What is a Trust Protector?
What is a Trust Protector and Do I Really Need One? Can it protect me and my money? How does a Trust Protector act as a check and balance? What does a trust protector do exactly?
In our gratification-obsessed society, everything is subject to change – even our most intimate relationships.
Today, you’re in a very different place than 10 or 15 years ago. You’ve probably lost touch with many of your old friends. You might live in a different household, a different job, and practice different hobbies. The past is gone forever.
15 years from today, chances are good that things will look different still. While a typical irrevocable trust provides the strongest framework for preserving your hard-earned assets, it lacks the flexibility that your ever-changing circumstances demand.
Simply put, you need a trust protector to back you up. That’s why it’s so important to upgrade to a Trust package with the special power of appointment and trust protector. This added protection gives you the flexibility to respond to unforeseen changes and dilemmas.
Why a Trust Protector?
In many countries, trust protectors are a requirement in an estate plan. While this isn’t true of the United States, legal experts are virtually unanimous in their agreement that trust protectors are a crucial component of any irrevocable trust and estate planning.
A trust protector is a third-party individual – separate from the trustee – who understands the dynamics of your family. He acts as a check on the actions of the trustee and maintains a fiduciary responsibility to the trust. By protecting the assets of the trust from the inevitable squabbles that occur whenever there’s money to be had, he lives up to his name.
The validity of the trust protector has been upheld time and again. The court’s decision in McLean Irrevocable Trust v. Patrick Davis, P.C. (Mo. Ct. App. 2009) clearly establishes the legal basis for the office’s existence and provides a framework for the definition of its roles.
A subsequent case brought by the same plaintiff, McLean Irrevocable Trust v. Ponder, is even more pointed. Here, the court ruled that a trust protector has a fiduciary obligation to take action against unresponsive, incompetent or malevolent trustees.
The trust protector doesn’t have the luxury of looking the other way. He’s like an insurance policy that automatically comes to the rescue whenever a trust’s integrity is threatened – just like the crucial insurance policies that we carry on our homes, cars, and businesses. The trust protector provides the same backup planning.
As we outline in this comprehensive article on “The Trust Protector: Power & Responsibilities”, a trust protector can legally do the following:
- Replace your trustee at will
- Serve as a mediator for squabbling trustees and beneficiaries
- Veto large disbursements in accordance with existing agreements
- Change the trust’s state of incorporation if you relocate or to avoid taxes
- Veto questionable investment decisions and beneficiary distributions
- Address legal challenges to the trust
- Terminate a dwindling or unnecessary trust
The true beauty of the role, though, lies in its versatility. A trust protector can do as much or as little as you need. He’s the perfect ally in any trust-related jam.
Let’s see 2 real life examples of what a trust protector can do.
Protecting Your Assets for All
Best Friends, Just Not for Life
After graduating from college, Sal started painting houses to make ends meet. Two summers in, he had saved up enough to buy a truck and some tools. Before long, he was working as a foreman for a contracting company that replaced roofs, wiring systems, and insulation in aging suburban homes.
Soon enough, he got sick of repairing other peoples’ homes and decided to buy and fix up his own. His first buy was a sad-looking foreclosure in a working-class neighborhood just outside of Philly, but he worked on it until it was the pride of the block. He booked a cool $100,000 profit from its sale.
Soon, Sal was a mini-real estate mogul who managed a portfolio of eight properties in the area. He had a great system: He’d fix up each house, sell it for well above market price, book the profits and plow the principal back into a new property.
To protect his years of hard work and preserve a legacy for his growing family, Sal set up an irrevocable trust and named his young son as its sole beneficiary. He chose Dave, his former college roommate, to be its trustee. Dave came from a well-off family, so he understood how to manage money and he refused the offer of being paid to serve as trustee.
The experience wasn’t always conflict-free. Sal had a knack for identifying market peaks, but Dave didn’t always listen to his advice. Sal’s properties were always the trust’s most valuable assets, and the proceeds from their sales provided much-needed liquidity.
Fifteen years later, matters have come to a head. Sal’s son has been helping his dad fix up houses for years and finally wants what – he thinks – is due to him. He approaches Dave and proposes using $100,000 of the trust’s funds to buy a late-model Porsche for his personal use. As a wealthy man who is used to having a nice ride, Dave happily agrees to the plan.
Sal is disgusted. Dave has refused to sell any houses for several years, so the trust is low on cash. A frivolous car purchase would further risk the solvency of the trust and, should an unforeseen event occur, potentially jeopardize everything Sal has achieved.
If Sal had a trust protector, he could put a stop to this nonsense by firing Dave or at least vetoing his questionable purchasing decision. Sal’s son certainly deserves a decent vehicle, but perhaps the trust protector could have forced the trustee to purchase a Camry over a Carrera.
As it stands, Sal can do nothing but watch Dave approve the purchase of a car that he doesn’t really approve of.
Let’s turn to Susan.
As an emergency-medicine doctor, Susan has earned a tidy sum over the years. She’s approaching retirement, though, and her family’s history of metastatic breast cancer has given her pause. To ensure that she qualifies for government medical benefits in the event of a grave illness, she sets up an irrevocable trust with her three adult children as beneficiaries.
As an experienced attorney who’s also nearing retirement, Susan’s brother-in-law Paul is more than happy to serve as the trustee. Things start off well, but Susan’s mother-in-law falls ill about a year later. With her father-in-law lacking the strength to care for her and Paul’s career winding down, Paul steps up to care for her. Susan and her husband, a busy vice president at a local manufacturing company, are grateful.
As Paul’s mother becomes sicker, caring for her turns into a full-time job, and Paul retires a year ahead of schedule to accommodate her needs. Since his dad isn’t in great shape, Paul is in heavy demand. He spends several hours per day at his parents’ house, handling everything from laundry and cooking to basic structural repairs and drug administration.
Paul is a fundamentally decent man who’s under an incredible amount of strain. Meanwhile, Susan remains wrapped up in her demanding career. As their parents’ medical bills pile up, Paul tentatively begins to use the trust’s liquid assets to pay for wound-care supplies, prescription drugs, orthopedic equipment and other important medical supplies. Later, he starts withdrawing modest amounts of cash to pay for their food and home supplies. He never asks for his brother’s permission or stops to consider the ethical ramifications of his actions, but he assumes that his brother and sister-in-law would approve.
When Susan finds out, she’s placed in a tricky bind because Paul is a family member taking care of her father-in-law. After all, is she really going to sue Paul after he has been so helpful? While she’s sympathetic to the needs of her husband’s parents, she’s furious that her nest egg is being used in an ethically questionable manner. Without a trust protector, though, she can’t remove Paul as trustee or check his actions in any meaningful way. She’s stuck – and her legacy is threatened as a result.
Eventually, though, Paul crosses a line. Instead of using the trust’s funds to pay for medical supplies or sustenance for his ailing parents, he begins to make deposits into his own private bank account. He convinces himself that he’s merely being compensated for his time, but the truth is clear: He’s pilfering funds from Susan’s trust without her knowledge.