trustees.
For some reason, you feel that a "poor" child should be appointed trustee, versus a wealthy child. Are the brothers wealthy because they are thieves? If so, then, yes, your father would have been mistaken in appointing them as trustees.
Before you go further in blasting posters that are trying to point out the obvious, you might want to read over your prior posts on other threads. For example, your father died in late August and six weeks later you posted the following on the relationships forum:
"But how we went from inheriting 80K to nothing in a week is beyond me. She says it's because she might need the money beyond her years. Well, she gets $3K in social security each month (her rent is $2K) and she has Medicare. I don't know what my brothers are up to, but it doesn't pass the smell test here. BTW, did I say they both have lots of money and can defer any inheritance? I, OTOH, am not so fortunate, not that I am in this for the money. I'm really not."
Excuse me, but isn't there like no estate tax this year? That would be a GOOD reason to disburse money.
And I have NO idea why you'd post a former quote. Too much time on your hands? Your posting that changes nothing, except the dollar amount, and I wasn't precise about the dollar amount. Why should I be? I'm on an Internet forum.
And I NEVER said I should be appointed trustee, although I did take issue with not being appointed a POA, as they have decision making power over health care. You are WAY off base here. But so be it. Run along and do your investigative digging up of posts for fun. What a waste of time.
Medicare is different from Medicaid. Medicare pays a doctor to give momma a shot.
Medicaid is a means tested benefit (if you have got any money it has to be spent first) that is what provides a nursing home bed to the chronically ill. You know, the $6,000/month thing that old people are all in a twitter about?
So what happens is that people fear losing their savings to a long chronic illness when taxpayers can foot the bill. Don't blame me, I'm just the technician.
There is a lot of finesse involved and some time periods to pass, but it can actually be accomplished that dad's big pile of cash can be passed on to his heirs notwithstanding momma's 6 year stint in the nursing home.
I'm just telling you why people fund intervivos trusts with sprinkling powers in the trustees.
And I AGREE with you completely. In fact, I told my mom that, God forbid, she could need care that costs $15K a month and she needs to conserve the money for that event.
What none of you seem to be getting is the complete CONTROL my brothers have been given. It's a slap in the face to both my sister and I, as if we don't care.
Truth is, I never planned on seeing one dime beyond what I've received. And the truth is I still don't. But I HATE duplicity and underhandedness.
That is a good question to ask. 4 people trying to manage this trust would be a nightmare. Maybe he picked your brothers because they have a good understanding of whats going on and because they have your mothers best interest in mind. Maybe he didnt pick you because you live 1800 miles away. On top of that, you are about to start a family fued because you were not put in charge of this trust. You do need to calm down and then meet with your brothers and discuss what their plan is, in regards to your mother. Look at it from your brothers point of view: Dad dies, and sister is going nuts about not being a trustee when she lives on the other side of the country, meanwhile she is questioning dads mental capabilities from 9 years ago and demanding to see a will, and talking to lawyers. They probably think you want to cut up the assets while your mother is still living.
Wrong! I have put my mother's interests at heart my entire freakin life! And no, my own issue was not being named as a POA as that dealt with health issues. Again, you ARE WAY OFF BASE! But then, you are a stranger on the Internet who cannot possibly know what is going on. And NO I could not care less about being a trustee! What I care about is my father being of sound mind when he signed an amendment, and even MY MOTHER does not think he was of sound mind. And, btw, as an heir I am ENTITLED to see the will, per a lawyer, and you are not a lawyer, I am assuming.
And no, I am just fine as things stand. I have over $150K in the bank and my house is paid for. FYVM.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
