We're sorry, you do not qualify for the 30-day trial because you indicated that you are not an attorney, financial planner or work for a law firm. If this is an error please call us at (866) 267-0947.
If you would like more information on elder law and long-term care planning go to SpecialNeedsAnswers.com.
A weekly roundup of recent elder law news and practice development articles culled from news sources around the nation.
READ MOREA client is suing a Connecticut elder law and estate planning firm for referring her to a financial adviser who has allegedly been involved in a long-running scheme to defraud seniors. ...
READ MORE
Provides attorneys with the tools they need to develop their special needs practice and position themselves as a valuable resource for local families and organizations.
Questions or Comments? Click here.
FROM THE KNOWLEDGE BANK
A U.S. district court finds that the trustee of a pooled trust complied with the unambiguous terms of a special needs trust when it retained trust funds in the account following the beneficiary’s death. The court reserves for trial questions of the beneficiary’s intent at the time she signed the trust documents and the trustee’s affirmative defense of laches. National Foundation for Special Needs Integrity, Inc. v. Devon C. Reese (S.D. Ind., No. 1:15-cv-00545 TWP-DKL, Oct. 26, 2016).
After being severely injured at age 49 by a medical procedure, Theresa Givens placed her settlement proceeds of approximately $250,000 into a special needs pooled trust managed by the National Foundation for Special Needs Integrity, Inc. Prior to doing so, she considered ways to use the money to benefit her children and grandchildren. Finally, expressing reservations about sharing the settlement funds with her children, she deposited the entire amount into the special needs trust.
When Givens executed the joinder agreement to join the trust, she listed herself as the only beneficiary. The trust agreement stated that upon the primary beneficiary’s death, any amounts remaining in the account would first reimburse the state for Medicaid services, then be distributed to named remainder beneficiaries or, if none were named or surviving, stay with the trust. When Givens died just a few weeks after funding the trust, the National Foundation kept almost all the money that she had deposited.
Almost a year later, Devon Reese, Givens’ son, opened an estate for his mother, and more than three years later sent a demand letter asserting that Givens had mistakenly named herself as beneficiary, believing that “the remainder would be distributed to her children upon her death.” The National Foundation sought a declaration from the court that it had properly transferred the funds into its remainder share account. Reese counterclaimed for recovery of the remaining funds, seeking equitable relief of reformation of the trust agreement to reflect what he contends were his mother’s wishes.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana finds in the National Foundation’s favor, holding that the plain language of the trust agreement is unambiguous and that under its terms the remaining funds in Givens’ account properly stayed with the pooled trust. The court denies Reese’s motion for summary judgement on reformation due to inconclusive evidence on Givens’ intent to bequeath her children any remaining trust funds, leaving open the possibility of reformation at trial. The court also denies summary judgment on the National Foundation’s equitable defense of laches.
For a full text of this decision, click here.
