The Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious Codicil
There we were sitting in Wills and Trusts and the prof used the phrase, “the power of the codicil.” I was struck. Why? No idea. To this day, I still love the phrase and still have no idea why. Similar to a child’s love of the phraseology of “supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.” Thus, in honor of the almighty Codicil and National Estate Planning Awareness Week, I thought it a good idea to unpack “the power of the codicil.” A Codicil (“kah-duh-sill”) is the mechanism used to change a Last Will and Testament. Consider the following scenario: A very long time ago, Molly, an independent and progressive young woman for her time, had a Last Will and Testament prepared. She was married and owned a couple of properties. Her Will left everything to her spouse and since she and her spouse had no children, Molly named her best friend, Florence,as a contingent beneficiary (or more precisely, legatee). Unfortunately, Molly and her spouse divorced and to celebrate her divorce, Molly decided to take a cruise from New York to England. Her best friend became ill and so had to stay home. During the oceanic voyage, the ship sank but Molly survived and Molly vowed to change her Will as soon as she returned home. [SIDEBAR – Had Molly died, the law would have prevented her ex-spouse from inheriting but instead of her best friend inheriting her fortune, it would have gone to her no-good nephew, Fred.] Molly’s Will was very precise and long for the day – more than 10 pages. Still, all she wanted to change were the legatees; she didn’t need a completely new Will. So… enter the Codicil. Molly’s attorney prepared 2 pages, explaining and stipulating the changes – Florence received everything and if Florence predeceased Molly, then her fortune went to the Jane Addams Hull House. Molly and 2 witnesses signed and dated the codicil and voila! All was right with the world. Her will was validly changed. Molly remarried decades ago but is now a contented widow in her twilight years with great-grandchildren. About 20 years ago one particularly geeky grandchild convinced Molly to invest in \”some contraption called \”the Google\”,” this other stock called \”Apple,\” and \”a silly online store called \”Amazon\” of all things.\” Molly\’s fortune exploded so she thought it would be a good time to change her estate plan. She intends to ensure her descendants are well-cared for and give to social justice and environmental causes. Her former lawyer has since retired, so she met with her grandchild’s lawyer and mentioned the power of the Codicil. The lawyer smiled and advised that, given her good fortune and fruitful life, an entirely new Will in addition to other planning mechanisms are in order. Molly understood and the asked if the lawyer accepted Bitcoin as payment. One may ask can a Codicil be considered a Will? For example, what if the Will was lost but the Codicil was located and, for some reason, restated everything in the Will. Because the Codicil must be prepared and signed with the same formalities as a valid Will, this Codicil would likely be considered just that – a valid Last Will and Testament. Another interesting question that occasionally pops up is what if a Testator just scratched out or added someone\’s name to the margin of the Will – what effect would those actions have on the Will? Would that deletion or addition be valid? No. Those actions are not valid unless done so contemporaneously during the signing of the Will. If done so afterward, without the formalities, the person who was scratched out will still inherit and the person added won\’t inherit a thing. After a Will has been signed, in Illinois, for those changes to be valid, one would have to execute a supercalifragilisticCodicil.
No Deed Needed to Transfer Property…With a Valid Trust
[vc_row type=\”in_container\” full_screen_row_position=\”middle\” column_margin=\”default\” column_direction=\”default\” column_direction_tablet=\”default\” column_direction_phone=\”default\” scene_position=\”center\” text_color=\”dark\” text_align=\”left\” row_border_radius=\”none\” row_border_radius_applies=\”bg\” overflow=\”visible\” overlay_strength=\”0.3\” gradient_direction=\”left_to_right\” shape_divider_position=\”bottom\” bg_image_animation=\”none\”][vc_column column_padding=\”no-extra-padding\” column_padding_tablet=\”inherit\” column_padding_phone=\”inherit\” column_padding_position=\”all\” column_element_spacing=\”default\” background_color_opacity=\”1\” background_hover_color_opacity=\”1\” column_shadow=\”none\” column_border_radius=\”none\” column_link_target=\”_self\” column_position=\”default\” gradient_direction=\”left_to_right\” overlay_strength=\”0.3\” width=\”1/1\” tablet_width_inherit=\”default\” tablet_text_alignment=\”default\” phone_text_alignment=\”default\” animation_type=\”default\” bg_image_animation=\”none\” border_type=\”simple\” column_border_width=\”none\” column_border_style=\”solid\”][vc_column_text]***This issue has an important update.*** In September, a ruling by the Illinois Second District Appellate Court sent small shockwaves throughout the Illinois estate planning community. The case, The Estate of Mendelson v. Mendelson, presented the Court with the question of whether real property transferred via a trust without recording the transfer is a valid transfer. To preserve legal chain of title, real estate transfers in Illinois must be recorded with the appropriate county recorder of deeds office. Additionally, it is well-settled law that a transfer to a trust is valid without recording a deed if one later uses a pour-over will via probate. Mendelson questions the need for a pour-over will or recording before death. Timeline & Facts 2005: The decedent, Diane, signed a deed transferring the home she owned outright into joint tenancy with one of her 4 sons, Michael. The deed wasn’t recorded. 2006: Diane established a trust and executed another deed that, upon her death, divided the home among the 4 sons. The trust and that deed were recorded. 2011: Diane established a new trust, completely revoking the 2006 trust and designated Michael, once again, as the sole beneficiary of the home and successor trustee to Diane. On October 1, Diane died leaving her sons and no surviving spouse. A few days later, Michael recorded the 2005 deed and the 2011 trust. In November, the legal battle begins. 2014: A trial court ruled that the 2006 trust was valid and, thus, the home was to be shared by the 4 sons. Michael appealed. Battle Theories The Estate (representing the 3 sons) made 2 arguments: (1) The 2006 trust was valid; or (2) the 2011 trust was valid, revoking the 2006 trust but because the 2005 deed was recorded post-death, the home was probate property subject to Illinois laws of intestacy. Illinois descent and distribution laws state that if a property is subject to probate whereby there was no valid will in place and no surviving spouse, the property shall be divided evenly between descendants. The Final Ruling The Appellate Court found that the 2005 deed was invalid because it was not properly delivered to Michael; it wasn\’t Diane’s intent to transfer the property to Michael then. The Court also found that the 2011 trust revoked the 2006 trust, the revocation meeting the requirements for revoking a trust. In so finding, the Court fleshed out the valid requirements of a trust: (1) intent to create a trust; (2) defined trust assets; (3) stated beneficiaries; (4) designated trustee; (5) stated purpose and administration provisions; and (6) delivery of property to trustee. Mendelson’s ruling hinged on number 6: whether the property of the trust – the home – was delivered to the trustee. No Illinois law existed before this case to answer whether assets needed to be formally transferred to a trust. In this case, the trust was a revocable living trust, so the Court reasoned that because the trustee of a revocable living trust already owns the property, no formal transfer was necessary. Therefore, Mendelson’s final ruling, which is arguably narrow, is that a “[trustmaker] who declares a trust naming herself a trustee is not required to separately and formally transfer the designated property into the trust.” Accordingly, Michael’s actions after Diane’ death – recording the deed and trust – were legally valid. The ruling caused shockwaves for 2 primary reasons: (1) Titling property to trusts is a revenue stream for title companies and municipalities; and more importantly, (2) if real estate is assigned to trustees without recording the transfer with municipalities, then the chain of title listed with the recorder of deeds indices will eventually become fraught with errors, leading to increased litigation over property rights. Nevertheless, for now, Mendelson is the law in Illinois.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
The Unintended Beneficiary You Should Guard Against
Because approximately 70% of Americans die intestate, that is without a will or some form of legal instrument transferring their estate assets, the probate courts are busy, at least in Illinois. Also busy are folks who want a piece of the pie but are not legally entitled to the smallest crumb of crust. Yet, courts are busy because these folks have misrepresented themselves and rightful heirs must prove their relationships. Worse are situations where heirs don’t have the means to claim their inheritances through the court system and, thus, must relinquish assets that might have been helpful to them or their families. This is the thorny bush that members of blended families and other non-traditional families often experience. So, below are a few primary estate planning documents and ways to prevent assets from falling into the no-good-son-in-law’s or dastardly step-daughter\’s hands. Power of attorney for property Problem: The designated agent can empty your bank accounts before you die. Answer: Name an intended beneficiary under your will as agent and provide explicit instructions in the power of attorney narrowing the agent\’s authority to access the accounts strictly for your benefit, e.g., pay your bills and daily living expenses. Furthermore, provide that the agent can only deplete all resources if it is absolutely necessary for your health or well-being. Use clear, explicit, unambiguous, plain language. If you must name someone who is not an intended beneficiary under your will or trust, make sure that an intended beneficiary has a copy of the power of attorney and narrow the authority more, providing that the agent cannot withdraw more than a particular percentage unless your health and well-being will be jeopardized and that the withdrawal information is shared with intended beneficiaries of your will. Will this stop someone from taking your account to zero if he or she really wants to? No, but it will give intended beneficiaries evidence for court. Power of attorney for healthcare Problem: With the right amount of authority, the designated agent can kill you. Answer: Enough said. Will Problem: The wrong person might inherit your estate. Answer: Explicitly state who will inherit what. Having a trust prepared is even better because then you don’t have to state your intentions explicitly in your will. However, make sure that powers of appointment, i.e., the authority to bequest your gifts to others, are limited in the manner you intend your gifts to be distributed. For example, if you die, leaving a great deal of wealth to your loving step-daughter whose husband is a sloth unworthy of an earwig’s toenail, you probably want language in your will or trust to prevent the sloth from inheriting your assets through your step-daughter in case she dies before they divorce. Revocable Living Trust Problem: The wrong person might inherit your estate and cause probate anyway. Answer: The primary reason for preparing a trust is to prevent your heirs from having to probate your estate. However, if you don’t want to cause your intended beneficiaries to lose some or all of their inheritance in litigation proving their relationship and proving the disinherited was, in fact, soundly and legally disinherited, see the above, \”Will,\” have an in terrorem provision, and, while you\’re lucid, write a letter to the disinherited spendthrift stating your reasons for disinheriting him or her. Upon your death, leave instructions for the trustee to deliver the letter with a copy of the in terrorem provision. You might want to have co-trustees in this case: one who’s a family member and one who is a disinterested party. Probate courts and lawyers are often unintended third party beneficiaries to wills or trusts, but they don’t have to be if estate planning documents are prepared with cautious forethought and care.
5 Mentoring Tips from the Grave
As a wills and trusts attorney, frequently, clients or friends ask me how they or their parents can prevent young, adult beneficiaries from wasting their “hard-earned” inheritance. I explain that this can be managed in at least 5 ways: Use hard cold facts and an iron club. Tell them that the money was hard-earned by you and don’t leave them anything but a videotape of the family history. Leave all the money and possessions to charity. Bribe the youngsters and hope for the best. Of course, these are 2 actions that make most lawyers’ skin crawl. Educate the little people from the time they get their first piggy bank from Grandpa. Use conditional provisions that don’t “offend public policy.” This means that, while you can’t disinherit your child from marrying outside his ethnicity and can’t tell him he won’t get a dime unless he divorces his current spouse, you can cut the cord if he becomes a lifetime criminal. You can shorten the cord if she becomes a lifetime substance abuser. And you can make the cord’s length dependent on grades and gainful employment. “Staggered mentoring,” which I’ve mentioned before, is another tool. With a “staggered mentoring” provision, Grandpa leaves Hermoine 30% of her pot of gold when she turns 25, another 30% when she turns 30, and the balance at the age of 35. My favorite is a combination of 3 through 5, but as my favorite contracts professor said, “If it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck, it ain’t a beagle.” So, if Hermoine’s been in and out of jail since the age of 16 and she’s 25 now, education, at least of the financial planning kind, isn’t probably going to work.
The Issue of Issue, Deers, and ART
A couple of days ago, I read an article on alternative reproductive technology, “ART,” and posthumously born children. It reminded me of conversations and cases about heirs that I’d also recently encountered. The article, conversations, and readings affirmed for me that the question of who is an “heir” or “issue,” while initially may seem simple to answer, can be complex. Thirty years ago, the definition of “child” found in a will or trust may have been a few sentences. Today, that definition is – or should be – a few paragraphs. Consider the following: Jeremy and Jessica were in a loving, committed, cohabiting relationship for more than 10 years and were unmarried because they refused to institutionalize their relationship. Still they wanted to have a baby, but Jay was sterile. However, Jeremy’s best friend, Keith, agreed to b a sperm donor. Eventually, they found a clinic that would perform the procedure and Keith was asked to sign a consent form. One statement on the form provided that Keith waived all rights of parentage with respect to the child that would be born to Jeremy and Jessica using Keith’s sperm. He was to check that box if he agreed with this statement. Keith thought about his significant other, Karen. He and Karen were also in a long-term relationship and discussed marriage and children a few months ago. But no definitive plans were made. Keith was in his early 40s and very successful; if he and Karen didn’t work out, he reasoned that this could be his only chance at quasi-parenthood. He decided not to check the box and think about it more but he signed the form. Jessica underwent the procedure the day Keith signed the form. Then, the 3 left the clinic; Keith headed home to Karen. Unfortunately Keith never arrived home. He was killed when a deer darted out in front of his car and Keith swerved onto a patch of ice, careening him and his car into an oncoming semi-tractor trailer. Karen was more than distraught because she was going to tell Keith about the bundle of joy that was produced when she and Keith had far too much to drink a couple of months ago. Keith died without a will, so who will eventually inherit his estate? Illinois law provides that posthumously born children are children of the decedent. Consequently, if both ladies were successful giving birth, then both children would have been Keith\’s heirs. This also illustrates the importance of another provision now becoming a standard in wills and trusts – the genetic reproductive material provision. If Jessica chose to store Keith’s sperm until a day she was more fertile and Keith died before that day with a will that had a genetic reproductive material provision, then Jessica could have been precluded from using his sperm. Keith could have also changed the definition of children in his will to expressly disinherit any children born of ART except those born during the time he is in an intimate, cohabiting relationship with the mother of said child. Still, all this presupposes that Keith would not have wanted 2 daughters. The point? No one can predict who or what our family will be or look like, but when we make a decision about what part or all of that family may look like, we need to write it down in a legal instrument ASAP.
Lottery Lessons for Murderers
Recently, an Illinois man won a million dollars playing the Illinois Lottery. In an unfortunate turn of events, shortly after taking his smiling photo op with check in hand and stating his intentions, he died. Initially, it was thought he died of bad eating habits leading to clogged arteries and a bad heart. However, something seemed a little fishy, so the authorities were called in to request an autopsy and investigate. Ya think? One need not be a lawyer to know who was first on the list of suspects: immediate family. Not only is this is going to make an interesting whodunit but it also gave yours truly the answer to “what to write about this week?” Answer: Crime doesn’t pay even if the “payor” died without a will. Let\’s look at an example: Jennifer inherits $1 million from her father and announces to family that she is going to place the money in trust for her children. Her only living relatives are her spouse, Jeremy, and their 2 sons, Bill and Ted. Jennifer then drowns while swimming but before establishing the trust and she didn’t have a will. Later, authorities arrest a close family member and charge that person with murder. It seems that the family member didn’t agree with Jennifer’s plans. So what will happen to the cool million? It depends. Usually, in Illinois, if a spouse with a child or dependent dies intestate (with no will or trust in place), then the surviving spouse and the child will share equally in the decedent’s estate…unless one of the heirs caused the decedent’s death. If the heir intentionally and unjustifiably caused the decedent’s death, then he or she will not “receive any property, benefit, or other interest by reason of the death.” Illinois Probate Act of 1975, 755 ILCS 5/2-6. Instead the benefit will go to the heir next in line. Also, the form of that benefit or interest is irrelevant; it could be retirement proceeds, which are nontestamentary. Furthermore, the denial of the inheritance need not be made in criminal court but can be made by any competent jurisdiction. However, a few hurdles still exist: The criminal proceeding must end with a final judgment of guilty … unless the criminal trial doesn’t occur for more than a year after the death. The 401(k) administrator, for example, could have released the funds to the murdering heir without knowing the heir was the one who really retired the retiree. Accordingly, the plan administrator won’t be held liable. Still, the court would likely make the defendant give the money to the heir next in line … unless, of course, the murder is a successful fugitive and not a defendant. So what would be the results for our example: If Jeremy murdered Jennifer, then the money would go to Bill and Ted as intended. If Bill was the murderer, then the money would go to Jeremy and Ted to share equally. If Bill and Ted were co-conspirators, then Jeremy gets it all. If Jeremy, Bill and Ted were co-conspirators, that would be a little odd given that Bill and Ted were going to get it all, but hey… In that case, if there were no heirs, then Illinois won the Lottery. Lesson: If you win the lottery and you have to take a photo and someone asks about your plans, tell them to contact your attorney.
4 Occasions When a Will Won\’t Work
Recently, law students received the following hypothetical to answer: “Ms. Angel Booth has phoned you, Ms./Mr. Associate, and said, “Hi, this is Angel Booth and I want to set up a will because I want to completely disinherit my daughter.” What is your response?” After getting rid of the “deer-in-headlights” look, the students came up with a myriad of answers. Yet and unfortunately, this isn’t an uncommon scenario and for valid reasons. Furthermore, this occurs not just between parents and children, but between as many relationship pairings as you can think of. Still, this scenario goes to reason number 1. Using a will is a tenuous proposition at best if you’re trying to disinherit an heir. Admittedly, I’m being a tad hyperbolic, because it can work – after a lengthy court battle involving lawyers, doctors, and a ton o\’ family members. To disinherit an immediate heir, in Illinois, using a standalone will where the value of the estate is more than $100,000 in personal or real property will beg for a contest and bye-bye goes a large portion of the estate – in probate litigation. Mamma Mega Millions Marries Gorgeous. Yes, you’ve been smitten by the most gorgeous, decades younger, individual walking the planet. You’ve worked your petooty off as a single mother, put your children and your siblings through university, and now want to enjoy the million-dollar fruits of your labor with Gorgeous in the bounds of matrimony. You will probably be advised to have an airtight prenuptial agreement. You also want a will prepared, but a will that leaves most of those millions to Gorgeous will shout, “Probate Litigation!” and siblings, children, BFFs, third cousins, you name it will probably shout back with claims against the estate. Grandpa Disses Daughter-in-Law. So, while it can’t be proven that she murdered your dearly departed son, you, Grandpa, just don’t agree on anything with your daughter-in-law about your grandchildren. In your opinion, she isn’t parenting the way your loving son would have. Still, you’ve saved about $30,000 that you want the children, ages 7 and 8 to have upon your death. I previously wrote about the imprudence of leaving substantial financial gifts outright to minors. This is another example. In Illinois, if a minor receives a substantive gift, e.g., more than $10,000, the funds must be transferred into a restricted vehicle for the minor whereby the guardian or custodian is given control. Typically, the guardian or custodian is an adult member of the minor’s family, i.e., Dastardly Daughter-in-Law or a trust company. Thirty-thousand dollars isn’t usually sufficient for a trust company; thus, DDIL will likely gain control over the $30,000. Calling Dr. Cooper. Finally, setting aside seedy scenarios, let’s consider Dr. Amy Cooper. She has a thriving practice with three other doctors and has started accumulating a substantive portfolio. She doesn’t mind paying her fair share of taxes, but doesn’t want her beneficiaries to pay more than their fair share either. Leaving everything outright to her partner and children in a will, however, results in the very thing she doesn’t want.
7 Money-Savers before Googling, Binging, or Yahoo!ing \’Wills\’
This sucks as a topic sentence but the truth isn’t always tasty, so here goes: Contemplating death is not something most folks like to think about. Yet, if you want your transition to be as smooth as possible for your loved ones, recognizing the emotional turmoil they will undoubtedly be experiencing, having your affairs in order is a loving and thoughtful way that can prevent further turmoil. However, before you Google “wills,” take the time to consider what you want for your family in the event of an unexpected tragedy or the inevitable. Taking sufficient time to thoughtfully deliberate about your intentions before you meet with an attorney will also save you money on attorneys’ fees, and who doesn’t want to save money these days? Your considerations should probably start with your loved ones: If you have minor children or dependents, then they will need a guardian. If you have a pet or pets, then you should consider who would be best and willing to care for your cockatoo or kitty. If you own a home, then who should pay the mortgage? Are the beneficiary designations on your retirement accounts accurate? What should happen if 1 of your 2 children becomes disabled? Should the distributions still be absolutely equal? What type of gift should you consider for your niece or best friend’s daughter who’s also like a daughter to you but you have 2 other children? Who gets your favorite blue sweater? Many questions that we need to have answers for to get our affairs properly situated, don’t involve money. Still, the sooner we can answer, “What if?” and “Who?” the sooner we can create a sustainable peace of mind over both our financial and personal affairs.
3 Lessons from Summer Disaster Flicks
One hallmark of summertime in the U.S. is the onslaught of disaster movies. For me, there’s nothing like a great “the-world-is-under-attack-so-blow-‘em-up-real-good!” movie. So when temperatures crept into the 80s and trailers for “world under attack” started showing on TV, I couldn’t help but think about the “disaster” provisions in estate planning documents, aka “contingent beneficiary” provisions. Also, while reading a couple of cases and thinking about questions frequently asked by clients, I knew I had a winning screenplay, or a half-way decent blog post. So grab your popcorn and enjoy the move…I mean post. Ornery old Great-Grandma Cornelia Stamper decides to write her will and leaves one of her oil wells to her son, Harry. She names it “Harry Stamper’s Well.” Before she dies, though, Harry marries Anna and he and Anna have a daughter, Grace. Cornelia isn’t so keen on Anna, so she draws up a trust leaving income from the “Family Stamper’s Well” to Harry for his life and upon Harry’s death, the income from the well should be distributed equally among Cornelia’s heirs. Cornelia dies at the grand old age of 98 and Harry then draws up a trust leaving Harry Stamper’s Well to Grace and continues his life’s work – drilling in Alaska. Suddenly one day, Harry learns from his buddies at NASA that an asteroid is headed for Earth. Harry then changes his trust and adds a charitable contribution provision, giving part of the income from Family Stamper’s Well to the Red Cross and Medicins Sans Fronteirs and the rest to his descendants. Also, Grace has a trust created and leaves the income from Family Stamper’s Well to the same 2 charities. Fortunately, Harry’s NASA buddies blow the asteroid up real good and none of the particles cause any damage to Earth. A year later, while drilling near Russia, Harry is told that aliens attacked Earth and wiped out all his relatives including, Grace. Harry’s heart can’t take it and he dies. However, Grace actually escaped the attack but is the only Stamper left. Grace’s friends, David and Steven, however, blow up the alien ship real good and things return to normal – kinda. Half the world’s population is gone, so the Red Cross and Medicins Sans Frontiers have a lot of work to do. They are counting on Harry’s gift and know that the funds are available because the banks were saved. Go figure. Accordingly, they hire a lawyer; lots of us survived. But their meeting with the lawyer didn’t go well. My clients know why because these were their questions: 1. Can income from a life estate be given away by the owner of the life estate? In other words, could Harry bequeath income from Family Stamper’s Well? No. Cornelia left the income to Harry for his life only and then to Cornelia’s heirs. So unless Grace is feeling charitable during her lifetime, the nonprofits are out of luck until Grace dies. 2. What would have happened if Grace died in the alien attack but Family Stamper’s Well had dried up? In other words, what happens when the “gift” is no longer in the estate? If Grace knew the well was drying up and didn’t change her trust to provide for this event, then the gift would be considered “revoked,” or \”adeemed\” in legalese, and the charities out of luck. If Grace didn’t know and say the well was destroyed by the aliens, then the gift is still considered revoked unless she provided in the trust that the loss should be covered by insurance. 3. What would have happened if Grace died and she didn’t name anyone to take the income? That’s the real disaster. With all of the Stamper beneficiaries dead and no charity named, the income and well would probably go to the remaining population – bankers and lawyers.
Blood or Money? Making Fiduciary Designations that Maintain Family Harmony
Tons of articles have been published advising individuals and couples about what to bring to or how to prepare for a meeting with your estate planning attorney. Most of these articles provide the typical list: financial statements, copies of tax returns, mortgage statements, retirement information, and so forth. Not surprisingly, few articles discuss the “hard list”: names of successor guardians for the children, names of successor trustees – particularly if the children have trusts, how special gifts will be distributed, and who should hold title to the home for asset protection purposes. A previous post discussed guardians but another issue that couples may want to consider is how to maintain family accord for the children’s benefit when a member from one spouse’s side of the family may be emotionally closer to the children than a member from the other spouse’s side, but both families want to be involved in the event of an emergency. Under those circumstances, the harmonious decision to name Uncle Louie Guardian and Uncle Gus as Trustee, for example, may be not-so-harmonious. Baby Gina’s and Big Brother Brett’s Uncle Louie on Mama’s side and Uncle Gus on Papa’s side may in fact have a great relationship. However, designating one guardian and the other trustee may place a strain on the relationship that would cause Robin to reconsider his relationship with Batman. Consequently, designating one person as both guardian and trustee would probably be more prudent. Plus, Uncle Gus might even appreciate it once you shared with him the critical and long list of duties a trustee must agree to undertake. Still, what if Uncle Gus is a control freak and would wreak havoc on the rest of you and your spouse’s living days if some authority wasn’t given to him? In that case, you could make Uncle Gus the Executor of the estate. But what if that wasn’t enough? Perhaps he would be satisfied with being the successor trustee of the family trust funds that remained after the children’s trust was fully funded. And if Uncle Gus wasn’t satisfied with that and Uncle Louie refused to switch places? Then consider the following 2 options: Creating a solid co-trustee agreement between the 2 uncles; or Designate a corporate trustee to manage the children’s trust. Sometimes to maintain family accord, retaining a reasonable corporate trustee is the only option. Yes, money leaves the estate but at least it\’s money and not blood.