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. Her first income check arrived one year later.
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's trust is the Trust Department of JP Morgan Chase Bank– 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 Mary
was the trustee, the sole beneficiary. 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. In 2003 the trust was
changed again and three charities were named remainder man. Mary
was to receive income for life. 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
There is nothing written in the trust agreement about
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
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 did not sign off from the Defined
Pension Plan. Her rights have been violated!
Mary's lawyers requested to review the Pension Plan
documents which are in JP Morgan'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 assets were moved into JPMorgan Chase Bank. High yielding Variable Annuities were cashed in during the market's worst history and traded in for lower yielding GIO Annuities, resulting in high fees for the banker. Funds were transferred from other Brokerage firms into JP Morgan Chase 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 JPMorgan 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
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.
Summer of 2007 - 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
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.
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.
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.
resigns as Corporate Trustee within 4 days after receiving a
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 JP Morgan Private Client Services to have her tax attorney contacting them, resulting in unnecessary legal fees.
JPMorgan Chase Bank decides to sell 'Unsuitable
Investments' which were previously purchased by the Bank,
resulting in a loss of more than $ 131.000.00.
The following complaint was send to the trustees:
TRUST LITIGATION IN 2009
"JPMorgan’s questionable Trustee Duties "
The bank JP Morgan
Chase 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
JP Morgan Private Client Services who made a commitment to be the
trustee of this estate did not act in the trust's
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 in extremely high losses.
of June 30, 2009 "a total of 64.5 % of trust assets
were positioned in JPMorgan's Proprietary Funds, a clear conflict
of interest". The
overall cost of Mutual funds added 2.4 % to the trust management
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
only $ 3,522.91 or 0.63 %.
benefits from this cash position sitting in Money Market
Furthermore, JP Morgan managed to dispose of investments
during September of 2009 resulting in a loss of
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. "J.P.Morgan Wealth Management 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 their clients.
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
Jan 15, 2010 ... NEW YORK -- J.P. Morgan Chase announced Friday an $11.7 billion profit for 2009, along with paydays for its investment-banking employees ...
Chase Trust Management Fees -
Fees and Trust Administration
ADMINISTRATION - JP Morgan FEES
Mary's husband was led to believe, that JPMorgan Chase Wealth Management would handle all the accounting and tax matters and the complete Trust management and administration for a nominal fee.
management - The Accountings show that
a law firm at an hourly rate between appr. $ 190.00 to $ 350.00 did the complete
Trust Administration, resulting in fees of 173,751.16 as of 3.4.2010". It
appears tax matters were not done in a cost-efficient way resulting in excessive
fees to prepare tax returns. Also,
the sale of the airplane shows legal fees of $ 9,037. plus several thousand
dollars of expenses when customarily a 6% commission is paid for the same
The law firm performed most services that should have been done by the JPMorgan. The overall cost of mutual funds added another 2.4 % or more to the management fees. It appears like triple dipping.
comparison Smith Barney charges for Estate Settlement a fee of 2 % of the total
Banks must be restrained, and the financial system reformed, before there
can be any sustainable recovery.
Stay tuned! More updates will fallow!