|
| |
| Click on the links below for answers to general questions
on Estate Planning
General Probate Questions Free Advice.com
Creditors
Executor or
adminstrator
Legal help
Lost will
No will
Probate process
Property outside
probate
Purpose of probate
Revocable living
trusts
Taxes
Will contest
|
| |
Taylor v. Nationsbank
This Court has found that transactions between trustees and beneficiaries of
a trust are "presumed fraudulent" and therefore "are voidable by the
beneficiary unless the trustee can show by the greater weight of the
evidence that the transaction was 'open, fair and honest,'" and "that the
beneficiary had a full and complete understanding of the transaction . . .."
Johnson v. Brown, 71 N.C. App. 660, 668, 323 S.E.2d 389, 394-95
(1984). Furthermore, defendants do not point to any terms of the trust that
restrict the beneficiaries' rights to view the trust instrument.
Section 173 of the Restatement (Second) of Trusts
makes clear that a trustee must always provide beneficiaries complete and
accurate information and documentation regarding the trust:
The trustee is under a duty to the beneficiary to give him upon his request
at a reasonable time complete and accurate information as to the nature and
amount of the trust property, and to permit him or a person duly authorized
by him to inspect the subject matter of the trust and the accounts and
vouchers and other documents relating to the trust.
Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 173. Section 173 also clearly provides
authority for the position that beneficiaries are entitled to view trust
documents relating to their interest in the trust.
, the beneficiary is always entitled to such information as is reasonably
necessary to enable him to enforce his rights under the trust or to prevent
or redress a breach of trust.
Justice Cardozo's words concerning a fiduciary's duty still ring true today:
A trustee is held to something stricter than the morals of the market place.
Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is then
the standard of behavior. As to this there has developed a tradition that is
unbending and inveterate |
| |
| Seaver v. Ransom -
Where a niece gets an inheritance from her Aunt that her Uncle was supposed
to give her in HIS will.... Oral - Nuncupative
Wills - definition
that says they are normally invalid |
| |
| Under the then prevailing conditions it was natural that
provisions for oral or nuncupative wills should have been made and we find
three sections of the 1850 Act devoted to this subject. As at present, such
a will must have been reduced to writing within thirty days after the
words were spoken, and probate must be within six months after the speaking
of the words. The 1850 law limited the size of the estate disposable by such
a will to $500 ($1,000 at present). But as to soldiers and mariners on
active duty the 1850 Act apparently allowed nuncupative wills of personal
property to be good with no limitation at all, whereas the present law
places such wills under the same restrictions as to amount and procedure as
other nuncupative wills and requires "actual contemplation, fear or peril of
death. 11 As to civilians, the 1850 Act limited oral wills to "time of last
sickness" ; the present law limits them to "expectation of immediate
death from an injury received the same day." Source |
| |
| California doesn't recognize Nuncupative Wills - Source |
| Another Source |
| |
 |
| Source |
| |
|
Plaintiff
alleged, and the trial court found, that on or before April 18, 1953, Mr.
and Mrs. Crail orally agreed that the first spouse who died would leave his
or her estate to the other spouse, on the condition that the survivor would
leave their combined estate to their children in equal shares. The evidence
disclosing the existence of the oral contract is sparse but is
substantial enough to constitute support for the trial
court's findings.
|
| |
|
SUMMARY
Children of deceased parents who had executed mutual wills whereunder each
parent left his estate to the surviving parent or, in the event neither
survived, to the children, brought an action to enforce an oral agreement
allegedly made by the parents under which the survivor was to leave all the
parents' property to plaintiffs. The action was initiated as a result of the
father's failure, on his death as the last survivor, to carry out the terms
of the agreement. The trial court held for the plaintiffs. (Superior Court
of Los Angeles County, No. 971059, Benjamin Landis, Judge.)
The Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting numerous contentions of
insufficiency of evidence. As a basis for taking the oral agreement out of
operation of the statute of frauds, the court referred to testimony
indicating that the mutual wills had been made to protect the children, and
that the mother had changed her position in reliance on the agreement. The
court noted, further, that to apply the statute in the instant case would
result in unjust enrichment.
|
Crail v. Blakely
106 Cal.Rptr. 187
Cal. 1973. |
| |
|
It is an
age-old principle of our law that no man should judge or otherwise
officially preside over disputed matters in which he has a pecuniary
interest. The rule is given expression in the law of trusts. 'It is against
public policy to permit any person occupying fiduciary relations to be
placed in such a position that he may be tempted to betray his duty as a
trustee. * * *' (Sims
v. Petaluma Gas Light Co., 131 Cal. 656, 659, 63 P. 1011, 1012.)
|
| |
|
in view of
public
policies of maintaining
parent-child
relationships
Best interests of the child
are always paramount in any of the numerous proceedings that determine the
custody of the child.(In
re B.G. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 679, 114 Cal.Rptr. 444, 523 P.2d 244;
Civ.Code, § 4600.)
It is in the best interests
of all parties that this
parent-child
relationship not be disrupted.
Guardianship of Claralyn S.
195 Cal.Rptr. 646
Cal.App. 5 Dist.,1983.
Generally
courts will not assist in enforcing an agreement when the object of the
agreement is either illegal or against public policy.
Dunkin v. Boskey
98 Cal.Rptr.2d 44
Cal.App. 1 Dist.,2000
A promise or other term of an
agreement is unenforceable on grounds of
public policy
if legislation provides that it is unenforceable or the interest in its
enforcement is clearly outweighed in the circumstances by a
public policy
against the enforcement of such terms.
Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 178 comment.
|
|
|
|
General Rules for Taxation of
Estates and Trusts
TITLE 26 >
Subtitle A >
CHAPTER 1 >
Subchapter J >
PART I > Subpart A
| |
|
§ 641. Imposition of tax
§ 642. Special rules for credits and deductions
§ 643. Definitions applicable to subparts A, B, C, andD
§ 644. Taxable year of trusts
§ 645. Certain revocable trusts treated as part of estate
§ 646. Tax treatment of electing Alaska Native Settlement Trusts
law.cornell.edu
         |
|
| | |
