Don't trust Son-In-Law - Spendthrift trust?

There's more than one way to do it which would work great - maybe the way you mentioned. The way I chose was easiest and worked best for what I needed. If she was over age 25 but under 33 when I died, the 1/3 that would have gone to her at age 25 will go to her right away. Then, at the next age, 33, she will get the next 1/3. If I die when she is 34 she will get 2/3 of it at that time, and the remaining 1/3 at age 40. You can set it up however you want - with different rules on when she gets the money - but that's how I did it.

Now once she reaches 25, I may decide to change it but there are too many variables to know that now, as she could be married, have a kid, be more or less irresponsible - so I will wait and see what happens in her life. I will never tell her about it as I do not want her thinking in the back of her mind she has this money possibly coming. I think it is best that she and everyone else in my family have no idea I have much money I've saved through being frugal over the years.

As for language, it is a very standard pourover will that says anything left (after any debt I owe such as for bills is paid) will go to the trust. I actually did the will myself for free through a willmaking document on the internet. My lawyer approved it and tied it to the trust she set up. Both the trust and will were witnessed by several people plus were notarized by my attorney's office.

A person doing this could have an attorney do both the will and trust - for example, the Fidelity trust dept has attorneys who could do it. I think they quoted me around $2500 but I can't recall the exact amount, might have been more. Had I not known an attorney who could do it, I'd have used the Fidelity attorney.

I happened to know an attorney who drew up my trust - I worked with her in the past for other things and so got it done for around $800. I have a legal background and grew up in a family of lawyers (though I'm not a lawyer) - I am comfortable reading legal documents. So, I felt very comfortable having my attorney do the trust, getting her opinion on the will to be sure I was not missing anything important - and then tying the trust she made to the pourover will.

I also had Fidelity's trust dept lawyers read over the will and the trust. They charge nothing to have their lawyer do that - if they are named as the bank who will administer the assets - as it is in their best interest that the documents be drawn up correctly. They pointed out one minor thing that needed changing in the trust - and I had it changed.

So the trust is set up to be managed by a bank (Fidelity). The trust simply states what will be done with the assets (1/3 given when she reaches 25, etc). It has a backup charity in case she dies without kids. Also says if she has kids that her kids will get the money if she dies before she gets it.

There is no fee from Fidelity unless I die - then Fidelity takes a percent of the trust's assets each year as part of their standard trust fee schedule. To me it is well worth it as no one in my family would be trustworthy to manage my assets upon my death - and dole them out as the trust says to do. However, if you had a trustworthy responsible (good with money) friend or family member, you could save the Fidelity management fees and name your family member as the trustee who would divvy up the assets.

Ideally, I will live a long time, revoke the trust, and change my asset beneficiaries from going to my estate to go to my niece (or her kids) directly.

The trust to me is like an almost free form of insurance.

Again, the will does not say anything about 3 equal payments - it only says to put all assets into the trust. The will is fairly simple - if you google "pourover wills" or "pourover wills for trusts" you can find examples. It is the trust that Fidelity will manage that states the part about 3 payments.
 
Who'll take 50 grand now instead of 200 over ten years?

After reading these proposals for legacies, carefully crafted to avoid instant disintegration by prodigal heirs, I wonder if all the preparation might be for naught. Isn't it possible for the beneficiary to trade away the ultimate value of any inheritance in return for a (smaller) bucket of cash today?

I used to see commercials for some outfit (J C something? Idk) promising instant payouts to owners of "structured settlements". I think their primary target was folks collecting from divorces or lawsuits, but wouldn't the same opportunity arise here?

I'm only asking, not to find fault, but to find out.
 
For a trust they can't do that - get an early settlement that is. The trust has to be carried out by law as it is written. So unless it is written that there can be an early settlement or has other contingencies written into the trust, where the beneficiary could get the money early - they won't be able to do that. "Structured settlements" refer to other things - for example insurance payouts or annuities where the attorney would bargain with the insurance company to get them to pay a smaller amount, in a lump sum, sooner.

In case of a divorce, structured settlement could mean that a "middleman" company could offer to pay a smaller large sum sooner - in exchange for the already agreed upon alimony divorce payments going to the middleman. The risk would be if the alimony was not paid as agreed - the middleman would lose out.

A trust is managed by a trustee (bank or individual) who by law must do as the trust asks. If they don't, they can be held liable for monetary damages and have a huge mess to deal with. They aren't allowed to do a structured settlement (unless the trust has language stating that would be ok.)
 
After reading these proposals for legacies, carefully crafted to avoid instant disintegration by prodigal heirs, I wonder if all the preparation might be for naught. Isn't it possible for the beneficiary to trade away the ultimate value of any inheritance in return for a (smaller) bucket of cash today?

I used to see commercials for some outfit (J C something? Idk) promising instant payouts to owners of "structured settlements". I think their primary target was folks collecting from divorces or lawsuits, but wouldn't the same opportunity arise here?

I'm only asking, not to find fault, but to find out.


"It's my money, and I want it NOW"
 
... I used to see commercials for some outfit (J C something? Idk) promising instant payouts to owners of "structured settlements". I think their primary target was folks collecting from divorces or lawsuits, but wouldn't the same opportunity arise here? ...
It's because of issues like this that I kind of grit my teeth when I read of people wanting to draft their own documents. I'm pretty sure that this kind of thing can be at least risk-reduced by language in the trust. Something to the extent that the beneficiary's interest cannot be pledged or transferred to a third party and any such action extinguishes the beneficiary's interest completely. But IANAL and I know it.

While I am on the subject, I am also gritting my teeth a little when I read these rigid formulas for distribution in a world that is neither rigid nor predictable. I get it that this reduces the probability of friction between the beneficiary and a family member trustee, but that is what professional trustees are for. To be the bad guys, as instructed by the grantor, on discretionary distribution decisions.
 
After reading these proposals for legacies, carefully crafted to avoid instant disintegration by prodigal heirs, I wonder if all the preparation might be for naught. Isn't it possible for the beneficiary to trade away the ultimate value of any inheritance in return for a (smaller) bucket of cash today?

I used to see commercials for some outfit (J C something? Idk) promising instant payouts to owners of "structured settlements". I think their primary target was folks collecting from divorces or lawsuits, but wouldn't the same opportunity arise here?

I'm only asking, not to find fault, but to find out.

That's the whole premise of the spendthrift trust. The beneficiary does not have the authority to prospectively alienate the proceeds.
 
I have been reading this thread with great interest. I too have a less than stellar SIL. I also have an estranged brother who has gone through every asset that came his way.
My father thought he protected things with a trust but my brother successfully invaded not one but two trusts. My father was outraged on the second one. I have the dilemma of passing assets to children and grandchildren without corrupting them. I must be an anomaly as I'm in this less is more mode other than some travel. I guess my question would be can a trust really be set up that completely forbids invasion of principal? I realize that most wealth is decimated by the third generation but it would please me greatly to know when I'm gone these assets will still be doing GOOD for my family.
 
My uncle's daughter married a med student. Gave them a house, car, and him a income from the business while he was in school. Daughter resented the fact that the house and car were not in either of their names.

Six years late he graduates, then divorces her. Alas the house remained in my uncles name and the vehicle was a company vehicle. He tried to get part of them but of course failed.
This happened to a cousin of mine. She worked and put her husband through medical school. He divorced her when he graduated.

From what I hear it’s not unusual.
 
I have been reading this thread with great interest. I too have a less than stellar SIL. I also have an estranged brother who has gone through every asset that came his way.
My father thought he protected things with a trust but my brother successfully invaded not one but two trusts. My father was outraged on the second one. I have the dilemma of passing assets to children and grandchildren without corrupting them. I must be an anomaly as I'm in this less is more mode other than some travel. I guess my question would be can a trust really be set up that completely forbids invasion of principal? I realize that most wealth is decimated by the third generation but it would please me greatly to know when I'm gone these assets will still be doing GOOD for my family.

Never say never because a Court directive can override. Different states have different rules as to what is allowable, but to it takes a very good attorney (or law firm) that specializes in trusts and estates and trustees that can't be bullied to reduce the risk on invasion to near zero.

The attorney should begin by asking you what you want to accomplish. He/ she would probably review your assets and how they are held/titled. Depending upon your wishes, a different "home" state of trust may be suggested (i.e. for tax purposes and longevity).

What was the "weakness" in your father's trust that allowed brother to invade?


P.S. There are some areas where I wouldn't mind helping out the family, i.e. education, health care, a stipend towards the purchase of a first home, and some assistance during senior years (assistance towards home health aide if necessary).

I would have no desire to pay for the grandchildren's purchase of motorcycles/ fast cars to drive into a tree at age 18.
 
Last edited:
I believe the downfall was a clause that allowed withdrawals to maintain the standard of living he was accustomed to. He was losing his second condo to foreclosure. He hired an attorney and made it happen. Father spoke with his lawyer when this happened and asked why. His answer was, well you signed it. This was a trusted family attorney. Father and I discussed this in hindsight and agreed he should have said, show me the clause that says never. The first trust was 300-400K and the second was around $300K when he invaded. Drugs, alcohol, divorce and mental illness. Another $500K came his way when my father passed. It's been 5 years and he's 20K or more in credit card debt. I think he's barely squeaking buy on SS and maybe a pension.
 
My mom and dad (rest their souls) set up their trust such that my brother’s wife couldn’t touch a penny. How wise of them! My brother is now divorced and recently engaged, the ex, a penniless alcoholic. Sad situation.
 
My mom and dad (rest their souls) set up their trust such that my brother’s wife couldn’t touch a penny. How wise of them! My brother is now divorced and recently engaged, the ex, a penniless alcoholic. Sad situation.

Do you know how they prevented this in the trust? Example verbiage? It was my understanding that I could informally request DD to not comingle accounts in case of future divorce. But if she ignores the request and comingles, then all bets are off.
 
Years ago they had the same concerns as you. Thought she would spend away the considerable assets left to my brother. I think they set up a Trust in my brothers name only and specified what the $ could be used for. They passed. Later on, my brother divorced and the ex got none of it.

I suggest you find the best estate attorney in your area and discuss with them. They will have the best council.
 
Last edited:
I ... I guess my question would be can a trust really be set up that completely forbids invasion of principal? I realize that most wealth is decimated by the third generation but it would please me greatly to know when I'm gone these assets will still be doing GOOD for my family.
What you are describing is a perpetual trust. These are not permitted in all states, so you will need consult with a specialist attorney and you may need to create the trust in another state. Even then, as @MarieIG points out, a trust can be altered by a court following a successful argument by the beneficiary(ies) or the trustee(s).

Obviously, language matters and your attorney can help you with that. Also, though, you should strongly consider hiring a professional trustee. Pros are very fastidious about following the language in the trust, which as grantor you control. They have a lot of experience in saying "No." Pros are also very experienced in fending off court challenges from greedy beneficiaries and wannabe beneficiaries. In DW's case, she was well known to several judges and they had a great deal of trust in her decisions and respect for her opinions. I don't think she ever lost a case.

A perpetual trust may actually not be a good idea, but you can discuss this with your attorney.
 
My mom and dad (rest their souls) set up their trust such that my brother’s wife couldn’t touch a penny. How wise of them! My brother is now divorced and recently engaged, the ex, a penniless alcoholic. Sad situation.


Yes. The OP issue is not unlike parents who must look for ways to devise trusts for heirs with substance abuse problems. Unfettered access to an inheritance would be maybe the worst scenario. But disinheritance is not an option most parents who still hold out hope wish to consider. Enter trusts. And independent trust management services. The difficult part is in the specifications of the trust and how controlling (responsible) you want to try to be from the grave.

In this day and age, I suspect this problem of how to handle heirs with substance abuse challenges is quite common. Seeking specialty legal help is likely useful. I plan to do so.

Muir
 
Do you know how they prevented this in the trust? Example verbiage? It was my understanding that I could informally request DD to not comingle accounts in case of future divorce. But if she ignores the request and comingles, then all bets are off.
Trust assets are typically managed by the trustee or by an investment consultant who is responsible to the trustee. No commingling can exist.

If DD receives a distribution from the trust, however, then it may start to matter how she handles it. Probably the trust document could specify that any payments be made to an account controlled solely by DD but once the money is in her hands, it's hers to do whatever she pleases with it. Again, expert legal advice is needed.
 
In a perfect world, it would be best for our children to choose the right partner and grow some restraint and financial responsibility. I'm working on that. So far I have a 50% success rate.
 
My husband and I used an attorney specializing in elder law. I hope you can find someone as good as we did. We found our lawyer through a course at our local community college. He has been worth his weight in gold so far. I live in MD.
 
My thoughts? Protect yourself. We've been dealing with a mess here which is why I'm not on very much. My son is going through a divorce. This is the kid that I lent 50K to his wife and him to buy the house. Then she asked me for money for a car and I gave her the money for the car. Then she asked for my pension pay stub so she could register the 5 year old in school. 2 weeks later she filed for divorce citing financial abuse. She's never worked but had full access to the joint checking account. And he's paying 150% of his net income until the divorce is finalized. I should have never lent the money to them because he's going to be left with nothing, she'll have the house, and he will be starting over. By protecting yourself you are also protecting your daughter's future. I was stupid
 
....In this day and age, I suspect this problem of how to handle heirs with substance abuse challenges is quite common. Seeking specialty legal help is likely useful. I plan to do so.

Muir

I wonder... can payments from the trust be contingent on drug testing? Stay clean and you get the money... don't and no money.

Luckily, not an issue for us... but I'm just wondering out loud.
 
Gayl, I am so sorry your family is going through this. I am guessing no paperwork for the loans so you could get some of the money back.
 
I wonder... can payments from the trust be contingent on drug testing? Stay clean and you get the money... don't and no money.



Luckily, not an issue for us... but I'm just wondering out loud.


Based on my research, I’m pretty certain the answer is yes. That can be a stated contingency. Also, have money never go directly to the heir, but to landlords or other payees deemed appropriate. And other such considerations. As I stated, I suspect it’s a growing area of trust law expertise. I’m gonna seek out the advice. Sadly, it is an issue for us, although there is always hope.
 
My thoughts? Protect yourself. We've been dealing with a mess here which is why I'm not on very much. My son is going through a divorce. This is the kid that I lent 50K to his wife and him to buy the house. Then she asked me for money for a car and I gave her the money for the car. Then she asked for my pension pay stub so she could register the 5 year old in school. 2 weeks later she filed for divorce citing financial abuse. She's never worked but had full access to the joint checking account. And he's paying 150% of his net income until the divorce is finalized. I should have never lent the money to them because he's going to be left with nothing, she'll have the house, and he will be starting over. By protecting yourself you are also protecting your daughter's future. I was stupid
It was decided that he give her another 179k. That's all his money. They were married almost 4 yrs. California courts
 
My thoughts? Protect yourself. We've been dealing with a mess here which is why I'm not on very much. My son is going through a divorce. This is the kid that I lent 50K to his wife and him to buy the house. Then she asked me for money for a car and I gave her the money for the car. Then she asked for my pension pay stub so she could register the 5 year old in school. 2 weeks later she filed for divorce citing financial abuse. She's never worked but had full access to the joint checking account. And he's paying 150% of his net income until the divorce is finalized. I should have never lent the money to them because he's going to be left with nothing, she'll have the house, and he will be starting over. By protecting yourself you are also protecting your daughter's future. I was stupid

This is why the marriage rate is so low. I don't know why any guy would risk this.
 
Back
Top Bottom