What does "my trustees shall hold the trust fund on trust absolutely for X absolutely" mean?
475736
The part "trustees shall hold the trust fund on trust for X" is just lawyer talk for the following:\nTrustee gets money, trustee holds or invests money, and then trustee pays, over time, the interest on the money to or for X.  \nUsually a trust then states what happens to the money when X dies, or some other event (X reaches majority) occurs.  \nI have no idea what the two "absolutelys" are for.  I suspect the person who wrote this was not an attorney.
902771
Find out who the trustee or successor trustee for the trust is, the person who has fiduciary responsibility for the assets in the trust (no, it's not you).  Read the trust document that outlines who exactly gets control of the money, when, and for what purpose.  If the trust was written properly, it should override anything in the will.   Under the UTMA act, money is irrevocably gifted to the minor, and controlled by a custodian until age 21, at which point the (no longer a) minor can take control of the assets without the custodian's consent.
805110
Trusts don't cause problems, in fact, in most circumstances, they resolve many problems. So, to answer your question, YES, trusts should be allowed by law. Trusts don't generally cause problems in and of themselves and, yes, their benefits far outweigh any disadvantages in most cases.\n\nTrusts are not right in every circumstance, consult a lawyer in your area for details.
813681
There is not an obvious conflict of interest, but if you think that your interests are compromised you can certainly seek the lawyer's disqualification on that basis. But a trustee must either be appointed by (or in accordance with) the trust instrument (in which case your mother-in-law made the decision) or by a court. Perhaps the lawyer has been retained to advise and to make arrangements?\n\nTrusts that I write have provision for a "protector" who can appoint, and in some cases change, the trustee to assure that the settlor's wishes are followed and/or the beneficiaries' interests protected. Professional trustees can be very expensive, and their investment decisions can be excessively conservative.\n\nToo late now, but a clever form of modern trust is something called a Unitrust (or Uni-trust), which clearly defines the financial interests of present and future beneficiaries (remainderpersons).\n\nLiving trusts (revocable living trusts, RLTs) are generally "will substitutes" that avoid probate. In some states (California comes to mind) probate is excessively expensive. In other states (like New York) it is not. In the first sort of state lawyers almost always suggest RLTs as part of estate planning. The trust may or may not survive beyond a distribution period following the death of the grantor: it depends whether it includes provisions for generation skipping (bequests to grandchildren) or charitable remaindermen. When estates are large, tax considerations come into play.
391256
"I will respect the right of any individual to chose not to believe in any form of divinity, without calling that person immoral, idiotic, illogical, or threaten them with any kind of eternal punishment."\n\n"I will respect the right of any individual to believe in any kind of divinity or deity they so wish, whether or not I doubt any such divinity or deity exists, and I will do so without calling that person illogical, idiotic or blind."\n\n"Furthermore, while I will stand up for my own right to believe or not believe in anything I so choose, I will not interfere with another's right to believe or not believe in anything they so choose, as along as they are not harming me or interfering with my rights." \n\n\n\nthe power of cut and paste i love it
758516
Rdyjoe's answer does not seem to understand that if someone dies intestate, they do not have a valid Will.\n\nSection 61B subsection (6) of the WILLS, PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1898 (NSW) states:\n\n--\n\n(6) If the intestate leaves no spouse, no issue and no parents, the estate shall be held for the following persons living at the death of the intestate and in the following order and manner: \n\n(a) firstly, in statutory trust for the brothers and sisters of the whole blood of the intestate; but if there are no such brothers or sisters, then \n\n(b) secondly, in statutory trust for the brothers and sisters of the half blood of the intestate; but if there are no such brothers or sisters, then \n\n(c) thirdly, in trust for the grandparents of the intestate and, if more than one of them survive the intestate, in equal shares; but if there are no such grandparents, then \n\n(d) fourthly, in trust for the uncles and aunts of the intestate (being brothers or sisters of the whole blood of a parent of the intestate) and, if more than one of them survive the intestate, in equal shares; but if there are no such uncles or aunts, then \n\n(e) fifthly, in trust for the uncles and aunts of the intestate (being brothers or sisters of the half blood of a parent of the intestate) and, if more than one of them survive the intestate, in equal shares. \n\n--\n\nParagraph (a) seems to be the relevant one here. It says it goes to the sister of the intestate but does not mention her kids. I think that's your answer - nieces and nephews probably cannot claim under the intestacy laws.\n\nThere may however possibly be a testator's family maintance claim if the aunt had a moral responsibility to provide for the nieces and nephews, especially if they were in her care. I don't know if this might be stretching the circumstances though.\n\nI hope my answer helps.\n\nI hope this helps.
106268
You need to ask the trustee for your trust account.  You can't access the funds, but more than likely the trustee may have some ability to pay for certain things on your behalf, but it would be completely up to them to make that decision.
716525
Wow! Whole books have been written on the rule.\nIt's a rule that prevents property rights from being in limbo too long, or from accumulating estates in a family through indefinite transfers.\n\nAt common law, the length of time was fixed at 21 years after the death of an identifiable person alive at the time the interest was created. This is often expressed as "lives in being plus twenty-one years."  Under the common-law rule, one does not look to whether an interest actually will vest more than 21 years after the lives in being. Instead, if there exists any possibility at the time of the grant, however unlikely or remote, that an interest will vest outside of the perpetuities period, the interest is void and is stricken from the grant.\n\nRead the wikipedia page.  It's a pretty good resource.\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_Against_Perpetuities
745997
Completely trustworthy.\n\nBlessed Be
1096407
it stands for "for all (values of)"
466744
For me. I trust them until they give me reason not to. After they break my trust, they have to earn it. No more free trust until it's earned.
363861
u/a/d means "under agreement dated".  It simply means the date of the trust.
628306
ANSWER: "All intents and purposes" is correct.  The phrase (which means "practically") is a shortening of the legal phrase "to all intents, constructions, and purposes" (found in an act adopted under Henry VIII in 1547).  \n\nThe corruption "for all intensive purposes" is frequently reported. \n\nFrom "Alternate usage dictionary" repository.\nhttp://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxtoalli.html
34980
That depends.  You can open a simple bank account with a designation ITF (In Trust For), you can do this at your bank.  You can also open up an investment account in your name and then write into your will that should you die, the beneficiary will get the assets.  These 2 ways will allow you to still have some control over the trust assets, because it's not a formal trust -- it's a trust in your mind.\n\nAnother easy way is to just open up some kind of account (bank or investment) in their name.  You're done.\n\nYou can do this with a lawyer but the problem with that is that this may prevent you from ever touching these assets, which most good attorneys don't recommend.  The only reason for you to use an attorney and get what's called an 'Irrevocable Trust' is if there's some reason for you to protect the assets essentially from yourself.
230411
You do NOT want to take any property out of the trust.  This type of situation is the main reason that you have a living trust.  If your grandmother is incapacitated and cannot make financial decisions, than more than likely there is a provision in the trust for the successor trustee to take over as the trustee.  If she is not incapacitated, but she does not want to or can't make the financial decisions than she can resign as the trustee and appoint a new trustee to handle her affairs.\n\nI can't stress this enough, before you do anything, you need to take the trust document to an attorney, preferably the attorney that wrote the trust and get some advice.
230886
Duties of a Trustee  \n\nThis chart is a generalized presentation of some of the more common duties and responsibilities of a trustee. It is not intended to be exhaustive or technical. The specific details of a trustee's duties and responsibilities often vary from state to state, but the chart is not intended to cover these in depth. Furthermore, many of the steps that a trustee must take in administering a trust depend on the provisions of the trust agreement or will and the compositions of the assets comprising the trust.\n\nThe Trustee:\n\nAccepts the trusteeship and assumes control of trust assets\nPerforms initial administrative functions\nAdheres strictly to the code of trust ethics\nHas important investment duties\nExercises powers wisely and prudently\nHas financial duties to beneficiaries\nIs responsible for matters of taxation\nDistributes the trust assets when the trust terminates
278607
with whom u can rely for ur whole life ahead