Archive for category: Fiduciary Discretion

Trust Disclosure Requirements and Quiet Trusts

/in , , , , , ,

by Carol Warnick

The Uniform Trust Code and the Restatement (Third) of Trusts both follow the presumption that trust beneficiaries should be generally kept aware of the existence of the trust, their status as beneficiaries, and their right to ask for (and receive) further information about the trust and their rights as beneficiaries of the trust. Both also require accountings, at least upon request.

More than two-thirds (2/3) of states in the United States have adopted some form of the Uniform Trust Code as of this writing, but many states have not adopted the disclosure provisions from the Uniform Act. This reflects the feeling voiced by many trust creators that letting a beneficiary be aware of the wealth in a trust set up for the beneficiary’s benefit can be a disincentive for a beneficiary to make their own way in life. This is especially a concern if the beneficiaries are young, or even older beneficiaries that have proclivities towards spending. Many trust creators are also concerned because the sub-trusts they set up for their children don’t have identical provisions, therefore they don’t want their children to know about the provisions in their siblings’ sub-trusts. Read more

Discounted Assets and Funding Challenges in Estate Administration

/in , , , , ,

by Kami Pomerantz

Estate of Miriam M. Warne, T.C. Memo 2021-17 (February 18, 2021)  (“Warne”), a recent Tax Court case, illustrates a potential mismatch between the value of an asset for estate tax purposes and the value of the asset for purposes of the marital or charitable deduction from estate tax.  This mismatch can lead to a phantom loss of estate value for purposes of such deductions and cause an inadvertent estate tax surprise.  Although this mismatch can be avoided, it requires those drafting specific gifts and administering an estate to choose assets carefully when making bequests and funding decisions.

Read more

Wyoming Creates a New Chancery Court Which Will Hear Trust Cases

/in , , , , , , , , , ,

by Carol Warnick

Wyoming has created a chancery court which will be authorized to hear cases in fifteen (15) specific areas, including cases alleging breach of fiduciary duty and transactions governed by the Wyoming Uniform Trust Code, in addition to hearing business disputes.  This represents a significant change in the way many trust disputes, as well as business disputes, will be handled in Wyoming. 

Effective March 15, 2019, the special court of limited jurisdiction, called the Chancery Court of the State of Wyoming, was authorized to assist in the expeditious resolution of disputes involving commercial, business, trust and similar matters.  It is directed “to employ nonjury trials, alternative dispute resolution methods and limited motions practice and shall have broad authority to shape and expedite discovery as provided in the rules adopted by the supreme court to govern chancery courts.”  WYO. STAT § 5-13-115 (a). 

Read more

No Contest Clauses – Not Just for Wills

/in , , , , , , , ,

by Matthew Skotak

Fiduciary litigation continues to grow and often times outpaces the development of case law regarding the myriad of issues that arise in estate and trust disputes.  Historically fiduciary litigation involved disputing family members or changes in family circumstances.  However, another frequent source of litigation is the estate planning documents themselves.  For this reason, estate planners often include a no contest clause, or in terrorem clause, in a will or trust as a means of deterring feuding beneficiaries from challenging the validity of the instrument; yet, enforcement of these no contest clauses carries its own burden.

A no contest clause is more frequently contained in a will, although it can also be prudent to include these provisions in trusts – especially when the underlying concern is to discourage litigation over the decedent’s estate plan by disinheriting a person who unsuccessfully contests the will and/or trust.  The enforceability of these provisions varies from state to state; however, Colorado has determined that a no contest clause is valid when the contesting party lacks probable cause to bring their challenge.  See Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 15-11-517, 15-12-905.  Read more

Prudently Investing: What Trustees Need to Know

/in , , , ,

by Matthew Skotak

Acting in the best interests of the trust and the trust beneficiaries, a trustee has the duty to protect and preserve trust assets and, generally, to make the assets productive. In making investment decisions and managing trust assets, the trustee must further abide by the “prudent investor rule,” which requires a trustee to exercise reasonable care, skill and caution. See Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 15-1.1-101, et. seq. (the “Uniform Prudent Investor Act”) and §§ 15-1-1101, et. seq. (the “Uniform Management of Institutional Funds Act”).

Pursuant to the prudent investor rule, a trustee should consider broad investment factors, such as: current economic conditions, effects of inflation or deflation, tax consequences, the nature of closely-held business interests, alternative investments, expected returns on income and capital, other resources of the trust or trust beneficiaries, the need for liquidity versus preservation of capital, the production of income, the special value or relationship of a particular asset to the trust or the beneficiaries, diversification of investments, and more. See, Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 227. Additionally, while it is important to note that Colorado courts have not officially adopted the Restatement (Third) of Trusts, one could refer to § 90, which lists five helpful “principles” of the prudent investor rule. Generally, any single investment will not violate the prudent investor rule and the trustee should manage the trust portfolio as a whole taking into account these considerations. Read more

Generative Trusts and Trustees: A New Paradigm For Trust Design and Administration

/in , , , ,

Note:  From time to time we invite guest bloggers to share their thoughts on our blog.  The following is a guest blog authored by John A. Warnick, the founder of the Purposeful Planning Institute.

by John A. Warnick, Esq.

Family Trusts commonly preserve family financial asset, but fail to preserve either family or trust—Hartley Goldstone, author of Trustworthy and Co-Author of Family Trusts – A Guide for Beneficiaries, Trustees, Trust Protectors and Trust Advisors

I have been concerned about the emotional and relational impact of trusts since I had a “professionally jarring” encounter in 2001 with a beneficiary of an irrevocable trust established by her grandfather.  The dependency, disempowerment and entitlement I witnessed led me to ask “Is there a better way?”  

The Generative Trust and the Generative Trustee are part of that better way.

I’m convinced there is a better way to think about the purpose and meaning of trusts which still honors the legal roles and responsibilities but lifts the influence of the trust to the point it becomes a generative (positive) influence in the lives of beneficiaries. Read more

Decanting to Eliminate a Beneficiary – New York Says Yes

/in , , , , , , , , ,

by Kelly Dickson Cooper

Settlors often ask whether they can change the beneficiaries of an irrevocable trust because life circumstances or relationships have changed. Often, the answer is no.  However, in a recent case in New York, the trustee was able to accomplish the settlor’s desire to disinherit one of his children through a decanting. Read more

Fifty Ways to Leave Your Lover (or Fifty Ways to Plan, Administer and Litigate Estates)

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Carol Warnick

As the old song by Paul Simon contemplates, there are fifty ways to leave your lover, and there are also fifty ways to plan, administer and litigate estates and trusts.  I have recently become aware of various situations in which attorneys assume that because things are done a certain way in the state in which they practice, they are done the same way in other states.

I am licensed in three states, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, and deal regularly with the significant differences between them.  For example, Colorado tends to use “by representation” in dealing with passing assets down the generations, but Utah and Wyoming both use “per stirpes.”  Read more

Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty: Which Interest is Best?

/in , , , ,

by Matthew Skotak

The term “fiduciary” can be considered a vague term that encompasses many different people and several different relationships.  Under Colorado law, a fiduciary includes, without limitation, a trustee of any trust, a personal representative, guardian, conservator, receiver, partner, agent, or “any other person acting in a fiduciary capacity for any person, trust, or estate.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-1-103(2).  It is within this context that we examine a fiduciary’s duty of loyalty and how best to uphold that duty.

In the context of a trust, and as stated in the Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 2, a fiduciary relationship with respect to property arises out of the manifestation of an intention to create the fiduciary relationship and subjects the trustee “to equitable duties to deal with the property for the benefit of another person.”  From this relationship stems several inherent and implied fiduciary duties.  Generally, the fiduciary duties applicable to a trustee are: the duty of loyalty, the duty to exercise care and skill in managing the trust assets and administering the trust, and the duty to remain impartial to all beneficiaries.   Read more

New Uniform Directed Trust Act

/in , , , , , , ,

by Kelly Dickson Cooper

More and more, I review trust agreements that appoint a trustee, but then appoint other individuals or institutions to perform certain tasks that are normally in the domain of the trustee.  They are sometimes referred to as trust protectors, trust advisors, trust directors, special powerholders, investment trustees, or distribution trustees.  I most often see these appointments in the areas of investments or distributions.

The trust language that attempts to divide the responsibilities of a trustee among a group is often unclear and give rise to difficult questions as to the scope of each individuals’ responsibilities.  There is also the question of whether the trustee is responsible for the actions of the other appointees and if the appointees are fiduciaries.  These problems with interpretation are often exacerbated because the laws are not clear about the division of these responsibilities and the liability of each actor.  Read more