Money left to child in Trust, but not released until child is 25

xylophone

I need to be registered to access the link

Type croneri A&M Trust into Google.

Manxman_in_exile

Murphy_The_Cat wrote: »

Mine in red again

"I'd be more concerned that they'd not fully apply themselves to education, apprenticship or their chosen career path, knowing that they are due a windfall on X date"


Well that seems a particularly pessimistic point of view to me - are the potential beneficiaries more !!!!less or irresponsible than anyone else? If they do behave as you fear at least it will be their choice to do so. What if they end up going down the wrong career path altogether and end up doing something they really dislike because it seems like the "safe" option at the time, because they are being kept in ignorance that things will change when they reach 25? That just might cause some resentment. You can't make meaningful hints or suggestions as you'd just be seen to be interfering and possibly manipulative.


Still you know them better than me.


"There is a very distinct possibility that she wouldn't have set the Trust up, if her wishes wouldn't have been respected."


Obviously I didn't know Aunt Mildred, but that sounds just a little ungenerous to me. Would it really have made a difference to her wishes? Maybe it would.


Once one beneficiary reaches 25, how is it going to be kept a secret from the others? Or won't you tell them? What will their sibling and the other two think?


EDIT: I see the forum police have needlessly censored a word in my first line. It begins with an "f" and rhymes with "reckless"!

Malthusian

Murphy_The_Cat wrote: »

But it won't be there own money until they're 25 - in Mildreds eyes

If Mildred gives or leaves money to a trust with me as the sole beneficiary (aka a bare trust), that is legally indistinguishable from my own money.

If she leaves money to a trust with four beneficiaries (and no other potential beneficiaries), the same applies; it is legally indistinguishable from money that belongs to all four of them.

You cannot control what other people do with their own money from beyond the grave.

and I respect her wishes.

Your overriding duty as trustee is to the beneficiaries.

I've looked at Saunders vs Vautier as per your suggestion and this came up " if all of the beneficiaries in the trust are of adult age and under no disability, the beneficiaries may require the trustee to transfer the legal estate to them and thereby terminate the trust." If my memory is working right, when the oldest becomes 25, the youngest will still be 17.

Depends on whether the eldest's share of the trust is fixed or whether the trustees have the power to vary it. Generally speaking, if it's fixed they can SVV on their own share without waiting for the others. If it can be varied at the trustees' discretion they have no share until the trustees say they do.

Or the youngest's 18th birthday, at which point all four of them can wind it up.

There is a very distinct possibility that she wouldn't have set the Trust up, if her wishes wouldn't have been respected.

Then if all four want their money when they're adults, perhaps you should consider stealing the money, fleeing to the Bahamas, and giving it all to the local cat home.

Sea_Shell

If I was the eldest and realised down the road that I'd had to wait (unnecessarily?) another 8 years for the youngest to turn 25, when I'd needed the money for a house/car/wedding/kids etc. I don't think I'd be too happy.

Be careful this doesn't drive a wedge through the family... eventually!

Murphy_The_Cat

Thank you all for your comments, suggestions, advice, opinions, warnings, links and thoughts.


From Mildreds perspective (from the grave), as long as potential Trustee A folows her wishes and keep schtumm, potential Trustee B follows her wishes and keeps schtumm and potential Trustee C (the professional person) follows her wishes and keeps schtumm - then her wishes will be followed.
(if its left where it is, the Private Bank will keep schtumn, but carry on reaming off hefty charges, from poor performing investments)
Given that potential Trusteee A is a parent of child A & child B and that potential Trustee B is a parent of child C and child D, all should be could until child A becomes 25 - at this stage if child B wants their share, the Trustees can be approached for B's share to be released early.
As children A & B, don't know, nor are aware on children C&D, even if B did get their share early, C&D wouldn't be aware of it.


BUT, once any of A,B,C,D turn 18, if they have a need, want or desire to put it all on Red, and one of the Trustees decides to go against Mildreds wishes, and tells the child about the Trust, then the Trustees would have a meeting and decide at their disrection if the adult could have their share early (without ploughing through the Trust documents, I don't know if it would have to be "all or nothing" or whether some could be released easily for "educational" purposes). Presumably if it was Adult A, child B would be more than a tad curious as to how the elder sibling could afford to do X, Y & Z out of the blue !!

Murphy_The_Cat

Malthusian wrote: »

Then if all four want their money when they're adults, perhaps you should consider stealing the money, fleeing to the Bahamas, and giving it all to the local cat home.

I can't follow this bit - Mildred wanted them to have the money, but not until they were 25. If she'd have wanted them to have it when they were 18, she would have said so.

xylophone

If Mildred gives or leaves money to a trust with me as the sole beneficiary (aka a bare trust), that is legally indistinguishable from my own money.

If she leaves money to a trust with four beneficiaries (and no other potential beneficiaries), the same applies; it is legally indistinguishable from money that belongs to all four of them.

It appears that this is an A&M Trust and appears to fall to be dealt with under special rules - this is why I suggested to the OP that she makes herself aware of this and makes sure that the professional she is employing can confirm to her when exactly the Trust was set up (this seems key) and how the rules applying to access/taxation will apply if certain actions were not taken in due time by the Trustees.

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-107-5820?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1

The administration does seem complex - if I were one of the Trustees I would want expert, unequivocal advice.

Manxman_in_exile

This is beginning to sound like a Dickens' plot! Think "Bleak House" or "Great Expectations".


"Great Unrevealed Expectations" might be more apt!

Murphy_The_Cat

xylophone wrote: »

It appears that this is an A&M Trust and appears to fall to be dealt with under special rules - this is why I suggested to the OP that she makes herself aware of this and makes sure that the professional she is employing can confirm to her when exactly the Trust was set up (this seems key) and how the rules applying to access/taxation will apply if certain actions were not taken in due time by the Trustees.

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-107-5820?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1

The administration does seem complex - if I were one of the Trustees I would want expert, unequivocal advice.

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

This is beginning to sound like a Dickens' plot! Think "Bleak House" or "Great Expectations".


"Great Unrevealed Expectations" might be more apt!

Thank you both - when the solicitor looked through the initial Trust document, they considered it to not be as straightforward as it could be - and then referred it to others within ther Practice for confirmation and clarification of certain points relating to a A&M settlement Trust. (IIRC as it was created over 14 years ago, different rules apply ?). Your link suggests that my memory may be correct.




I like the ring of "Great Unrevealed Expectations".




Whatever the ins and outs of when they get access to the funds, Mildred was very kind to consider them:beer:

xylophone

(IIRC as it was created before 2006, different rules apply ?).

It seems to be a case of "Yes, but...." - do let us know how the experts resolve the access/taxation issues.