Are details of a trust confidential and can the executrix provide info to confused former family member?

I urge you to speak with the lawyer that drew up this trust, this strikes me as wrong in so many ways....

I guess this ended up in the wrong forum. It was supposed to be in Legal. It is not regarding a POA or Guardianship. How do I get this moved so I can get some feedback?

It doesn't matter where you post, in my experience. Bumping this up.

Can you consult the lawyer who drew up the trust/will?

Does the will address the issue of " what if one of the heirs dies"? Most wills do. If your father is instructing you as executrix to act contrary to what the will currently states, he needs to get to the lawyer to make a codicil.

Yes, there are no perstirpies, so yes it is addressed in the way that it is set up for that specific item. (perstirpies means that only the named inherits and it cannot be transferred or shared with another - e.g. left item to James and Brian, it will not 'roll' to anyone else if James or Brian dies, only the living of the two gets it.). The lawyer is in another state and it will be a year before I can meet with him. And he will not be able to do so without my father's permission.

Here are some things that are puzzling me with your question

An Executor is someone who is in charge of administering a Last Will and Testament, so if your father is still alive neither your brother, or now you, are in charge of anything in that capacity.

If you are referring to your deceased brother acting as POA (rather than executor) for your father by administering the trust then SIL should not have been involved at all, you should have assumed those duties as soon as your brother died, but if your father still has mental capacity why was he not managing his own affairs?

I don't understand why the future beneficiaries have been paying the expenses of the trust, the assets within the trust should have been used for any expenses, especially when there is no guarantee that any of you will live to inherit.

I have no idea what "persturpies" is and I am sure it is a misspelling (having a legal background). The real issue is, your father set up this Trust. If he does not want to change it to exclude your sister-in-law, since they were married when he died, and she has been paying the property taxes which you accepted, then as your brother's widow she could inherit 1/3 of your father's property since he has not changed it. I suspect since he has not changed it, he really wants her to share the inheritance, and does not want to seem callus for changing the Trust specifics. With the sister-in-law being an attorney I would tread very lightly as I am sure she knows her rights as a widow. Just to make sure you are making a legal decision, hire an attorney and bill the Trust for it. Then send all parties notice as to the legal decision, and this will take the decision out of your hands and into an attorney's. Remember, whenever there is money involved in a family, there are bound to be disputes.

If dad is still alive, there can be no "executor" of his property.

If dad -as the settlor - transferred property & other assets to a trustee by doing a trust then its the Trustee that holds those assets for the trusts. The trust is its own legal entity & should continue to exist whether dad is alive or dead, that's often why it's done as its outside of probate as its not an asset of the estate. It is the trustee(s) who manage whatever is in the "trust".

so who is the trustee?
The management & costs of whatever is the trust is their concern.

Just a thought...is this a "trust" that is actually in dads will...??, that somehow when he finally dies, & IF he leaves his will as written & IF still owns the property at death that it goes to his heirs as a trust created in his will? & clever dad has convinced his "heirs" to basically pay the costs for property that he still actually owns & has total control over..... IF is the situation, imo your being played & if so, this could be a reason why dad won't arrange for you to speak with the atty. Now being played isn't always a bad thing, but runs risk which most of us avoid.

I missed that your SIL is a lawyer, surely she would have a better understanding of the legal implications of the wording of the trust than you do? It almost sounds as though even your father didn't understand all the implications of his own trust and rather than dealing with it he is putting the burden on his heirs to hash things out after he is gone. And since there is really no reason for confidentiality since she has essentially been administering it all this time and she must have seen the documents, perhaps it is time for a family conference with all the parties involved to hash out the true intent from what is actually written and to clear up any misunderstandings.

As long as took over for her deceased husband and she's been paying the bill on this trust, his share should automatically go to her since she is his widow, especially since she's invested so much. I say just give her his share after all this. Her for everything she's paid when she took over when he died, she deserves something from the deal. If you don't want to give her his portion, at least refund her money with interest added for her efforts including bookkeeping. She put forth an effort, a huge effort. Do the right thing and reward her, give her something for all that work because she deserves a huge reward and utmost respect

The term "per stirpes" means "by the roots" or "by the stock"; in a will or trust, the term means that the share of a person named in the will or trust passes to their descendants should the named person not be alive at the time of death of the testator or grantor of the trust, as the case may be, or at some other point of distribution as set out in the document. The descendants share as follows: equally to the children, with a then-deceased child's share passing equally to their children, etc. It's like the branching of tree roots, hence the latin name.

You say that "legally" the property will pass to the surviving children. I assume you mean that this is what the will or trust actually says. If so, then you are correct that your sister-in-law will receive no share of the property upon your father's death (unless, of course, he changes his will/trust).

Finally, you indicate you are the executor. Of your father's estate? If he is still living, there is no estate and no one is executor until he dies and the court appoints an executor of the estate. Perhaps you mean he set up a living trust, which has named trustees, not executors.

I am not understanding why you cannot get with the lawyer who drew all this up for a year? Even if he is out of town, seems you could get Dad and you, at least together, and have a phone conference, as to what all this means legally at this time. And I do think, as others have said, you cannot be executor of anything until Dad has died. I have been both POA for both my parents and trustee of two trusts...a living trust and a charitable trust. I am the only child remaining. The trust does contain, now, my Mom's will and wishes, as my Dad passed on a year ago, and trust was then revised. But I am not in charge of anything except keeping her money in order, and handling her medical and other decisions now that she has alzheimer's, as I was for my dad til he passed. I am not executor until Mom passes, though I am listed as such in the will that is part of the trust. And, yes, in our case, all expenses associated with the trust comes out of the trust...which mostly affects the charitable remainder trust in our case. Mom's will clearly states how any left over property and money are to be disbursed, and my dead brother's son IS listed as receiving proceeds in the end, but at a different % as my two daughters due to the understanding that our daughters have consistently been involved in helping with their grandparents care all these years, being in the same state, and the grandson, in a different state, has not been involved in anything beyond an occasional visit. None of this makes any big difference however, because, with both of them having dementia diagnoses, ALL of their many monetary investments will be used up; the home is already sold as mom is now in assisted living and house sale proceeds are now paying for that. If she lives long enough, she will be on medicaid when she dies. We have been disbursing physical items ever since the house sold, as all is in storage buildings.....and I am handling that by simply asking family what they might especially desire, and then trying to give it to them as I can find it. I note in the trust book, what decisions have been made regarding possessions and when Mom is able I involve her in the decisions. Where she is resistant, I let it drop and don't deal with it for now....but make note of the interested item to go to which person. I look to some sort of 'value' as to keeping it relatively 'fair' but what I think is most important right now is to know and arrange that what someone desires to have they get. We are not in a situation where we have anything that has enormous value to it anyhow. We've sold one vehicle, one RV and the home, and cashed in almost all major investments just to keep them going. So its mostly household goods, jewelry (minimal amounts of value anyhow) and furniture, clothes and momentos. It ought to be easy. The hard part I've worried about is that the three grandkids don't get equal amounts, but I fear when we get to that point, I'll be writing checks for $1000 or less to all. It's set up that I get 75% and they get the remaining 25% split up in a funny way..... and since we are now down to about $3000 in life insurance, but no burial paid for yet, and I am the beneficiary on those two policies anyhow.....it's what ever might be left from the home sale at time of death. Mom is 91y and there is about $120,000 left, with her assisted living going to cost $4100/mo now but up to $5100.mo when she must go into memory care.....SO...not a problem. BUT, our lawyer lives in a different town, and they help me by email and phone calls all the time when I have questions. Also, my parents trusts have been revised multiple times since first created......so no reason your Dad's could not be revised to better clarify the current situation.

Sounds like the "family cabin at the lake" saga...And is "executrix" a word? The information the original poster would benefit most from studying are the will and the trust documents. I would also verify whether the property transfer to the trust was completed and recorded in the county. Three years after my Dad died and after we had established a revokable trust for his investment assets and asked the lawyer to transfer the primary residence to the trust, it had not been finished and recorded by the county because Mom's lawyer didn't turn in the papers. Ooops! It was fixed once I realized it was still listed as owned by Mom and Dad.....

Executrix is a word, albeit a slightly quaint one. It is the correct feminine form of the noun executor.

Per stirpes is the term, very lucidly explained by our friendly lawyer on the forum (thank you!).

The headline question is whether it would be proper for the OP to discuss this situation with her late brother's widow. Unless the OP feels that she has some formal duty of confidentiality to her father - and since she isn't acting in a professional capacity why would she have - I can't see why she shouldn't clarify the situation to her SIL, and ensure that any money SIL paid for the upkeep of a property to which she can expect no title in future is repaid to her.

I would add that the family member in the question is not so much "confused" as deceived - and that certainly cannot be allowed to continue.

Did she and your brother have children? If so, then that portion of the inheritance would go to them. If not, then the portion belonging to your brother, will go to the remaining siblings. This happened in my family. My brother died. His children, unfortunately are estranged, therefore, my brother and I will inherit our parents' estate. Pure and simple.

First, executorship does not come into effect until your father dies. Did ur Dad change the will showing you as executor now? Does the will read just the two of you now or say "upon the death of one or more of the children, the propert reverts wholely to the survivor. I think a meeting with the lawyer that wrote the will and trust is needed. He will probably need permission from ur Dad. Its not fair that she is paying when she will get nothing.

It seems like your father wants your SIL to receive your brother's portion (and not "cut her out"). Why not just do that?

When we set up our will attorney asked if a child dies do you want his wife to inherit or his children. So choice written into will.

Great, helpful and generous of you to share your knowledge with all of us out here trying to make sense of some of the documents that come our way.

I suspect she knows she will not inherit the trust as she has seen the trust papers and knows it is it and not "persturpies" (passing down to the grand children. She is continuing to pay her share to give her a right to contest the trust and to get her husband's share. You can always get your own lawyer to have this explained to you. Or you can just accept the fact that the widow will get her husbands share. I think your father is emotionally unable to cut his son out of the trust.

Your brother's share would go to his inheritors , ie. wife and children, automatically.Your lawyer sister in law already knows that which is why she is still paying her portion This is how your father intended it to be and you must respect his wishes.

I disagree with Jingle 1. There's no "automatic" about any of this unless a person dies without making a will in which case the estate "automatically" goes to whomever the state law says it goes to. A person making a will or setting up a trust must specifically name the beneficiaries. A spouse has NO claim on a bequest made to her husband, whether alive or dead, unless the document so specified. And then the husband can pass that money or property on to whomever HE names in HIS will, which may or may not be the spouse, except as limited/directed by state law. The GRANDCHILDREN might have some sort of claim, that is, the children of your SIL and your deceased brother, if any, but the SIL is not an heir of your father. HOWEVER, since by accepting payments for expenses of the trust -- which already sounds strange to me -- you/your father may have created an expectation in your SIL that is at the very least, deceitful and that may, in fact, have legal implications. Given that you perceive your brother to have been the favorite -- and perhaps he was -- and that your father has already been "insanely generous" to him and his family, I think you should also protect yourself from further emotional challenges at a time of grieving when your father finally passes. I'm sorry to say that I think he's being VERY unfair to you by deliberately refusing to sort this out now. If he won't do it, YOU do it. And then share the information with your SIL and your other sibling now. Good for you for wanting to have this resolved and best of luck!

No it is not automatic. Depends on how it is written.

This I know, in Illinois if she pays part of property taxes for seven years, SIL can have claim to the property. Real Estate law 101. Former Realtor. Every state is different.

To me its clear that your deceased brother's family would get 1/3 of the estate.
I am one of 4 siblings,and two definitely are more successful than i am, but i truly believe they should get the same 1/4 as i do...that is what my dad intended....

Retain an attorney.

Thank you all for your thoughts. I apologize for my misspelling of the legal term. Yes, on this one issue in his Trust and Will, he left that property to only his 3 children specifically. Yes, the trust is listed on the deed, not my dad. Yes, he has named me the Executor (Executrix - female) upon his death to take care of all this mess. Yes, I agree he is leaving a potential tornado of issues on this by allowing the widow of my brother to believe she will inherit his share. So, here is what I will do....She will be reimbursed for what she has paid, and as I will be handling the bills for the property moving forward I will simply not bill her. Should she ask why she isn't receiving a bill I will simply tell her that it is no longer necessary and not elaborate. I think my dad's aversion to confrontation has created this mess and now I have to dig myself out. I will take your advice and retain a lawyer of my own as well as have a meeting with my dad's since he will be the one defending the estate should it all come to a head later. :) thank you!

Side Reply to 1 Rare Find: the amount she has paid beyond my brother's death is only $800 and paying 3 bills once per year is hardly worth a $60,000 property. She will be refunded her $800.

I am always impressed how there are real differences in how various families look at things. If my brother died, I would not refer to his wife as a former family member. I am not saying right or wrong, just that she would still be part of my family and I would speak of her that way.

If the property was left to your brother, his share belongs to his estate, which presumably will pass to his wife, unless your dad chooses to re-write the document, which presumably he won't. So I would keep taking her $400 per year. Why such an interest in cutting her out when your dad clearly wants her cut in? Is it for the money, or is she a bad person?

How can I find my 90-year-old father's attorney.

My father has Alzheimer's and is living with my retired brother. Dad cannot remember where the attorney's office is located or the name. My brother had my dad's will changed to make him the executor of dad's will; previously I had been executor for 40 years. I would like to see the new will.