The Original Trustor, The: Fill & Download for Free

First I am not an attorney , so this is not legal advice. at the same time some people think I have some smarts.If the original trust was dissolved did not the assets go back to the original Trustor or maybe to the beneficiaries. just a hint.You really need A Trust Lawyer, if assets are of significant value you can not risk screwing this up.

The Rule Against Perpetuities prevents someone from keeping property tied up forever—namely, rich folks who manage to somehow defeat confiscatory inheritance taxes via the artful use of trusts or archaic types of property interests. Wealth cannot remain in a trust indefinitely, at some point the property rights must vest, i.e. somebody has got to own the property free and clear, you can’t have the umpteenth great-grandchild of the original owner still controlling property many years after the death of the original owner.It is one of those legal rules that is impossible to adequately define. Justice Potter’s famous line about hardcore pornography is apropos; said he, “I know it when I see it.” Jacobellis v. Ohio | Wikiwand And, there are excellent resources for anyone who really wants to delve into the nitty gritty of the rule, which requires a pretty sound grasp of property law. Rule against perpetuities | Wikiwand It is one of those legal doctrines that can be endlessly debated—there are so many exceptions and special cases that you really don’t want to have to rely on a judge buying into your interpretation of it.In fact, the rule is so complicated that there is a case in California finding that it isn’t malpractice for a lawyer to draft a will that violates the rule. Lucas v. Hamm, 56 Cal. 2d 583, 15 Cal. Rptr. 821, 364 P.2d 685 (1961)Nevertheless, lawyers should have a grasp of the basics: No property interest is valid unless it must vest within 21 years of a life in being at the time of the creation of the interest. What non-lawyers often fail to grasp is that our law is merely advisory— reasonable minds can and do differ as to what the “law” means and legal decisions are based on only those facts deemed admissible, which means that your typical judge can easily steer a case anywhere he or she wants it to go.As for an example, my grandfather created a trust that owns a piece of income property. The trust became irrevocable at the death of his spouse, my grandmother, many years after my grandfather died. When the trust became irrevocable, one of my sons had just been born and there were, in total, three great-grandchildren, eight grandchildren, and two children of the trustor. The trust can continue to control the property until 21 years after the last one of those 13 lineal survivors dies, they are the measuring lives because they were alive at the time of the original grant.Many jurisdictions are getting rid of the Rule. Essentially, a trust can go on forever until someone comes up with a good argument as to why it shouldn’t. My prediction is that despite all attempts to kill the Rule, it will still be cited and followed for as long as we endure our present legal system. There is a natural aversion to allowing the dead to control property forever—the Rule simply allows the present to sever connections with the past.

For the umpteenth time i am not an attorney, Maybe I need to address that flaw.I see no basis that anyone can modify the Trust except the original Trustor.Since it is Irrevocable you need to review the documents to determine what authority the parties have under the agreement.