Sunday, April 2, 2017

In which I try to convince Primo that a neutral third-party as trustee for the grandkids might actually be better for them and would not be a sign that Primo was betraying his nieces and nephews

Niece #2 wanted money from the trust for a car.

Primo already disbursed funds to Niece #1 for a car.

Stephanie's boyfriend of several years sells cars. He found a car for N2, but there was some weird stuff in the contract about how he couldn't waive the commission and that bothered Primo A LOT.

Me: Either you are going to have to be super involved in this kind of decision or you are going to have to let it go.

Primo: But what if Stephanie's boyfriend* is scamming N2 on the car?

Me: It's her money. She's an adult. And now, your parents are winning, because they are pitting you against the rest of your family. Why else would they designate you as the trustee for their grandchildren's money instead of the children's parents?

Primo: I hate doing this.

Me: Then resign!

Primo: But I would feel guilty - like I had abandoned a responsibility.

Me: If a lawyer were the trustee, he could ask all these questions about the commission and even if it makes the family angry at him, it does not affect the rest of their relationship. The kids might be better off with a neutral third party who does not have to balance family ties with the trust.

Primo: Maybe.

* Who is a lovely man and who has not given us any reason to believe he is dishonest

1 comment:

  1. I get the feeling that you've abandoned a responsibility. But a lawyer is a specialist in what they do. Primo is an engineer, but if a family member had a job to do that required a different type of engineer, I don't think he'd hesitate to suggest that they go to a specialist, would he? I mean, isn't it the same thing?