My friend and her sister are co-executors of their (recently deceased) father's estate. A living trust was set up to care for their mother who has dementia. I've urged my friend to get her own attorney to represent her interests in the estate and perhaps serve as a buffer (the sisters are in continual conflict). When my friend mentioned the idea of getting an independent attorney, the trust administrator apparently hit the ceiling, telling her that if she did so their firm would resign from the trust. This type of intimidation seems unethical and possibly even worse, but perhaps I'm wrong. Is there some reason why my friend should not have her own legal advocate?
The thing is. It seems to me that two threads are getting tangled here: the father's estate and the division thereof on the one hand; and the living trust set up to care for the mother, the administrator of which is having kittens at the thought that the warring co-executor sisters are now about to lawyer up and he will have to deal with lawyers ON TOP of siblings at loggerheads, and every letter to and fro is going to cost the trust money which is supposed to be ring-fenced for mother's care.
Why do you think your friend needs an advocate? - apart from relieving her of any disagreeable necessity of speaking to her sister, I mean.
Friend could have another attorney look at it, but I would advise she not tell the firm she is doing so. Maybe having a consultation with another attorney she will realize that the firm's only job is to work in mom's best interest, sisters have nothing to do with that.
There is nothing to be accomplished, in my own opinion, with there being another lawyer added to what is already a problem.. The Successor Trustee(s) becomes the Trustee upon the death of the original Trustor who created the Trust.
Trusts are pretty much written in stone. The Trust likely protects the Mom until her death, and then is distributed to the heirs. That is how they are often written. There is no reason that the Sister/friend cannot take the Trust to a Lawyer, let that Lawyer read it, and then advise her of questions she should ask going forward of the Lawyer who is assisting with the Trust.
To be honest, if you don't have legal expertise, I would consider staying out of what already may be a mess going forward with bickering and carryings on which you cannot know details of, nor rightness of actions being taken. Just wish them luck. Trusts, as I said, can be complicated, but usually are pretty well written. Sadly the Trustor put two bickering people in as co. They will be "co-ing" everything from now on, I imagine, every little investment and every move. It will be a nightmare. I would steer clear. Let them do what they do, which is apparently bicker. Just my humble opinion. I would recommend Mediate.com to these two, and steer clear.
Alva is 100% correct, unless mom was a co-trustee with dad, that now the trust is irrevocable. It is likely the trust attorney doesn't want to eat into assets to fight a legal battle with another attorney.
To the OP - I think you need to step out of this. That you say your friend wants to "represent her own interests" in regards to dad's estate sounds a little like a money grab - not saying it is - but right now, your friend has no "right" to anything from dad's estate - mom is the rightful beneficiary, and it looks like dad knew what he was doing setting things up so mom would always have care. Good for him!
I advise this because a friend of my MIL is the beneficiary of a trust. Only child so no siblings or other family to bicker or fight or contest. However, once her very wealthy parents passed, it was revealed that her parents had changed the terms of the trust, unknown to her.
Instead of inheriting a sizeable estate, with enough income to live comfortably for the rest of her life, she was told that because she took care of her parents for the last several years of their lives, quitting her job and moving many states away, since she had lived with her parents "for free", she was limited to a very small quarterly disbursement. Not nearly enough to live on. She had not worked in years, and was now so ill herself that she could not commit to working. She is not old enough for SS, and has not been able to jump through the hoops to get SSDI and keeps getting denied. She is, on paper, modestly wealthy, but cannot support herself. She relies on food banks and kindness of friends.
Mom was advised not to have 2 Executors. I was the one who lived in the same town. Brother was 7 hrs away and other brother didn't care. So I was it. I don't understand Trusts completely. Now is the trustee different than a trust administrator? I am looking at this as a trust administrator its the firms responsibility to see that Moms care is paid for, she is getting what she needs personally bills being paid and monies in the trust are getting the highest yield in investments? Are the sisters trustees or beneficiaries? And if beneficiaries are they not allowed to make sure the firm is handling the trust as it should be? I would think so.
As Executors to the estate there is a Will? And that Will stipulates how Dad wants his estate carried out. So why the conflict? The trust cannot be probated, right?
I was her successor trustee; upon her death, administration of the trust became my responsibility. But, upon her death the trust went from revocable to irrevocable, meaning I could not change the terms of the trust.
The trust spelled out how her estate was to be distributed to her beneficiaries.
I am also the executrix of her will. But, in conjunction with the trust, her will is a "pour over" will, in that any assets not specifically mentioned "pour over" into the trust - for example, if there were certain pieces of jewelry she might have wanted one specific person to have, she would specify this in her will; but any other jewelry is to be distributed to her beneficiaries as the new trustee of the trust (me) sees fit.
By setting up her estate like this, there has been no need for me to go to probate court. I have had to provide a copy of her death certificate and the certificate of trust to the various institutions holding assets, and have the proceeds sent to me. Her accounts are still set up in the name of her trust; they just have a different tax ID number, and a different successor to administrate the account.
Since it is not unheard of for probate attorneys to charge 10% of the value of the estate to probate a will, this saved us considerable money. The whole idea of this was to not have to involve lawyers.
I'm guessing there has been tension between these 2 sisters for sometime, which is why dad set up a third party trust administrator. If, for instance, the sisters can't agree on what sort of care mom needs, this ensures mom is taken care of the way dad thought she would be taken care of.
It's a pretty big legal process to set up a living revocable trust, and it can be pricey; but the advantage is the ease of the estate being settled after the owner of the trust passes. My mom died in October; I am trying to get her estate settled by the end of the year, which would have been impossible if I had to go through probate court (especially now with courts being way behind due to covid).