OTP, and i do mean OTP, and pretty boring as well

[Diane]

SOOO sorry to ask this on ASA, but i'm tearing my hair out.

I have a really agonizing legal kind of question related to my current
book-in-progress, which is due in a week. i don't want to tie up ASA
with it, but if anyone would like to tackle this for me, please let me
know. Adele, you might know the answer to this.

In a nutshell: I need a man to leave ( a lot of ) money or property to
his illegitimate child. he dies when the child is 8, and the child is
now 17 1/2. the man's intention was for the child to get the money at
age 18 or when he entered college. the mother, the man's mistress,
can't know about this money until now. would a so-called secret trust
work, and would the trustee just dial up mom and say, hey, your son's
almost 18 and here's a surprise for you!

my need (as the author) is for her to suddenly have access to a lot of
money now. i thought about having the man transfer expensive
beachfront property into her name before his death, but she is living
in a trailer and i can't think of any reason why she wouldn't have
sold that property years ago and enjoyed the $$.

anyhow, i'm stressing, but i'm stressing over fictional problems, so i
guess that's a good thing.

diane
http://blog.dianechamberlain.com

[RhondaM]

"Diane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> SOOO sorry to ask this on ASA, but i'm tearing my hair out.
>
> I have a really agonizing legal kind of question related to my current
> book-in-progress, which is due in a week. i don't want to tie up ASA
> with it, but if anyone would like to tackle this for me, please let me
> know. Adele, you might know the answer to this.
>
> In a nutshell: I need a man to leave ( a lot of ) money or property to
> his illegitimate child. he dies when the child is 8, and the child is
> now 17 1/2. the man's intention was for the child to get the money at
> age 18 or when he entered college. the mother, the man's mistress,
> can't know about this money until now. would a so-called secret trust
> work, and would the trustee just dial up mom and say, hey, your son's
> almost 18 and here's a surprise for you!

I like this idea because he could secretly make her the benifactor with the
intention of all or most of the money going to the child..but he would have
to specify that this is how he wants it. He would have to have his attorney
carry out those wishes in the event of his death. I am not sure if this is
exactly how it works in real life but I know when my grandmother received
her trust there were instructions on how and what she was to do with the
trust and a attorney did take care of providing the instructions.

>
> my need (as the author) is for her to suddenly have access to a lot of
> money now. i thought about having the man transfer expensive
> beachfront property into her name before his death, but she is living
> in a trailer and i can't think of any reason why she wouldn't have
> sold that property years ago and enjoyed the $$.
>
> anyhow, i'm stressing, but i'm stressing over fictional problems, so i
> guess that's a good thing.
>
> diane
> http://blog.dianechamberlain.com

[Diane]

thanks, rhonda! i need to figure out if the trust could be formed (not
the right word, but i'm brain dead) so that the mother of the child
wouldn't know about it until the child is nearly 18. that's the sticky
wicket.

hugs, diane

[d'huit]

"Diane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
SOOO sorry to ask this on ASA, but i'm tearing my hair out.

I have a really agonizing legal kind of question related to my current
book-in-progress, which is due in a week. i don't want to tie up ASA
with it, but if anyone would like to tackle this for me, please let me
know. Adele, you might know the answer to this.

In a nutshell: I need a man to leave ( a lot of ) money or property to
his illegitimate child. he dies when the child is 8, and the child is
now 17 1/2. the man's intention was for the child to get the money at
age 18 or when he entered college. the mother, the man's mistress,
can't know about this money until now. would a so-called secret trust
work, and would the trustee just dial up mom and say, hey, your son's
almost 18 and here's a surprise for you!

my need (as the author) is for her to suddenly have access to a lot of
money now. i thought about having the man transfer expensive
beachfront property into her name before his death, but she is living
in a trailer and i can't think of any reason why she wouldn't have
sold that property years ago and enjoyed the $$.

anyhow, i'm stressing, but i'm stressing over fictional problems, so i
guess that's a good thing.

diane
http://blog.dianechamberlain.com

as i understand it, diane, different states have different probate laws.
you might need to investigate those laws for the state you are using for the
setting.

as far as the beachfront property goes, she can be willed a life
estate--meaning for the rest of her life she can live in it (and that can be
set up where the estate pays for taxes, insurance and upkeep, or so that she
must pay those herself), but upon her death the property reverts to the
estate and whomever is designated to inherit the estate or specifically that
property. now, she can legally sell her right to live in the beachfront
property, but cannot sell the property itself outright, with a free and
clear title. anybody nutty enough to buy a life estate is really buying
nothing, except the right to live in it until she dies. and it is extreemly
rare to find somebody that nutty!

in order for the son to inherit at age 18, the man would have to set the
will up so that some trusted "somebody" is designated to manage the estate
until the boy's of the designated age to inherit. that person (a designated
executor/executrix, lawyer, investment manager, custodian, trustee, or
whomever) is generally paid and is entitled to be paid out of the estate for
managing it until the boy is of age to inherit; and that amounts to 20% of
the estate here in washington state (that percentage might be different in
other states). and that same person is not permitted by law to make
personal use of the remaining 80% of the estate. once to boy inherits, only
the boy is entitled to determine what he wants to do with the funds and
whatever else remains of the estate. she has absolutely no rights to his
inheritance. so, she won't find herself with access to his inheritance,
unless the 18 year-old willingly gives/grants her access.

kate

[Diane]

hmm. . . okay, what if the man, before he dies, transfers the
beachfront property to his mistress in some way. he has tons of
property, so i think this could be done without his family knowing.
then he wouldn't own it at all once he dies. however, i would need a
reason why the mistress wouldn't either sell the property until now,
or would sell it earlier and invest the $$, but still opt to live in
her silly rusty trailer when she has all this secret money stashed
away.

also, to complicate matters, she is good friends with the wife of the
man--the man now being dead a decade. but of course she wouldn't let
the wife or anyone know she has this money or property socked away.

diane, playing with ideas

[RhondaM]

a secret trust that only the attorney knows about and is really covered up
well.. like renaming it as a worthless asset.. that the wife knows nothing
about and has the kid getting the money secretly when he turns 18.. I just
love fiction you can twist and turn it anyway you want...

"Diane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> hmm. . . okay, what if the man, before he dies, transfers the
> beachfront property to his mistress in some way. he has tons of
> property, so i think this could be done without his family knowing.
> then he wouldn't own it at all once he dies. however, i would need a
> reason why the mistress wouldn't either sell the property until now,
> or would sell it earlier and invest the $$, but still opt to live in
> her silly rusty trailer when she has all this secret money stashed
> away.
>
> also, to complicate matters, she is good friends with the wife of the
> man--the man now being dead a decade. but of course she wouldn't let
> the wife or anyone know she has this money or property socked away.
>
> diane, playing with ideas
>

[d'huit]

"Diane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
hmm. . . okay, what if the man, before he dies, transfers the
beachfront property to his mistress in some way. he has tons of
property, so i think this could be done without his family knowing.
then he wouldn't own it at all once he dies. however, i would need a
reason why the mistress wouldn't either sell the property until now,
or would sell it earlier and invest the $$, but still opt to live in
her silly rusty trailer when she has all this secret money stashed
away.

***yeah it can be done without the family knowing. well, just an idea-- you
can somehow cloud the title to the property so that it cannot be sold easily
by her, until the cloud on the title is cleared up. (he can transfer the
property with a cloud on the title; it just cannot be sold easily.) in some
cases, title clouds can take years, or even decades to clean up and some
clouds can never be cleared up. she can rent the property out, invest that
income and still live in her rusty trailer. believe it or not, some people
prefer living in trailers, when they certainly can afford to live in a
house--some people hate gardening and yardwork; some prefer location; some
like minimal living arrangements so that their lives are not as complicated;
some like the trailer park community environment; sometimes what is familiar
(a rusty trailer) is preferred when change is scary. there's a million
reasons she might prefer her trailer. why does a millionaire drive around
in a beat-up, rusty old truck?---happens all the time.

also, to complicate matters, she is good friends with the wife of the
man--the man now being dead a decade. but of course she wouldn't let
the wife or anyone know she has this money or property socked away.

***well, if that's the case, she might be hiding the cash/property and
staying in the trailer to avoid suspicion and to protect her son's identity
or to keep her affair with her friend's husband under wraps? drastic life
changes can arouse suspicions and suspicion gives rise to questions;
questions give rise to more questions--then things that ordinarily wouldn't
have been noticed suddenly start getting noticed.

diane, playing with ideas

i like the way you play.<smile>

kate

[Paul Cassel]

Diane wrote:
> thanks, rhonda! i need to figure out if the trust could be formed (not
> the right word, but i'm brain dead) so that the mother of the child
> wouldn't know about it until the child is nearly 18. that's the sticky
> wicket.

Easy. The man transfers the property into a trust with some other as the
trustee (like a lawyer). The trustee has instructions to convey the
beach house to the trailer girl upon....and then use some date or
fictional event as a trigger.

Gives it a Dickens sort of flair.

-paul

[Nann Bell]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 0:22:00 -0500, Diane wrote
(in message
<[email protected]>):

> hmm. . . okay, what if the man, before he dies, transfers the
> beachfront property to his mistress in some way. he has tons of
> property, so i think this could be done without his family knowing.
> then he wouldn't own it at all once he dies. however, i would need a
> reason why the mistress wouldn't either sell the property until now,
> or would sell it earlier and invest the $$, but still opt to live in
> her silly rusty trailer when she has all this secret money stashed
> away.
>

There's plenty of nuts out there who do that sort of thing all the time - and
even more often, perhaps, in fiction! And maybe she has good reason for
doing that - if she really loved the guy it could just be sentimental grief.
Or she knew it would really increase in value so was holding on to it -
though managing the taxes would be an issue. Is she renting it out to
tourists to provide their living expenses? Or to set aside the meny for
their son to go to college? that would cover the taxes & maintenance without
the big bucks selling it would bring. Or maybe some dear friend of te man &
mistress is living there for minimal rent, covering taxes & upkeep but has to
move on for some reason.........


--
Nann
remove the Gator cheer to email me
Simply the thing I am shall make me live --- William Shakespeare

[Nann Bell]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 0:08:11 -0500, d'huit wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> personal use of the remaining 80% of the estate. once to boy inherits, only
> the boy is entitled to determine what he wants to do with the funds and
> whatever else remains of the estate. she has absolutely no rights to his
> inheritance. so, she won't find herself with access to his inheritance,
> unless the 18 year-old willingly gives/grants her access.

hmmmmm, could it be a trust with a different executor who dies soon before
the boy reaches age 18. The last resort executor could be the child's
mother, who would now have access to the money, albeit not legally. If you
want her to have legal access to the money, then the trust can't be
exclusively for heir son. Perhaps he leaves the money in trust for the two
of them, being revealed at the son's age of 17 1/2, with the stated intention
of paying for the child's college, but without it being legally bound for
that purpose. He might have feared that stating "college" would prevent the
kid from opting for chef school or art school instead................


--
Nann
remove the Gator cheer to email me
Simply the thing I am shall make me live --- William Shakespeare

[Adelle]

"Diane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> SOOO sorry to ask this on ASA, but i'm tearing my hair out.
>
> I have a really agonizing legal kind of question related to my current
> book-in-progress, which is due in a week. i don't want to tie up ASA
> with it, but if anyone would like to tackle this for me, please let me
> know. Adele, you might know the answer to this.

Diane;

Some of the posters have good ideas for ways of explaining the sudden access
to $ or the property. I've written off line. There are issues around trusts
and property where atty's need to be very careful - so if you want realism
as well as convenient plot explanations, there are details you should know
about. I've put some in an email to you. please respond offline as this
could get rather dry in details.

Adelle

>
> In a nutshell: I need a man to leave ( a lot of ) money or property to
> his illegitimate child. he dies when the child is 8, and the child is
> now 17 1/2. the man's intention was for the child to get the money at
> age 18 or when he entered college. the mother, the man's mistress,
> can't know about this money until now. would a so-called secret trust
> work, and would the trustee just dial up mom and say, hey, your son's
> almost 18 and here's a surprise for you!
>
> my need (as the author) is for her to suddenly have access to a lot of
> money now. i thought about having the man transfer expensive
> beachfront property into her name before his death, but she is living
> in a trailer and i can't think of any reason why she wouldn't have
> sold that property years ago and enjoyed the $$.
>
> anyhow, i'm stressing, but i'm stressing over fictional problems, so i
> guess that's a good thing.
>
> diane
> http://blog.dianechamberlain.com

[Diane]

thanks for all these great ideas! Adelle, I'll email you off line. I
can't tell you how relieved I am to see a light at the end of this
tunnel.

diane

[Carole]

Diane wrote:

> thanks, rhonda! i need to figure out if the trust could be formed (not
> the right word, but i'm brain dead) so that the mother of the child
> wouldn't know about it until the child is nearly 18. that's the sticky
> wicket.
>
> hugs, diane
If he made that provision in his will, wouldn't that work? I would think
he would have to designate someone to overlook it until such time that
it would be turned over to the boy.

On a realistic note, this is interesting, as I have a pension coming up
from my job in NYC. I want to set up a trust so that whoever takes
Dundee if I should pass on, would have access to that money for his
keep. I want to make sure that he gets well taken care of and doesn't
end up back in the bird refuge. I do have a lady who would find him a
good home or keep him herself as she loves birdies, so I'm researching
this kind of thing as well

Carole

[Diane]

carole, i've always made provisions (including financial) for the care
of whatever dogs i have at the time of my death. dundee will probably
outlive us all, huh?

as for the will, the guy can't put any of this info in his will
because he can't let his family know about his mistress and
illegitimate son. tsk tsk.

diane

[ANN M]

Carole,
I have provisions in my will for the care of whatever pets are left when
I die. My godchild is a vet tech and animal lover and will take on
Steve the Cat if necessary since the dogs are passed on and I won't be
getting more of them.
It's something every pet owner should think about and I commend you for
making arrangements for Dundee.
Ann

[Paul T. Holland]

not 'sticky' at all - i had a great uncle that did something very
similar for his family situation

he wanted the kids to stand on their own and not feel that they were
necessarily 'entitled'.

'any' trust can, and is, set up under whatever conditions the originator
deems to be proper.

so:

A) trust is set up with 'x' being the administrator - 'x' gets paid for
managing things until

B) the primary 'term' of the trust is met; i.e. the age requirement, or
college entrance condition occurs

note that under the conditions of the trust formation, neither the unwed
mother, nor the eventual beneficiary may know of the trust until 'b' is
in effect.

then,

C) the trustee notifies the beneficiary of the dispersal/use terms

note - as you have described things, the mother is not the beneficiary
and thus has no control over the eventual use, or dispersal, of the
Moines.

'however' - since the 'child' may still be a minor [depending upon law
of state the family resides in]

the trust should have some provision for this - i.e. does the trustee
stay on to supervise 'use' of the money, or does it fall under the
control of the parental guardian?

the trust should also take into account any tax ramifications that may
befall the recipient-

example - you mention real estate - if you used this method, when the
real estate was sold there would be significant tax due as capital
gains. it was an investment property, not the prime residence and so
about 25% would go to taxes...

if on the other hand you had the 'trust' responsible for paying expenses
of education etc., the recipient wouldn't owe any taxes.

now mind you, none of the above involves his will 'if' the assets or
monies were put into the trust prior to his death.

once the trust is in existence, it is no longer 'his' - the trust is a
separate legal entity so his will wouldn't even mention it...

hth

paul


Diane wrote:
>
> thanks, rhonda! i need to figure out if the trust could be formed (not
> the right word, but i'm brain dead) so that the mother of the child
> wouldn't know about it until the child is nearly 18. that's the sticky
> wicket.
>
> hugs, diane

[Adelle]

"Diane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> carole, i've always made provisions (including financial) for the care
> of whatever dogs i have at the time of my death. dundee will probably
> outlive us all, huh?
>
> as for the will, the guy can't put any of this info in his will
> because he can't let his family know about his mistress and
> illegitimate son. tsk tsk.
>
> diane
>

But that doesn't work under the law. A blood child, acknowledged in some way
(or even unacknowledged, now with DNA testing), can dispute a will if left
out of the will. It's called a pretermitted child.

Only way that works in the plot is if he has an agreement with the mistress
AND she decides to honor it AND the child chooses not to pursue it within
the statute of limitations which only starts to run when he turns 18 OR
first learns that he might be the child of X. A lot of ifs. Mom alone
agreeing is not enough. A parent has no right to sign away her child's right
to support, except in the case of domestic violence where the mother and or
child would be in physical danger if the other parent knew where they were
located.

You can specifically choose to not leave an inheritance to a child, but
there must be a specific statement in the will that no bequest is being left
to "my child, Y." Actually, you can write a will without it. It just open
the door for a contest of the will with a good chance of the child winning.
It's a matter of good and tight drafting versus sloppy drafting (no, not
opinionated, am I?).

See - it gets convoluted.

Adelle

[Adelle]

"Diane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> carole, i've always made provisions (including financial) for the care
> of whatever dogs i have at the time of my death. dundee will probably
> outlive us all, huh?
>
> as for the will, the guy can't put any of this info in his will
> because he can't let his family know about his mistress and
> illegitimate son. tsk tsk.
>
> diane
>

But that doesn't work under the law. A blood child, acknowledged in some way
(or even unacknowledged, now with DNA testing), can dispute a will if left
out of the will. It's called a pretermitted child.

Only way that works in the plot is if he has an agreement with the mistress
AND she decides to honor it AND the child chooses not to pursue it within
the statute of limitations which only starts to run when he turns 18 OR
first learns that he might be the child of X. A lot of ifs. Mom alone
agreeing is not enough. A parent has no right to sign away her child's right
to support, except in the case of domestic violence where the mother and or
child would be in physical danger if the other parent knew where they were
located.

You can specifically choose to not leave an inheritance to a child, but
there must be a specific statement in the will that no bequest is being left
to "my child, Y." Actually, you can write a will without it. It just opens
the door for a contest of the will with a good chance of the child winning.
It's a matter of good and tight drafting versus sloppy drafting (no, not
opinionated, am I?).

See - it gets convoluted.

Adelle

[d'huit]

"Adelle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]..

"Diane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> carole, i've always made provisions (including financial) for the care
> of whatever dogs i have at the time of my death. dundee will probably
> outlive us all, huh?
>
> as for the will, the guy can't put any of this info in his will
> because he can't let his family know about his mistress and
> illegitimate son. tsk tsk.
>
> diane
>

But that doesn't work under the law. A blood child, acknowledged in some way
(or even unacknowledged, now with DNA testing), can dispute a will if left
out of the will. It's called a pretermitted child.

Only way that works in the plot is if he has an agreement with the mistress
AND she decides to honor it AND the child chooses not to pursue it within
the statute of limitations which only starts to run when he turns 18 OR
first learns that he might be the child of X. A lot of ifs. Mom alone
agreeing is not enough. A parent has no right to sign away her child's right
to support, except in the case of domestic violence where the mother and or
child would be in physical danger if the other parent knew where they were
located.

You can specifically choose to not leave an inheritance to a child, but
there must be a specific statement in the will that no bequest is being left
to "my child, Y." Actually, you can write a will without it. It just opens
the door for a contest of the will with a good chance of the child winning.
It's a matter of good and tight drafting versus sloppy drafting (no, not
opinionated, am I?).

See - it gets convoluted.

Adelle

yeah, it does get convoluted. what about using a silent codicil to the will
to be read in private, by the man's attorney, to only the boy and (or not
to) his mother, as a will bequest statement? would that work?

kate

[RhondaM]

"Paul T. Holland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> not 'sticky' at all - i had a great uncle that did something very
> similar for his family situation
>
> he wanted the kids to stand on their own and not feel that they were
> necessarily 'entitled'.
>
> 'any' trust can, and is, set up under whatever conditions the originator
> deems to be proper.
>
> so:
>
> A) trust is set up with 'x' being the administrator - 'x' gets paid for
> managing things until
>
> B) the primary 'term' of the trust is met; i.e. the age requirement, or
> college entrance condition occurs
>
> note that under the conditions of the trust formation, neither the unwed
> mother, nor the eventual beneficiary may know of the trust until 'b' is
> in effect.
>
> then,
>
> C) the trustee notifies the beneficiary of the dispersal/use terms
>
> note - as you have described things, the mother is not the beneficiary
> and thus has no control over the eventual use, or dispersal, of the
> Moines.
>
> 'however' - since the 'child' may still be a minor [depending upon law
> of state the family resides in]
>
> the trust should have some provision for this - i.e. does the trustee
> stay on to supervise 'use' of the money, or does it fall under the
> control of the parental guardian?
>
> the trust should also take into account any tax ramifications that may
> befall the recipient-
>
> example - you mention real estate - if you used this method, when the
> real estate was sold there would be significant tax due as capital
> gains. it was an investment property, not the prime residence and so
> about 25% would go to taxes...
>
> if on the other hand you had the 'trust' responsible for paying expenses
> of education etc., the recipient wouldn't owe any taxes.
>
> now mind you, none of the above involves his will 'if' the assets or
> monies were put into the trust prior to his death.
>
> once the trust is in existence, it is no longer 'his' - the trust is a
> separate legal entity so his will wouldn't even mention it...
>
> hth
>
> paul
>
>
> Diane wrote:
>>
>> thanks, rhonda! i need to figure out if the trust could be formed (not
>> the right word, but i'm brain dead) so that the mother of the child
>> wouldn't know about it until the child is nearly 18. that's the sticky
>> wicket.
>>
>> hugs, diane

the trust should have some provision for this - i.e. does the trustee
stay on to supervise 'use' of the money, or does it fall under the
control of the parental guardian?

If it weren't for the trustee , my mother would have used up all of my money
that I got when I was 18. She could not touch it with out good reason and
it had to be a VERY good reason. She once dipped into it and pulled out some
money (lied to the trustee for its purpose) and then it reduced my trust to
almost nothing. I was soooooo upset about this.

[d'huit]

"d'huit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..

"Adelle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]..

"Diane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> carole, i've always made provisions (including financial) for the care
> of whatever dogs i have at the time of my death. dundee will probably
> outlive us all, huh?
>
> as for the will, the guy can't put any of this info in his will
> because he can't let his family know about his mistress and
> illegitimate son. tsk tsk.
>
> diane
>

But that doesn't work under the law. A blood child, acknowledged in some way
(or even unacknowledged, now with DNA testing), can dispute a will if left
out of the will. It's called a pretermitted child.

Only way that works in the plot is if he has an agreement with the mistress
AND she decides to honor it AND the child chooses not to pursue it within
the statute of limitations which only starts to run when he turns 18 OR
first learns that he might be the child of X. A lot of ifs. Mom alone
agreeing is not enough. A parent has no right to sign away her child's right
to support, except in the case of domestic violence where the mother and or
child would be in physical danger if the other parent knew where they were
located.

You can specifically choose to not leave an inheritance to a child, but
there must be a specific statement in the will that no bequest is being left
to "my child, Y." Actually, you can write a will without it. It just opens
the door for a contest of the will with a good chance of the child winning.
It's a matter of good and tight drafting versus sloppy drafting (no, not
opinionated, am I?).

See - it gets convoluted.

Adelle

yeah, it does get convoluted. what about using a silent codicil to the will
to be read in private, by the man's attorney, to only the boy and (or not
to) his mother, as a will bequest statement? would that work?

kate

crumbs! both the will and any codicils must be read together. i just
looked it up.

kate

[jofirey]

"Diane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> SOOO sorry to ask this on ASA, but i'm tearing my hair out.
>
> I have a really agonizing legal kind of question related to my current
> book-in-progress, which is due in a week. i don't want to tie up ASA
> with it, but if anyone would like to tackle this for me, please let me
> know. Adele, you might know the answer to this.
>
> In a nutshell: I need a man to leave ( a lot of ) money or property to
> his illegitimate child. he dies when the child is 8, and the child is
> now 17 1/2. the man's intention was for the child to get the money at
> age 18 or when he entered college. the mother, the man's mistress,
> can't know about this money until now. would a so-called secret trust
> work, and would the trustee just dial up mom and say, hey, your son's
> almost 18 and here's a surprise for you!
>
> my need (as the author) is for her to suddenly have access to a lot of
> money now. i thought about having the man transfer expensive
> beachfront property into her name before his death, but she is living
> in a trailer and i can't think of any reason why she wouldn't have
> sold that property years ago and enjoyed the $$.
>
> anyhow, i'm stressing, but i'm stressing over fictional problems, so i
> guess that's a good thing.
>
> diane
> http://blog.dianechamberlain.com


If its a lot of money, the trustee of the trust (if the mom were the
trustee, she would have to know about it.) would have had to file taxes all
these years.

Short of killing off the child, I can't see how this could have been kept
from the mother for years, but for her to get the money before the child
turns eighteen.

Could another distant relative of the mother, child, or the father that
knows about the relationship kick off at a convenient time and leave the
money? Don't know if the trustee dying and the court appointing the mother
as the new trustee would work or not.

Jo

[Adelle]

"d'huit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
>
> "Adelle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]..
>
> "Diane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> carole, i've always made provisions (including financial) for the care
>> of whatever dogs i have at the time of my death. dundee will probably
>> outlive us all, huh?
>>
>> as for the will, the guy can't put any of this info in his will
>> because he can't let his family know about his mistress and
>> illegitimate son. tsk tsk.
>>
>> diane
>>
>
> But that doesn't work under the law. A blood child, acknowledged in some
> way
> (or even unacknowledged, now with DNA testing), can dispute a will if left
> out of the will. It's called a pretermitted child.
>
> Only way that works in the plot is if he has an agreement with the
> mistress
> AND she decides to honor it AND the child chooses not to pursue it within
> the statute of limitations which only starts to run when he turns 18 OR
> first learns that he might be the child of X. A lot of ifs. Mom alone
> agreeing is not enough. A parent has no right to sign away her child's
> right
> to support, except in the case of domestic violence where the mother and
> or
> child would be in physical danger if the other parent knew where they were
> located.
>
> You can specifically choose to not leave an inheritance to a child, but
> there must be a specific statement in the will that no bequest is being
> left
> to "my child, Y." Actually, you can write a will without it. It just opens
> the door for a contest of the will with a good chance of the child
> winning.
> It's a matter of good and tight drafting versus sloppy drafting (no, not
> opinionated, am I?).
>
> See - it gets convoluted.
>
> Adelle
>
> yeah, it does get convoluted. what about using a silent codicil to the
> will
> to be read in private, by the man's attorney, to only the boy and (or not
> to) his mother, as a will bequest statement? would that work?

Have never heard of a silent codicil (except in bad fiction like soaps). The
codicil, along with the main will become a matter of public record which is
accessible to all unless the documents are sealed (for which there must be
compelling reason - is this person a celebrity?). And even when sealed, any
party involved would have access. In this case, that would mean family
members from whom he is trying to hide the info in the codicil, since they
would be beneficiaries of the original will.

Adelle

[Diane]

ack! You guys have more tolerance for this drivel than I thought.
Thank you.
I've just emailed the details of the story to adelle and kate so as to
not send the whole group up any more blind alleys, but if anyone else
wants the details emailed to them to play with, let me know. it'll
ruin the book for you, though. :-(
diane

[d'huit]

"RhondaM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:mrCBj.5566$[email protected]..

"Paul T. Holland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> not 'sticky' at all - i had a great uncle that did something very
> similar for his family situation
>
> he wanted the kids to stand on their own and not feel that they were
> necessarily 'entitled'.
>
> 'any' trust can, and is, set up under whatever conditions the originator
> deems to be proper.
>
> so:
>
> A) trust is set up with 'x' being the administrator - 'x' gets paid for
> managing things until
>
> B) the primary 'term' of the trust is met; i.e. the age requirement, or
> college entrance condition occurs
>
> note that under the conditions of the trust formation, neither the unwed
> mother, nor the eventual beneficiary may know of the trust until 'b' is
> in effect.
>
> then,
>
> C) the trustee notifies the beneficiary of the dispersal/use terms
>
> note - as you have described things, the mother is not the beneficiary
> and thus has no control over the eventual use, or dispersal, of the
> Moines.
>
> 'however' - since the 'child' may still be a minor [depending upon law
> of state the family resides in]
>
> the trust should have some provision for this - i.e. does the trustee
> stay on to supervise 'use' of the money, or does it fall under the
> control of the parental guardian?
>
> the trust should also take into account any tax ramifications that may
> befall the recipient-
>
> example - you mention real estate - if you used this method, when the
> real estate was sold there would be significant tax due as capital
> gains. it was an investment property, not the prime residence and so
> about 25% would go to taxes...
>
> if on the other hand you had the 'trust' responsible for paying expenses
> of education etc., the recipient wouldn't owe any taxes.
>
> now mind you, none of the above involves his will 'if' the assets or
> monies were put into the trust prior to his death.
>
> once the trust is in existence, it is no longer 'his' - the trust is a
> separate legal entity so his will wouldn't even mention it...
>
> hth
>
> paul
>
>
> Diane wrote:
>>
>> thanks, rhonda! i need to figure out if the trust could be formed (not
>> the right word, but i'm brain dead) so that the mother of the child
>> wouldn't know about it until the child is nearly 18. that's the sticky
>> wicket.
>>
>> hugs, diane

the trust should have some provision for this - i.e. does the trustee
stay on to supervise 'use' of the money, or does it fall under the
control of the parental guardian?

If it weren't for the trustee , my mother would have used up all of my money
that I got when I was 18. She could not touch it with out good reason and
it had to be a VERY good reason. She once dipped into it and pulled out some
money (lied to the trustee for its purpose) and then it reduced my trust to
almost nothing. I was soooooo upset about this.

i can comisserate with that, rhonda. my father was the court appointed
trustee of my trust fund portion of a court settlement from injuries i
sustained in an auto accident when i was 11 (father, mother, elder sister,
my brother and me were all injured--kid sister hadn't been born yet.).
there was no trust fund, zero, left for me by the time i was 13. my father
decided to spend mine in a hurry, because my older sister got married that
year when she turned 18 and her husband asked for (had to threaten to sue
him) and got her her trust fund for her from him--she was afraid to ask for
it, cuz she knew what my father was like.

my father was angry and thought her husband got the benefit of her trust
fund. my father thought it was better that he benefit rather than whomever
my future husband might be--i overheard his argument with my mom. he'd
already blown through his and mom's settlements. (and too, he was a
compulsive gambler. so, that was just an excuse, because he did the same
thing with my brother's trust fund a little later that same year. my
brother was two years my junior.).

no way did i intend to sue my father when i got old enough, knowing i could
but also knowing it would only have wound up making my mother's and younger
siblings' lives miserable. they'd have never had any peace, never heard the
end to his browbeating and lamenting--about him being victimized by me. it
just wasn't worth that to me, i loved my mom and sibs; and i knew it
wouldn't have changed him, just intensified him. i simply wrote it off as
payback for him keeping me fed, clothed and with a roof over my head through
my childhood and let it go at that.

kate

[Carole]

ANN M wrote:

> Carole,
> I have provisions in my will for the care of whatever pets are left when
> I die. My godchild is a vet tech and animal lover and will take on
> Steve the Cat if necessary since the dogs are passed on and I won't be
> getting more of them.
> It's something every pet owner should think about and I commend you for
> making arrangements for Dundee.
> Ann
>
Thanks, Ann. The day I brought Dundee home, I promised him that he had a
forever home and that he'd never have to go back to the bird refuge. He
has blossomed into such a lovely bird since being here with me. He needs
one person to look after him and love him, and intend for that to be the
way of his life for as long as he's on this earth

Carole

[Carole]

Diane wrote:

> carole, i've always made provisions (including financial) for the care
> of whatever dogs i have at the time of my death. dundee will probably
> outlive us all, huh?

Well, cockatiels are known to live for 20-25 years and he's only 8, so
it's possible )


> as for the will, the guy can't put any of this info in his will
> because he can't let his family know about his mistress and
> illegitimate son. tsk tsk.

That's what he gets for messing around :-)))

Carole