Managed by JPMorgan Chase Bank 

Life with JPMorgan Chase and several prominent American Charities 

An incredible Journey of Life from a 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….

   A trust usually launches Wealth Transfer Planning. What is a trust? A Trust is an entity created and governed under the state law in which is was created. It is a legal relationship in which a trust company or trustee holds property for the benefit of another beneficiary. 
A trust is a flexible way to ensure that assets are looked after and ensures that the assets are managed by appointed trustees in the best interest of the beneficiaries. The trust holds the property for the benefits of those whom you designate. The benefits of the trust will only apply to those assets which are actually transferred into it, which means retitleing your assets into the name of the trust. Do not transfer any tax-deferred retirement accounts into the trust as those are treated as a taxable distribution and become subject to a 10% penalty from the IRS. Avoid mistakes! - Resources for Professionals

   It is extremely important that you appoint the right trustees. Seek professional advice and choose a reputable trust attorney. Consult other experts! Grantors of a large estate should appoint a professional trustee which possesses business skills that are necessary in administrating a large estate. A well set-up trust should not present a problem. 
Learn more: Planned Giving


An Educational Journey to the mind-boggling complexity of a Charitable Remainder Trust!


  • A complex trust document was signed by Mary's late husband. At the time of signing the grantor was in grave condition in the Intensive Care Unit of a Michigan hospital. His mind was in a state of confusion caused by severe dehydration and coupled with a complete failure of his kidneys and liver. His voice was just a whisper. His memory was drifting, at times with episodes of confusion. 

  • There was no medical team called in to verify or document the patient’s mental status.  His condition, upon entering the hospital, did represent a complete mental status change, based on his severe dehydration.

  • Was he able in this condition to fully understand the consequences of signing such a complex legal document?
  • Did the attorney know if her husband was able to provide informed consent? Did the patient fully understand all the information given to him prior to signing? Was it fair and just for the attorney to ask for a signature on a legal document under these circumstances? Did the attorney adhere to ethical standards and values?

  • Should the hospital allow for a patient in a compromised condition to be influenced by persons who could take advantage of him? 

  • Did the attorney and the hospital follow the principles embodied in their organization's mission, values and ethics-statements?

  • Do these actions reflect the belief system of a medical center and a law firm?

Read on and judge for yourself.
All the material posted is strictly for educational purposes only.


"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.
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's trust is the Trust Department of JP Morgan Chase Bank– the entity that is damaging her health.

"The Trust Department of the JPMorgan is damaging her Health"

Yes, The Trust Department of J.P.Morgan Private Wealth Management is damaging her health!

4. After her husband's death, she was admitted seven times to the Emergency Room and Cardiac Unit of three different hospitals. She endured countless blood tests, was injected with the drug Adenosine to reduce the heart rate to normal, end result is that she now has to take the drug Toprol XL 25 to protect her heart, which is causing various  side effects.

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.

So, a little insight on how the CHARITABLE REMAINDER TRUST actually works. We know, most of you don't know. 


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 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. 
In 2006 the trust was changed again in the Intensive Care Unit at a hospital

There is nothing written in the trust agreement about those charities getting involved in her life. They are the beneficiaries  after her death. 
However, all of a sudden they appear in her life now, trying to control and manipulate her, and are making her life miserable.  She was told, the JPMorgan Chase has a responsibility to the charities: to protect their inheritance. Who cares about our friend? Her husband wanted that she would live as they did together, even after his 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. 
Her husband's remains have been sitting in her house since middle of November 2006 waiting for a final resting place. It is an unbelievable situation, where his spirits are probably screaming out for some sort of solution to this unethical situation.  Her life now is in bondage to those strangers called Trustees and Charity attorney's, who are abusing an old woman, who thought that she was living in the most civilized part of the free world.

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. 

JPMorgan IRA - Individual Retirement Account:

 "The JP Morgan Wealth Management confiscates the Retirement Account!"

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). 
Read more about ERISA on free ERISA.com

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!  
"JP Morgan Private Client Services is determined to give the IRA to the Trust". 
Where are her rights? ERISA is the law in USA. However, JPMorgan Chase 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 JP Morgan's possession.
"J.P.Morgan's attorney stated 'the trustee went as far as he could in dealing with his employer.  The Pension Plan documents are stored  "off site" and would be hard to find. It essentially came down to the fact, that JP Morgan is not willing to look any further than it already has for this documentation unless it is required to by a subpoena.  Are they trying to hide anything?"
J.P.Morgan Chase claims, her husband made the trust the beneficiary of the IRA. Let's see the documents for confirmation!

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!
Her husband invested her fathers gift's and inheritance in the stock market using his own Social Security number.
Mary was the sole beneficiary on all those accounts. 
Yes, everything is lost now and some of her personal funds will benefit the charities after her death. We are trying to seek compensation for those lost assets. 

For those of you who are married:
Keep your funds separate and keep track of all your assets. Keep all those canceled checks and documents. You may have to proof if the assets actually belong to you or your spouse. It seems like the word 'Joint' does not exist in the 'Legal World'. Watch for any unusual behavior of your spouse!  Before you sign any documents, get a second attorney or even a third one to read it over. Be extremely careful before you sign anything, and try to understand all those legal consequences. Ask many questions and be on guard! BEWARE!

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 resuscitation. 
An hour later his attorney arrived with his partner and made him sign a new trust. This was a highly unethical move on the part of the attorneys.
The female partner demanded that the stepdaughter turn over the patient advocate form to the husband's attorney. The attorney got a different patient advocate form signed and got himself declared as power of attorney instead. He told Mary's daughter not to tell her mother, Mary, since it appeared that he was seeking to hide important information and his own actions. 

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: 

   It has been exactly six months without any income source for Mary, however the bills continue to arrive. The Bank simply refuses to pay Mary any income. Most of the accounts, including the IRA, are now in the possession of the bank's trust department. In order to survive, a person needs funds to live and to get through this ordeal. One’s home could be lost, and so could other possessions. It appears that the bank and their attorney are not concerned about the condition of a woman who devoted her life and love to this man. Is it possible that their interests will supersede that of the wife? 

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.

The Bank’s legal consul stated that there was some question as to whether the widow’s allowances apply where there is no separate probate estate and probate is opened only to seek the allowances. Totally wrong! 

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.  
Mary’s personal assets are gone forever. This case presents a very strong lesson: Do not share your own personal funds with your spouse, because you may end up losing those, as if in a robbery, except one would know who the “thieves” are.  

   The Bank finally drafted a Trust Reformation. Questions were raised regarding the validity of the restatement of the Trust signed by her husband while in Intensive Care. The trust was set-up in such a way, that the Marital  deduction was not taken fully advantage off, resulting in a huge tax burden to the estate and fewer funds for the remainder men. Who would be at fault? It appears that the spouse’s attorney is at fault, and must resign as a Trustee.
A Trust Reformation is more complicated than one would think. All the beneficiaries, including the charities (remainder men), the Trustee's, the Attorney General, the IRS and the Probate Court have to agree on every detail.  

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.

More updates: 

December 2008

"JPMorgan resigns as Corporate Trustee within four days"

JPMorgan resigns as Corporate Trustee within 4 days after receiving a complaint letter
JPMorgan resigns as Corporate Trustee 

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.


October  2009

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 proceeds of close to a million dollar were deposited into a Money Market Account with Zero interest thus benefiting JPMorgan Wealth Management and not the beneficiaries.  A clear conflict of interest!"

The following complaint was send to the trustees:
Unauthorized Trading in the JPMorgan Managed Trust



"JPMorgan’s questionable Trustee Duties"  

 by Mary


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 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 in extremely high losses.

As 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 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 only $ 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.  "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.  
JPMorgan Chase's profits for 2009 soared to a record 11.7 billion.

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
JPMorgan 3rd-quarter profit soars; shares jump - Forbes.com
JP Morgan bankers on course for bumper bonuses | Business ...

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 ...


INVESTMENT POLICY – JPMorgan’s Investment Philosophy and INTERROGATORIES
Read: JPMorgan’s Investment Philosophy



 JPMorgan Chase Trust Management Fees - 
JP Morgan Trust Services

Fees and Trust Administration


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.

"JPMorgan's trust 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 service. 

The JPMorgan Chase Bank deducted from the trust Fiduciary Fees of $ 185,530. plus $ 8,826. from the IRA - a total of $ 194,356. for questionable trust management, investing of funds, tax matters and other matters.

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.

In comparison Smith Barney charges for Estate Settlement a fee of 2 % of the total assets.  

JPMorgan Business overview

The Banks must be restrained, and the financial system reformed, before there can be any sustainable recovery.
By Jesse of Le Café Américain
"The use theird customer money and public funds, for which they pay a pittance, to speculate in maarkets, distorting prices and taking enormous risks, in order to pay themselves outregeous bonuses. They buy politicial influence to enable regulatory capture and support their financial scheme. And when their bets go wrong, the public absorbs the losses.


Stay tuned! More updates will fallow!




This information is not intended to be legal advice. 
If you elect to rely on such information you do so at your own risk. 
Copyright © 2006-2010 GWW, Switzerland