|
MICHIGAN CHARITABLE
REMAINDER TRUST |
|
Every individual has a traditional common law right
to control his/her own person.
No right is held more sacred or is more carefully guided
by the common law than the right of every individual to the
possession and control of one’s own person, free from all
restraint or interference of others….
An Educational Journey to the mind-boggling complexity of a Charitable Remainder Trust!
Read on and
judge for yourself.
We are sharing with the world Mary's diary: An incredible Journey of life from a Charitable Remainder Trust. Mary's husband's death occurred in mid November 2006 and she has not received any income. She is forced to live on a very limited budget. Thank you Mr. Trustees. You may find yourself personally liable. Perhaps a little education about Trustee Responsibilities is in order. To highlight the subversive actions being taken by the Trustees who may stand to have a financial gain, the following is important to note:1. The charities are interested in her age. They want to know how long they have to wait for their money. How bizarre! They are waiting for Mary to die, just to collect the remaining funds. What a horrible thought! 2. Her nights are sleepless. Yes, she look's over her shoulder. She lives in constant fear, now being alone. Well, they may not send a 'Hit Man' after her, but they have indirectly caused her life to become severely stressed, which can itself cause one’s illness or death. 3. The Trustee of her husband is the Trust Department of one of the largest banks– the entity that is damaging her health.
5. This has occurred because of the actions of the Trustees who have followed their own interests, conducted themselves unethically, and are the cause and damage her health. The Trustees should be held responsible. Is it necessary to seek revenge so that one can live out one's life that a person built with her mate for almost 40 years; should a person let oneself be taken advantage of?
6. NO, we will fight back and let the world know about the
possible problems of a charitable remainder trust.
Here is our friend's story: Under Mary's late husbands original trust agreement she will receive income until death. If the net income is insufficient to maintain her in the manner that existed prior to his death, than the Trustee shall use that portion of principal necessary to maintain her standard of living. Sounds wonderful, doesn't it? But, there is a catch. The charities have to approve of everything. Her husband had no idea, that her life will be tormented by those "remainder men", so called charities, but that it would be a life of torment and deprivation, not the lifestyle that they worked so hard to build together. The Trustees and Charities actually have to approve and agree to everything that she wants or needs in her life. She does not need a supervisor, or a boss, to manage her life, especially at her age. They are denying her dignity, her independence, and her life worth, accomplishment and enjoyment. There is nothing written in the trust agreement about
those
charities getting involved in her life. They are the
beneficiaries after her death. A. Where is the trustee's responsibility to her? Their only responsibility seems to be the preservation of all the assets for the charities. B. Who writes such laws to allow the charities to be involved in any decision making before she is dead? C. Perhaps, there needs to be an authority that will investigate such ethical injustices on an individual in the United States of America, which can lead to a change in the law. We find it extremely stressful to have those charities involved in the management of her life. Their reward must only be initiated after she is no longer in need of assets. We know that her husband would have never agreed to such a set-up if he was informed of the potential pitfalls. His attorney will be made aware of his not providing the full implications to the document signing, and that what the attorney did by not informing her husband of the full implication of his actions, reveals a disregard of the full intention of the Trust agreement, and ignores the legal implications of informed consent. Yes, they quarrel over the cost of
her husband's burial site, monument
and memorial plantings. Her husband has been extremely
generous with many charities during his lifetime. His life was
dedicated to charity and helping the poor. He deserves a special
place and recognition for his endless support of the charities.
He truly was an extraordinary person. If you decide to leave your assets to the charities after the death of your spouse, caution is in order. The American charities will make the life of the surviving spouse extremely miserable, unbearable and stressful. And stress can ultimately kill. Be careful, which charities you select as beneficiaries and make sure that those funds will reach their designated destination.
Mary's husband was the owner of an Defined Pension Plan. The
custodians were the bank and a brokerage firm. Defined Pension
Plans are protected in the USA by ERISA
(Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). Her late husband's Defined Pension Plan was rolled over into an Individual Retirement Account (IRA). She was not consulted and I did not sign off from the Defined Pension Plan. Her rights have been violated! JPMorgan Chase is determined to give the IRA to the trust. Where are her rights? ERISA is the law in USA. However, the bank is allowed to be above the law and can simply confiscate the assets. Even the court's will not allow a claimant to touch an IRA. Absolutely incredible!
Mary's lawyers requested to review the Pension Plan
documents which are in the Bank's possession.
What is heart-breaking to her, is that her own personal funds are
mixed up into her husbands assets! Her husband's attorney gave
her assets to the charities without her consent. Unbelievable!
For those of you who are married: It is important to provide informational background to this case: The original trust was set up in 1981. Mary was the trustee, the sole beneficiary, and had complete authority to manage all aspects of the trust, even though she was not married at this time. In 1992 the trust was slightly changed. After Mary's death her spouse's son was named as the remainder beneficiary. Her husband's assets were scattered in many places, because his personal motto was that, “Even the big banks can go broke, so a person should always diversify". After 2001 her husband's health and seemingly so, even his mind was starting to decline. He began to rely on others to make financial decisions. The big changes occurred in 2003. All the funds were moved into one Bank. High yielding Variable Annuities were cashed in during the market's worst history and traded in for lower yielding GIO Annuities. Funds were transferred from Brokerage firms into the Bank. The trust document was drastically amended. Her stepson was removed as the remainder beneficiary and in his place three charities were named. She would receive 100 % of the income from the trust, however the Bank was appointed as corporate trustee. Four months later her late husband's attorney was appointed as a trustee as well. This proved to be an interesting and unexpected intrusion. It appears that, perhaps, someone manipulated the mind of a fragile old man. He was 76 years old at that time. He was forgetful and could not always remember things, which may have been the start of dementia. Notes and question marks were found attached to the financial statements; apparently he could not understand some transactions. His temperament changed as well. Over the last few years, prior to his death, his body and mind were declining rapidly. The crippling illness of colitis also changed his life dramatically. Because of his physical and mental deterioration, he became a prisoner in his own house. He was unable to endure all the effects and complications of his illness, and was willing to be compliant with physicians seeking to help him, and would take medications and experimental drugs to endure his daily life, all of which hindered the clarity of his thinking. Even though in his illness and thinking that he might not live long, he had ongoing desires to live. On Oct 31, 2006 he was
rushed to the hospital were he spent two weeks in Intensive
Care. He didn't have a Patients Advocate in place. Six days
later, he appointed his stepdaughter as patient advocate. He
felt that she would be the person to make any life related
decisions. He did not want any artificial measures taken to
preserve his life, which did not include denying
resuscitation. Mary's husband died ten days later and the doctors stated that they were unable to offer resuscitation in accordance to the wishes of the husband. It seems that the husband unknowingly was led to believe that resuscitating is the same as artificially preserving a person’s life. The husband had always wanted to have medical assistance when possible, but did not want to be kept alive on artificial support.
SIX MONTHS LATER: Where is the 'Widow's Allowance' to provide funds for Mary
until the trust disagreement is settled?
The Bank hesitates to open up Probate to provide those funds.
Why? We need an answer.
He stated the bank would have no problem including
an amount for such allowances in the settlement agreement to
be paid out of the trust, as long as the charities agreed to
it. As you can see, the charities even have to approve the
allowances.
Strange! The trust states: The Trustee 'may' pay Settler's spouse's last illness, funeral and administration expenses, inheritance taxes and federal estate tax as such Trustee believes to be in the best interest of the interested trust beneficiaries as a whole. Needless to say, this would mean fewer funds for the charities. Was Mary's husband misrepresented? Did his attorney explain the consequences? In reading every sentence very carefully, analyzing it and
changing the wording, it should read: 'shall' pay. Do not
leave anything to the discretion of the Trustees.
More updates soon. Stay tuned! Every individual has a traditional common law right to control his/her own person. No right is held more sacred or is more carefully guided by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of one’s own person, free from all restraint or interference of others…. Keep in mind, this is not a soap opera, this is Reality! Keep in touch for further developments.
We urge you to set up a discussion forum (like yahoogroups)
or a blog to exchange information about trust's. We will link
your forum and blog, just send the Url.
With this web page, we hope, we have raised awareness about trust agreements. However, if done correctly, they can be a very effective tool in preserving your assets for further generations. Future updates: JPMorgan
resigns as Corporatae Trustee within 4 days after receiving a
complaint letter Two weeks after the resignation, JPMorgan threatened Mary with a restraining order. She was forbidden to contact any one individual at the bank. Further, she was ordered that all her contact with them had to come through legal counsel and that also included her personal account, thus resulting in extremely high legal fees to her. For the purpose of all communication and to receive information of her income distributions, she was forced by the bank to have her tax attorney contacting them, resulting in unnecessary legal fees.
October 13th 2009 The Trust is under court supervision and JPMorgan decides in September 2009 to sell some of those 'Unsuitable Assets'. The following complaint was send to the trustees:
TRUST LITIGATION IN 2009 JPMorgan’s questionable Trustee Duties by Mary The bank JP Morgan was to be assigned by my deceased
husband’s attorney to be the Trustee of the estate, which
after my death will also benefit various charities. As known by
law, the powers and duties of Trustees should be performed in a
reasonable and prudent manner on behalf of the beneficiaries. It is my belief that the bank who made a commitment to be the
trustee of this estate did not act in the trust's
best interest.
With respect due to the transaction activities in the account, I
belief they were reckless and incompetent and resulted in a
large account balance reduction as they were improperly
diversified and of high risk nature. This includes and is not
limited to high-risk investments. The trust was extremely mismanaged by JP Morgan bank because most of the investments were subjected to a morally wrong ‘Buy’ and ‘Hold’ strategy since the beginning of 2007, resulting as shown in June 2009 in an unrealized loss of appr. $ 1,764,822.40 As
of June 30, 2009 a total of 64.5 % of trust assets
were positioned in JPMorgan's propriety funds, a clear conflict
of interest. The
overall cost of Mutual funds added 2.4 % to the trust management
expenses. As
of Sept. 31. 2009 the trust assets are $ 5,579,602.50 with a
cash position of $
3,303,084.28 or 59.2 %.The total trust income for September was
$ 3,522.91 or 0.63 %. Who
benefits from this cash position sitting in Money Market
accounts? Furthermore, JP Morgan managed to dispose of investments during September of 2009 resulting in a loss of $ 131,103.12, thus confirming their strategies were unsuitable for the trust I disagree with Exxon Mobil being an unsuitable investment. In short, JP Morgan refused to diversify based on researched
and reliable market strategies, rather the tactics they used
only benefited their own organizational financial gain. In summary, this account suffered tremendous losses because
it was unprofessionally managed. With respect due to J P
Morgan, this organization’s decisions makers have proven to be
irresponsible and unethical without compassion to the client and
the end-beneficiaries, charities who serve thousands of people
in need. The bank has not only added to the financial
detriment of a spouse but also that of important helpful
charities. Keeping at heart today's suffering in our
communities and appreciating other compassionate organizations
stressing to do the best to help JPMorgan Chase Bank manages to show gains at the
cost of the investor. We also discovered in the Trust the existence of article 16 (3) pertaining to EPIC, the Prudent Investors Act, giving the Trustee’s unprecedented powers over the investments. The question then remains who benefits from this article? Is this a benefit to the client or the bank and why was it written into this important paper on my husband’s death bed? My husband would have never approved this type of legal language. The trust was to be set up conservatively to benefit me a life time and then have enough funds left to help important charities. Based on many conversations with my husband prior to his death, his intentions were not reflected in this trust document. It was signed while he was in the Intensive Care unit at a local hospital. His memory was drifting and he had episodes of confusion, indicating a complete mental status change. Based on my conversation and that of other family members, with his condition change he was unable to respond as usual. He certainly was incompetent to understand the consequences of signing such a complex legal document and this trust should have been declared invalid. JPMorgan’s third quarter profits
soared sevenfold to 3.6
billion
INVESTMENT POLICY –
JPMorgan’s Investment Philosophy and
INTERROGATORIES
Trust Management Fees will be updated
|
|
Disclaimer |