Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

lktknow · 11-08-2007, 02:44 PM

I was a bit surprised when I said the lawyer and the executor started going by the amendment to the trust, which had not been signed, and not the original trust.
But you all seem to think, or have stated there was nothing illegal or unethical about it, so??
Beneficiary's lawyer contacted executors lawyer requesting all the paper work involved in the case. They drug their heels and sent only parts of it. There was an original trust, and then a revised one where the man put the beneficiary's provisions inn it. They only sent the original one and not the revised one, also did not send the amendment .
In the process of all this with the consultations between the beneficiary and the one lawyer with the firm, (another lawyer, not the head of the firm) the one who does mostly litigation, the lawyer was gung ho to actually go for the 1/2 of the estate. Stating all the reasons why the beneficiary had every right to half of the estate.
Executor's lawyer finally sent a copy of the revised trust, but the lawyer had added a clause to the area in which the beneficiary was mentioned. It was only obvious the clause had been added, because the table of contents did not coincide with the page numbers because of the addition of the clause.
Beneficiary could not locate her original copy of trust. People had been to the house and it seemingly came up missing. When it was mentioned, Executors lawyer sent beneficiary another copy, only it was the one with the added clause.
Beneficiary's lawyers kept pressing beneficiary to go for the entire half of the estate.
a tolling had to be filed, with the executors lawyer and her agreeing to the tolling.
Beneficiary's lawyer , the head of the firm, had meeting with executors lawyer.
After that, everything came to a grinding halt.
The other lawyer with the beneficiary's firm, told beneficiary they were going to come to a decision as to what would be a fair outcome of the matter. Executor's lawyer drew up an agreement, beneficiary's lawyer suggested strongly that she accept it. Beneficiary's lawyer knew beneficiary was not pleased with the outcome, but still suggested strongly that she accept it and sign it and get it over with. The agreement was basically the same provisions for the beneficiary as what was in the original trust, with a few things from the amendment that was not signed thrown in.
What the beneficiary got, basically, was an apartment for life with a very modest income for life , with a cost of living raise . The man owned apartment buildings, and other real property, but beneficiary got none of it. oh plus the executor was the one who got everything else.

11-08-2007, 02:44 PM	#12 (permalink)
lktknow Insane Location: here&there	I was a bit surprised when I said the lawyer and the executor started going by the amendment to the trust, which had not been signed, and not the original trust. But you all seem to think, or have stated there was nothing illegal or unethical about it, so?? Beneficiary's lawyer contacted executors lawyer requesting all the paper work involved in the case. They drug their heels and sent only parts of it. There was an original trust, and then a revised one where the man put the beneficiary's provisions inn it. They only sent the original one and not the revised one, also did not send the amendment . In the process of all this with the consultations between the beneficiary and the one lawyer with the firm, (another lawyer, not the head of the firm) the one who does mostly litigation, the lawyer was gung ho to actually go for the 1/2 of the estate. Stating all the reasons why the beneficiary had every right to half of the estate. Executor's lawyer finally sent a copy of the revised trust, but the lawyer had added a clause to the area in which the beneficiary was mentioned. It was only obvious the clause had been added, because the table of contents did not coincide with the page numbers because of the addition of the clause. Beneficiary could not locate her original copy of trust. People had been to the house and it seemingly came up missing. When it was mentioned, Executors lawyer sent beneficiary another copy, only it was the one with the added clause. Beneficiary's lawyers kept pressing beneficiary to go for the entire half of the estate. a tolling had to be filed, with the executors lawyer and her agreeing to the tolling. Beneficiary's lawyer , the head of the firm, had meeting with executors lawyer. After that, everything came to a grinding halt. The other lawyer with the beneficiary's firm, told beneficiary they were going to come to a decision as to what would be a fair outcome of the matter. Executor's lawyer drew up an agreement, beneficiary's lawyer suggested strongly that she accept it. Beneficiary's lawyer knew beneficiary was not pleased with the outcome, but still suggested strongly that she accept it and sign it and get it over with. The agreement was basically the same provisions for the beneficiary as what was in the original trust, with a few things from the amendment that was not signed thrown in. What the beneficiary got, basically, was an apartment for life with a very modest income for life , with a cost of living raise . The man owned apartment buildings, and other real property, but beneficiary got none of it. oh plus the executor was the one who got everything else.