[WSBAPT] TEDRA terms contra old court order

Tue Mar 14 12:23:56 PDT 2017

My recommendation was based on the following in the initial fact pattern (emphasis added)

"The order  further provided  that current income beneficiaries could pick a successor corporate trustee but under no circumstances could any other trust beneficiary serve as trustee."

This makes me think that third parties, seeing this order, might refuse to work with a beneficiary trustee.

But, perhaps worth a try.

Heather

Heather S. de Vrieze
Attorney-at-Law
[cid:image001.jpg at 01D013C2.30F35160]
3909 California Avenue SW
Seattle, WA 98116-3705
(206)938-5500
heatherd at westseattlelaw.com<mailto:heatherd at westseattlelaw.com>
www.westseattlelaw.com<http://www.westseattlelaw.com/>

Click here to connect with de Vrieze | Carney on Facebook:   [FB Logo] <https://www.facebook.com/DeVriezeCarney>

CONFIDENTIAL & PRIVILEGED. This e-mail message may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this e-mail message and any attachment.

From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Paul Neumiller
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 11:12 AM
To: 'WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv' <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] TEDRA terms contra old court order

I am curious on why you recommend going back to the judge when you have unanimous approval by the family members?  On a practical basis, who would have grounds to complain or challenge the matter if all of the parties agreed?  Does a court really need to know (or care) if all of the parties agree to not follow a 27 year old court order?  Put another way, does the court having any standing to complain if none of the parties care (AND, how would a court even know 27 years after the fact and none of the family members complain?)

[cid:image007.jpg at 01D29CBD.D7911FD0]

From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Heather deVrieze
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 2:08 PM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] TEDRA terms contra old court order

Depending on how specific the old order was on what was NOT allowed, I would be inclined to draft a TEDRA Petition, have everyone sign off consenting to a proposed order doing what you propose and getting a new Order signed off on by the judge.

It sounds as though circumstances really have overcome the careful planning done at the time, but laying that out for the Court and getting new order would be clear.

Heather

Heather S. de Vrieze
Attorney-at-Law
[cid:image001.jpg at 01D013C2.30F35160]
3909 California Avenue SW
Seattle, WA 98116-3705
(206)938-5500
heatherd at westseattlelaw.com<mailto:heatherd at westseattlelaw.com>
www.westseattlelaw.com<http://www.westseattlelaw.com/>

Click here to connect with de Vrieze | Carney on Facebook:   [FB Logo] <https://www.facebook.com/DeVriezeCarney>

CONFIDENTIAL & PRIVILEGED. This e-mail message may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this e-mail message and any attachment.

From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Cyrus Field
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 1:29 PM
To: 'WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv' <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBAPT] TEDRA terms contra old court order

Folks- I could use a reality check. Husband/father died back in 1990 creating typical testamentary trust for spouse for life, with residue passing in equal shares to their two children at her passing. A court order from 1990 in the probate appointed spouse as trustee and a corporate trustee as successor. The order  further provided  that current income beneficiaries could pick a successor corporate trustee but under no circumstances could any other trust beneficiary serve as trustee.

Fast forward 26 years and now trust holds less than $500k in assets, mom is thinking of stepping down as trustee but doesn't want a corporate trustee to take over, and residual beneficiaries are no longer teenagers.  All interested parties would like to enter into a non-judicial TEDRA agreement appointing children as successor co-trustees, despite old court order (Custodian of trust brokerage account would support such a change as well).

In reviewing RCW 11.96A.220 and .030(2)(c)(ii), I don't see anything prohibiting interested parties from agreeing to such but was wondering if I'm missing something (personally, I feel uncomfortable taking action that is so expressly against a court order)? Thanks in advance for any thoughts/guidance, Cy

Cyrus W. Field, Attorney at Law (admitted in Washington and Oregon)
phone: 360-472-1223 Mail: POB 367, Shaw Island, WA 98286 Office: 640 Mullis St. Friday Harbor, WA
******************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail message, including attachments, may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail in error, please e-mail the sender at cyfield at rockisland.com<mailto:cyfield at rockisland.com> and destroy or delete the original and any copies.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20170314/9d2f2daf/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 7107 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20170314/9d2f2daf/image002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5137 bytes
Desc: image005.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20170314/9d2f2daf/image005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 11311 bytes
Desc: image007.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20170314/9d2f2daf/image007.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6754 bytes
Desc: image009.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20170314/9d2f2daf/image009.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image010.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5611 bytes
Desc: image010.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20170314/9d2f2daf/image010.png>