DOCSLIB.ORG

September 8, 2004 Session GEORGE HASKEL STEWART V. DEMPLE L. SEWELL, ET

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
September 8, 2004 Session GEORGE HASKEL STEWART V. DEMPLE L. SEWELL, ET IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 8, 2004 Session GEORGE HASKEL STEWART v. DEMPLE L. SEWELL, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Franklin County No. 15,704 Buddy D. Perry, Judge No. M2003-01031-COA-R3-CV - Filed April 14, 2005 Plaintiff, stepson of Clara Stewart, contends that attorneys-in-fact of Mrs. Stewart acted in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. 34-6-108(c)(6) and their confidential relationship with Mrs. Stewart, which deprived him of inheriting real property formerly owned by his father under the will of Mrs. Stewart. The attorneys-in-fact (Fiduciaries) are the daughter and son of Mrs. Stewart. They sold the property while their mother was mentally and physically incapacitated, living in a nursing home. The property was sold for substantially less than the appraised value to a daughter and son-in-law of one of the Fiduciaries and two of their friends. Mrs. Stewart, who inherited the property from Plaintiff’s father, was the sole owner of the property at the time of the sale. The Fiduciaries, however, invested the proceeds in certificates of deposit with themselves identified as co-owners with Mrs. Stewart with right of survivorship. The Fiduciaries became sole owners of the entire sales proceeds upon the death of Mrs. Stewart. During the administration of Mrs. Stewart’s estate, the Fiduciaries, now executors, advised Plaintiff that his devise adeemed by extinction. Plaintiff brought this action to recover the real property or the fair market value thereof from the Fiduciaries and/or the buyers. The trial court dismissed the complaint without making findings, stating only that it was not sustained by the proof. Plaintiff appealed. We reverse finding that the Fiduciaries acted in contravention of the power of attorney and Tenn. Code Ann. 34-6-108(c)(6) and breached their fiduciary duties to Mrs. Stewart, and award Plaintiff a judgment against the Fiduciaries for the net proceeds resulting from the sale of the devised property plus pre-judgment interest from the date of sale. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Reversed in Part, Affirmed in Part and Remanded FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which WILLIAM B. CAIN, and PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, JJ., joined. Hudson Owen Maddux, Chattanooga, Tennessee, and John Mark Stewart, Winchester, Tennessee, for the appellant, George Haskel Stewart. James C. Thomas and Jerre Michael Hood, Winchester, Tennessee, for the appellees, Demple L. Sewell and Bobby L. Judkins (Co-Executors of the Estate of Clara B. Stewart), The Estate of Clara B. Stewart, Robert E. Blocker, Rhonda S. Blocker, Tom A. Paul and Diana L. Paul. OPINION James Stewart was a widower1 when he married the then Clara Judkins, a widow, in 1974. Both had children from prior marriages. Plaintiff, George H. Stewart, is the son of James Stewart and his first wife. Defendants Demple L. Sewell and Bobby L. Judkins (the “Fiduciaries”) are the children of Clara (Judkins) Stewart and her first husband. During the marriage of James Stewart and Clara (Judkins) Stewart, they both executed wills which were mutual to the limited extent that they each incorporated a devise in each will so that Plaintiff would inherit real estate on Little Hurricane Road that his father, James Stewart had owned since 1939. The property was 6.8 acres and a house on Tims Ford Lake of which 260 feet was valuable lakefront property. In his will, James Stewart devised the property to his wife, Clara Stewart, provided she survived him, and to Plaintiff if she did not. In Clara Stewart’s will, the property was also devised to Plaintiff.2 James Stewart predeceased Clara Stewart, thus she inherited the property.3 After the death of James Stewart, Mrs. Stewart executed a new will.4 Though she made some changes in her estate plan, Mrs. Stewart reaffirmed the intended devise of her deceased husband’s property to Plaintiff. Under Mrs. Stewart’s new will, the devise to Plaintiff of the property on Little Hurricane Road was identified as “the property formerly owned by James Haskell Stewart.” Plaintiff remained the intended devisee of the property at the time of Mrs. Stewart’s death. As Mrs. Stewart’s health began to decline, she executed a general durable power of attorney in which she designated her children, Demple L. Sewell and Bobby L. Judkins (the “Fiduciaries”), as her attorneys-in-fact. The power of attorney was executed in November of 1994. Mrs. Stewart’s mental and physical health continued to decline. By January of 1997, Mrs. Stewart needed full time care, thus plans were made to move her into a nursing home. Demple Sewell testified that when the Fiduciaries “went to sign the papers at the nursing home, they told us that [Mrs. Stewart] could keep assets in the – she could keep her home that she had lived in the last five years, $2,000 and a car. Everything else, all her other resources, they wanted a list of them. This is the property, this house, everything was in mother’s name, that was her resources. And we had given it to the nursing home. It would have been tied up forever.” The Fiduciaries then refused 1 His first wife died in 1971. 2 Plaintiff was the alternate devisee in the event his father did not survive Mrs. Stewart. In their respective wills, Mr. and Mrs. Stewart each devised the disputed property to each other, provided the other survived. Plaintiff was listed as the alternate devisee under each will. Thus, both Mr. and Mrs. Stewart intended for Plaintiff to be the devisee of the property following the latter of their deaths. 3 He died on December 30, 1981. 4 The will was executed in August of 1994. -2- to sign the financial statement of Mrs. Stewart’s assets required by the nursing home. Demple Sewell explained that they refused to do so because “we didn’t want to open up the whole thing [Mrs. Stewart’s assets]. We were trying to save some portion.” Immediately prior to being admitted to the nursing home, $19,500 that had been in Mrs. Stewart’s bank account was “given” to the Fiduciaries, arguably as gifts to her two children. Then, on February 7, 1997, the Fiduciaries, acting as her attorneys-in-fact, sold most of the property James and Clara Stewart had devised to Plaintiff, indeed the most valuable portion, the lakefront property. All that remained was a modest house which was a good distance from the lake. Mrs. Stewart did not authorize or participate in the sale. The purchasers of the disputed property were Diane Paul, the daughter of Demple Sewell, and her husband Tom Paul, and their friends, Robert and Rhonda Blocker. The appraised value of the property that was sold was $110,000. The purchase price stated in the affidavit of consideration on the deed was a mere $40,000; however, the Fiduciaries, in their answer to the complaint, stated that the true purchase price was $80,000. The property was sold without the assistance of a real estate agent and without public advertising. The property was solely owned by Mrs. Stewart when it was sold by the Fiduciaries; however, the Fiduciaries deposited the entire proceeds of the sale into certificates of deposit. The Fiduciaries were identified as co-owners with Mrs. Stewart of all of the certificates, with right of survivorship. Mrs. Stewart did not authorize, nor participate, in the manner by which the Fiduciaries deposited or titled the proceeds. Mrs. Stewart died on May 9, 1998, fifteen months after the Fiduciaries “gifted” the proceeds to themselves by listing themselves as joint owners with right of survivorship. Moreover, none of the proceeds were needed for the care of Mrs. Stewart. Thus, all of the proceeds from the sale of the disputed property remained on deposit at Mrs. Stewart’s death. As a consequence, all of the proceeds along with accumulated interest went to the Fiduciaries by right of survivorship. The Fiduciaries were appointed Co-Executors of Mrs. Stewart’s probate estate. During the administration of her estate, the attorney for the Fiduciaries sent a letter to Plaintiff informing him that he had inherited “the house” pursuant to Mrs. Stewart’s will. The key to the house was enclosed. No mention was made of the disputed property that adeemed by extinction due to the sale orchestrated by the Fiduciaries or the proceeds the Fiduciaries received upon the death of Mrs. Stewart.5 5 “Ademption” has been defined as “the extinction, alienation, withdrawal, or satisfaction of the legacy by some act of the testator by which an intention to revoke is indicated; the doing of some act with regard to the subject matter which interferes with the operation of the will.” (emphasis added) Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates, § 486 (Jack W. Robinson, Sr. & Jeff Mobley, 5th ed. 1994). -3- Thereafter, Plaintiff filed this action seeking to recover the property, or a constructive trust and/or damages resulting from the Fiduciaries’ acts in contravention of the power of attorney and Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-6-108(c)(6) and the breach of their fiduciary duties. Plaintiff contended that he would have inherited the disputed property but for the ultra vires, self-serving acts by the Fiduciaries. He asserted that he was deprived of inheriting the disputed property, or the value thereof, as a direct result of the Fiduciaries’ actions. Defendants denied they violated any fiduciary duties and contended that Plaintiff was entitled to no relief. At the conclusion of a lengthy bench trial, the trial court requested counsel to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Spring 2014 Melanie Leslie – Trusts and Estates – Attack Outline 1
    Spring 2014 Melanie Leslie – Trusts and Estates – Attack Outline Order of Operations (Will) • Problems with the will itself o Facts showing improper execution (signature, witnesses, statements, affidavits, etc.), other will challenges (Question call here is whether will should be admitted to probate) . Look out for disinherited people who have standing under the intestacy statute!! . Consider mechanisms to avoid will challenges (no contest, etc.) o Will challenges (AFTER you deal with problems in execution) . Capacity/undue influence/fraud o Attempts to reference external/unexecuted documents . Incorporation by reference . Facts of independent significance • Spot: Property/devise identified by a generic name – “all real property,” “all my stocks,” etc. • Problems with specific devises in the will o Ademption (no longer in estate) . Spot: Words of survivorship . Identity theory vs. UPC o Abatement (estate has insufficient assets) . Residuary general specific . Spot: Language opting out of the common law rule o Lapse . First! Is the devisee protected by the anti-lapse statute!?! . Opted out? Spot: Words of survivorship, etc. UPC vs. CL . If devise lapses (or doesn’t), careful about who it goes to • If saved, only one state goes to people in will of devisee, all others go to descendants • Careful if it is a class gift! Does not go to residuary unless whole class lapses • Other issues o Revocation – Express or implied? o Taxes – CL is pro rata, look for opt out, especially for big ticket things o Executor – Careful! Look out for undue
    [Show full text]
  • The Texas Constructive Trust and Its Peculiar Requirements
    Digital Commons at St. Mary's University Faculty Articles School of Law Faculty Scholarship Spring 2018 The Texas Constructive Trust and Its Peculiar Requirements David Dittfurth St. Mary's University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/facarticles Part of the Estates and Trusts Commons Recommended Citation David Dittfurth, The Texas Constructive Trust and Its Peculiar Requirements, 50 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 447 (2018). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE TEXAS CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST AND ITS PECULIAR REQUIREMENTS David Dittfurth" I. INTRODUCTION ........................................ 447 II. THESIS .............................................. 448 III. CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST MECHANICS ........................ 451 A . JudicialR em edy ........................................................................ 451 B. Statutory Rem edies ................................................................... 452 IV. THE THREE-ELEMENT RULE ........................................................... 454 A. KCM Financial, LLC v. Bradshaw...................454 B . K insel v. L indsey ...................................................................... 458 V. THE FUNCTION OF WRONGDOING..................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Must the Remedy at Law Be Inadequate Before a Constructive Trust Will Be Impressed?
    St. John's Law Review Volume 25 Number 2 Volume 25, May 1951, Number 2 Article 6 Must the Remedy at Law Be Inadequate Before a Constructive Trust Will Be Impressed? St. John's Law Review Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1951] NOTES AND COMMENT ing has never been held to be in this category. The choice of program and set and the failure or success of a broadcaster has been left to the public. The approval or rejection of the Commission's decision will decide whether or not these same principles will apply to color telecasts. Whatever the decision of the court, and whichever system of color television broadcasting is finally approved, the controversy will at last have the finality of a decision of the United States Su- preme Court. There will have been a substantial contribution to a new field of law-television law. Under this law the industry will grow and perfect itself. In this way there will best be served the "public interest, convenience, or necessity." X MUST THIE REMEDY AT LAw BE INADEQUATE BEFORE A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST WILL BE IMPRESSED? Introduction Generally speaking, a constructive trust is a trust by operation of law, which arises contrary to intention 1 against one, who by fraud, commission
    [Show full text]
  • Beware the Constructive Trust Claim
    Portfolio Media. Inc. | 860 Broadway, 6th Floor | New York, NY 10003 | www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161 | [email protected] Beware The Constructive Trust Claim Law360, New York (October 13, 2010) -- Faced with the prospect of little recovery at some distant point in the future, larger unsecured creditors are using the remedy of a constructive trust to target specific property and to attempt to obtain a full recovery superior to all other claimants, including senior secured creditors. Even if lacking in merit, the mere assertion of a constructive trust claim may prove to be an impediment in getting past an objection to plan confirmation based on the demand that the unresolved constructive trust claim be separately classified. The ultimate resolution of the claimant’s entitlement to a constructive trust remedy, including the procedure to attack it, depends on the circuit in which the bankruptcy case is pending. The Basic Law as to the Remedy of a Constructive Trust “A constructive trust is an involuntary equitable trust created as a remedy to compel the transfer of property from the person wrongfully holding it to the rightful owner.” In re Real Estate Associates Ltd. Partnership Litig., 223 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 1139 (C.D. Cal. 2002). “The imposition of a constructive trust requires: (1) the existence of res (property or some interest in property); (2) the right of the complaining party to that res; and (3) some wrongful acquisition or detention of the res by another party who is not entitled to it.” See Burlesci v.
    [Show full text]
  • ELIZABETH KERR ET AL. V. LYDIA HENDERSON ET AL
    09/28/2020 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE July 23, 2020 Session ELIZABETH KERR ET AL. v. LYDIA HENDERSON ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Johnson County No. 7226 John C. Rambo, Chancellor No. E2020-00112-COA-R3-CV In this case involving the inheritance of an investment account, the three plaintiffs filed a complaint in September 2016, asserting, inter alia, that a letter executed by their father prior to his 2007 death had operated to create an express trust concerning the account, for which their stepmother had acted as trustee with the understanding that the plaintiffs were to be the beneficiaries of the account after her death. The plaintiffs alternatively sought imposition of a constructive trust. The plaintiffs’ stepmother, who is the subject decedent in this action, had died in April 2016. The plaintiffs initially named as defendants the co- executors of the decedent’s estate, as well as the financial institution holding the investment account. The trial court subsequently entered agreed orders to dismiss the financial institution as a party and to substitute as defendants the decedent’s three adult children from a previous marriage. Upon competing motions for summary judgment and following a hearing, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that an express trust had been created by the writings of the plaintiffs’ father and that, alternatively, a constructive trust should be imposed based on the combined writings and actions of the plaintiffs’ father and the decedent. The defendants filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, which the trial court denied following a hearing upon finding in part that new evidence submitted by the defendants should not be considered.
    [Show full text]
  • Uniform Trust Code
    D R A F T FOR DISCUSSION ONLY UNIFORM TRUST CODE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS MARCH 10, 2000 INTERIM DRAFT UNIFORM TRUST CODE WITHOUT PREFATORY NOTE AND COMMENTS Copyright © 2000 By NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS The ideas and conclusions set forth in this draft, including the proposed statutory language and any comments or reporter’s notes, have not been passed upon by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws or the Drafting Committee. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Conference and its Commissioners and the Drafting Committee and its Members and Reporters. Proposed statutory language may not be used to ascertain the intent or meaning of any promulgated final statutory proposal. UNIFORM TRUST CODE TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS SECTION 101. SHORT TITLE. ............................................................ 1 SECTION 102. SCOPE. ................................................................... 1 SECTION 103. DEFINITIONS. ............................................................. 1 SECTION 104. DEFAULT AND MANDATORY RULES. ...................................... 4 SECTION 105. QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES. ............................................... 5 SECTION 106. NOTICE. .................................................................. 5 SECTION 107. COMMON LAW OF TRUSTS. ................................................ 6 SECTION 108. CHOICE OF LAW. .........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fiduciary Roles in Your Estate Plan in Illinois WHAT IS a FIDUCIARY ROLE?
    FIDUCIARY ROLES IN YOUR ESTATE IN ILLINOIS PLAN “A “fiduciary” role refers to a position of trust, often involving money or property that has been entrusted to the individual in the fiduciary role.” CURTIS J. FORD ILLINOIS ATTORNEY A number of important decisions must be made when you create your estate plan. While many of these decisions relate to the disposition of estate assets should you become incapacitated or die, some of the most important decisions you will need to make have nothing to do with assets. Instead, those decisions involve fulfilling fiduciary roles in your estate plan. All too often individuals are chosen to fill fiduciary roles within an estate plan without giving adequate thought to the choices. A better understanding of the various fiduciary roles within your estate plan and the importance of choosing the right person for the job may prevent you from making this mistake. 2 Fiduciary Roles in Your Estate Plan in Illinois www.nashbeanford.com WHAT IS A FIDUCIARY ROLE? A “fiduciary” role refers to a position of trust, often involving money or property that has been entrusted to the individual in the fiduciary role. A fiduciary must use the utmost care when handling money or assets entrusted to him or her because those assets are intended to be used for the benefit of a third party beneficiary. Furthermore, a fiduciary is expected to make prudent investment decisions and not take risks with assets unless specifically directed to do so by the person who appointed the fiduciary. In short, a fiduciary should be more careful with assets entrusted to his or her care than the fiduciary would be with his or her own assets.
    [Show full text]
  • IN the COURT of APPEALS of TENNESSEE at JACKSON May 13, 2015 Session
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON May 13, 2015 Session ROBERT W. MILLS v. NITA D. MILLS, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH1301272 Arnold B. Goldin, Chancellor ________________________________ No. W2014-00855-COA-R3-CV – June 24, 2015 _________________________________ This case involves various causes of action related to the administration of an estate, specifically, the executor‘s action in failing to fund a residuary trust. The trial court granted summary judgment on the grounds that no assets remained in the estate to fund the residuary trust, the expiration of the statute of limitations, and laches. Although we rely on different grounds, we affirm the trial court‘s order granting summary judgment and dismissing the complaint. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed and Remanded J. STEVEN STAFFORD, P. J., W.S., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRANDON O. GIBSON, J., and KENNY ARMSTRONG, J., joined. Lee S. Saunders and Robert Steven Butler, Somerville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Robert W. Mills. Kacey L. Faughnan, Edward T. Autry, and Joseph B. Reafsnyder, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellees, Nita D. Mills, and James Johnson. OPINION Background On January 30, 2013, Plaintiff/Appellant Robert W. Mills (―Appellant‖) filed a Complaint to Compel Disclosure of Residual Trust or Alternatively for Declaratory Judgment and Judicial Estoppel, For Equitable Relief, For Constructive Trust to Prevent Unjust Enrichment, For Resulting Trust, For Accounting and for Injunction against Appellees Nita D. Mills (―Ms. Mills‖ or ―Defendant Mills‖), Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of William B.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 of 4 N.C.P.I.—Civil 865.65 TRUSTS by OPERATION of LAW—PURCHASE MONEY RESULTING TRUST (REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY). GENERAL CIVIL VOLUME JUNE 2014
    Page 1 of 4 N.C.P.I.—Civil 865.65 TRUSTS BY OPERATION OF LAW—PURCHASE MONEY RESULTING TRUST (REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY). GENERAL CIVIL VOLUME JUNE 2014 ------------------------------ 865.65 TRUSTS BY OPERATION OF LAW1 — PURCHASE MONEY RESULTING TRUST (REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY).2 The (state number) issue reads: "[Is] [Was] (identify property) held under a purchase money resulting trust by (name alleged trustee)?" You will note that in this issue I have used the word "trust." A trust is a legal relationship between persons. A trust exists when one person acquires property under circumstances where he incurs a legal duty to handle that property in a particular way so as to benefit another person. A 1 Trusts created by operation of law are classified into resulting trusts and constructive trusts. "[T]he creation of a resulting trust involves the application of the doctrine that valuable consideration rather than legal title determines the equitable title resulting from a transaction; whereas a constructive trust ordinarily arises out of the existence of fraud, actual or presumptive - usually involving the violation of a confidential or fiduciary relation - in view of which equity transfers the beneficial title to some person other than the holder of the legal title. Also, a resulting trust involves a presumption or supposition of law of an intention to create a trust, where as a constructive trust arises independent of any actual or presumed intention of the parties and is usually imposed contrary to the actual intention of the trustee." Bowen v. Darden, 241 N.C. 11, 13-14, 84 S.E.2d 289, 292 (1954).
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Acceptance of Trust/ Testamentary Trustee PC-284 REV. 10/18
    Initial Acceptance of Trust/ Testamentary Trustee CONNECTICUT PROBATE COURTS PC-284 REV. 10/18 RECEIVED: Instructions: 1) A person, individually or on behalf of a corporation who has been named as a trustee of a testamentary trust, may use this form to accept the position of trust. The designated trustee may also use this form to indicate whether the will excuses the trustee from filing periodic accounts or makes special provisions with regard to filing requirements. 2) If an individual trustee is not a Connecticut resident, form PC-482, Appointment of Judge or Probate as Agent for Service by Non-resident Fiduciary, must be filed in court. 3) If the trustee will be represented by an attorney, the attorney must file an Appearance of Attorney, PC- 183, in accordance with Probate Court Rules, Rule 5. 4) Type or print the form in ink. Use Second Sheet, PC-180, or an additional sheet if more space is needed. Probate Court Name District Number Estate of Date of Death ,deceased Identification of Trust The trust created under article of will (List paragraph or section number)______________ For benefit of _________________________________________________________________________________ Beneficiaries and Remaindermen: List name, address and type of interest, i.e, beneficiary or remainderman. Provide date of birth if the beneficiary is a minor or if the trust terminates when the beneficiary attains a certain age. If adjudicated incapable, also provide name and address of fiduciary. See Probate Court Rules of Procedure, rule 32 for more information. 1) 2) 3) 4) Trustees: List name, addresses, and phone number of each trustee under the will.
    [Show full text]
  • Trust Administration Guidelines for Trustees
    LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL E. GRAHAM 10343 HIGH STREET, SUITE ONE TRUCKEE, CALIFORNIA 96161-0116 TELEPHONE 530.587.1177 P FACSIMILE 530.587.0707 MICHAEL E. GRAHAM † [email protected] TRUST ADMINISTRATION GUIDELINES FOR TRUSTEES I. INTRODUCTION The average person has had little experience dealing with trusts and often has many questions upon becoming a Trustee for the first time. Since you will be the Trustee of a Trust, the purpose of this memo is to try to anticipate your questions by providing a general overview of how Trusts work and your duties and responsibilities as Trustee. Through our experience in helping people administer trusts, we have found that many individuals have unrealistic expectations concerning the way living trusts operate following a death. It is true that a living trust in many cases drastically reduces the costs and delays involved in passing on assets at death. A living trust accomplishes this feat by avoiding probate. However, even without a probate, many administrative chores have to be completed, legal documents prepared, taxes returns filed, and other matters that take time and cost money. II. TRUSTS IN GENERAL A. What is a Trust? A trust is a legal relationship, usually evidenced by a written document called a "Declaration of Trust" or "Trust Agreement," whereby one person, called the "Trustor," transfers property to another person, called the "Trustee," who holds the property for the benefit of another person, called the "Beneficiary." The same person may occupy more than one position at a time. For example, in the typical living trust, as long as the Trustor is alive, the Trustor is also the Trustee and Beneficiary.
    [Show full text]
  • Probate: Connecticut
    Resource ID: w-009-4550 Probate: Connecticut JESSIE A. GILBERT, SUSAN HUFFARD, AND KATHERINE A. MCALLISTER, CUMMINGS & LOCKWOOD LLC WITH PRACTICAL LAW TRUSTS & ESTATES Search the Resource ID numbers in blue on Westlaw for more. A Q&A guide to the laws of probate in Courts have jurisdiction over the estates of decedents domiciled in Connecticut and the estates of non-domiciliaries if: Connecticut. This Q&A addresses state laws and The decedent last resided in Connecticut. customs that impact the process of an estate The decedent left real or tangible personal property located in proceeding, including the key statutes and rules Connecticut. related to estate proceedings, the different types The decedent maintained a bank account in Connecticut or any bank account of the decedent is located in Connecticut. of estate proceedings available in Connecticut, The decedent left evidence of other intangible personal property in and the processes for opening an estate, Connecticut (for example, stock certificates or bonds). appointing an estate fiduciary, administering Any executor or trustee named in the will resides in Connecticut or, in the case of a bank or trust company, has an office in the estate, handling creditor claims, and closing Connecticut. the estate. Any cause of action in favor of the decedent arose in Connecticut or any debtor of the decedent resides in Connecticut. (Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 45a-287.) KEY STATUTES AND RULES A determination of domicile at the time of death of any deceased person is made by the Probate Court, but any finding of domicile 1. What are the state laws and rules that govern estate by the Probate Court is subject to a later determination of domicile proceedings? in connection with the Connecticut estate tax (Conn.
    [Show full text]