Oklahoma probate law defines undue influence as that which compels the testator to do that which is against his will, from fear, the desire of peace, or some feeling which he is unable to resist. The influence must be undue, in order to vitiate the will, because influences of one kind or another surround every rational being, and operate necessarily in determining one’s course of conduct under every relation of life. Within due and reasonable limits such influence affords no ground of legal objection.

Picture of the Heart 6 Dude Ranch, Wyoming.

HEART 6 DUDE RANCH, WYOMING. IF YOU WANT YOUR ESTATE TO PASS TO THE PROPER PEOPLE, USE AN EXPERIENCED WILL AND TRUST ATTORNEY. BRENT HAS OVER 39 YEARS EXPERIENCE. HE KNOWS WHAT TO DO!

Undue influence necessary to set aside a will must be a present restraint, fraud or undue influence, operating upon the testator’s mind in the very act of making the will, and affecting its execution or the disposition it makes, as the undue influence must dominate testator at the time of making the will and contemporaneous threats have this effect.

Influence based on affection for members of a family is not undue influence, as such influence is natural and proper and in a different class from that which a stranger may obtain.

Photograph of American Bison at Yellowstone, 2015

GO ON VACATIONS! IT WILL CLEAR YOUR MIND AND GIVE YOU THE COURAGE TO MAKE DECISIONS!

Undue influence, such as will invalidate a will, must be something which destroys the free agency of the testator at the time when the instrument is made, and which, in effect, substitutes the will of another for that of the testator. It is not sufficient that the testator was influenced by the beneficiaries in the ordinary affairs of life, or that he was surrounded by them and in confidential relations with them at the time of its execution. Mere general influence, not brought to bear on the testamentary act, is not undue influence; but in order to constitute undue influence, it must be used directly to procure the will, and must amount to coercion destroying the free agency of the testator. Mere suspicion that undue influence was brought to bear is not sufficient to justify the setting aside of the will.

US SUPREME COURT BUILDING

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT BUILDING, WASHINGTON, DC. A GOOD LAWYER USUALLY KEEPS HIS CLIENTS OUT OF THE COURTHOUSE!

Based on the above summary of how an Oklahoma probate court will consider evidence of undue influence, it requires good proof.  I once had a case where we were able to prove undue influence.  An attorney-in-fact sequestered the will maker in her home.  Then locked the relatives out.  And had the will signed under those circumstances.  The court set the will aside for undue influence.

NAELA Logo

BRENT IS A LONG TIME MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ELDER LAW ATTORNEYS

Brent Coldiron is a practicing attorney will offices in Edmond/Oklahoma City and Midwest City.  Give him a call if you have questions.  His number is (405) 478-5655 or 737-2244.

Are you a co-trustee with someone else of a loved ones trust? Do you know someone who is a co-trustee? When you are a co-trustee with someone, things can go wrong.

NAELA Logo

BRENT IS A LONG TIME MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ELDER LAW ATTORNEYS

It doesn’t seem possible for things to go wrong when you have two people being a co-trustee. You may wonder what could go wrong if you have two trustees. When you have two trustees, those people may not agree on everything, which is where the disagreements may come into place.

In the case HALL v. CUTSINGER (345 P. 3d 412 (Okla. Civ. App. Div. 3 2015) a parent and her co-trustee had to bring action against the other co-trustee to recover money and assets her purportedly misappropriated while he was a co-trustee. The trustor and her daughter advanced all of court appointed expert’s fees, and then granting them a judgment against defendant son in the amount of $30,510.35. “With regard to trial court’s order requiring trustor and her daughter, as co-trustee, to advance defendant son’s portion of fees owed court appointed expert, expert was not a party to trustor and daughter’s action to recover money and assets purportedly misappropriated by son as co-trustee, and thus, statutory provisions governing parties seeking to recover costs or fees, or opposing a motion, did not apply.” The trustor and her daughter tried to recover money and assets purportedly misappropriated by son while acting as co-trustee, evidence was sufficient to support trial court’s finding that son had no apparent ability to pay his share of court appointed expert fees. They made seven attempts to serve him with a writ of general execution were unsuccessful, and attempts to garnish his bank accounts were unsuccessful because he had no money or assets, other than exempt funds, in those accounts. The trustor created the Norma J. Hall Living Trust and appointed her son as co-trustee. In 2008 when learning her son misappropriated money and assets belonging to both her and the trust, the trustor removed him as trustee and appointed her daughter as co-trustee. This case eventually went to trial on December, 2012. Appellants recovered a judgment against the son of approximately $1.4 million. After a hearing, the trial court issued an Order finding that each party was responsible for one-half of the accountant’s fees but that the son had no apparent ability to pay his share. The court ordered Appellants to pay the balance owed to the accountant and granted Appellants a cost judgment against the son in the amount of $30,510.35, the portion of the accountant’s fees owed by the son.

Wyoming View

BEAUTIFUL VIEW IN MOUNTAINS IN WYOMING. IF YOU WANT BEAUTIFUL LEGAL WORK SEE BRENT.

This case is stating that even though you are a trustee that doesn’t mean you can take money out of the trust. Being a co-trustee means that if the trustor passes away or gets ill, you and the other co-trustee are in charge of the trust. You have no responsibility of the trust until you act as a trustee of the trust.

Integrity and common sense will avoid lawsuits. If you are a trustee be honest. Don’t pay yourself without notifying the beneficiaries what you doing, how much you are paying yourself and why you deserve the fee. Do not commingle the trust funds with your money. Keep a separate trust account. Use a business arms length approach when conducting trust business. Bend over backwards to be fair to the beneficiaries. These are precautions you can follow that will make your life easier if you accept the responsibility to serve as a trustee.

PHOTOGRAPH OF BRENT MEETING WITH CLIENTS.

BRENT HAS BEEN HELPING CLIENTS WITH LEGAL PROBLEMS FOR OVER 39 YEARS. HE HAS A VERY GOOD REPUTATION. YOU CAN TRUST HIM TO KNOW WHAT TO DO.

An experienced probate and living trust attorney like Brent D. Coldiron, knows what to do in these situations. His fees are reasonable. The best money ever spent is to get good legal advice before signing your name to something. Contact Brent at (405) 478-5655 or 737-2244. His website is http://coldironlaw.com.

The language used in your trust determines when a beneficial share will vest, or be secure.

Photograph of Old Faithful.

OLD FAITHFUL GEYSER, YELLOWSTONE, 2015. LIKE OLD FAITHFUL SOMEDAY YOUR WILL IS GOING TO BE READ. MAKE SURE IT IS DOES WHAT YOU WANT IT TO WHEN YOU DIE.

This language was used in a recent court case in a mother’s revocable trust intended to benefit her children and grandchildren if a child was deceased:

Division of Trust and to Shares upon My Death, Division Date Defined: Upon my death, the Co-Trustee, shall immediately divide the trust principal into separate shares for the benefit in equal seven (7) shares for [children’s names deleted] …, per stirpes. This date shall be called the “Division Date”. Each share set aside for a child or more remote descendant of mine shall constitute a separate and distinct trust. The person for whose benefit a share is created … is the primary beneficiary of that share.

BRENT'S OFFICE

BRENT’S OFFICE IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MEMORIAL ROAD AT 1800 EAST MEMORIAL ROAD

Distribution of Income and Principal to My Descendants After the Division Date: After the Division Date, the Co-Trustee shall have the discretionary power to pay all or any portion of the income and principal of each share of each independent trust to or for the benefit of …, per stirpes. If any beneficiary shall be deceased at the time of distribution, their share shall be distributed to their children so long as they have obtained the age of 25 years or older. Any heir not of the age of 25 years shall have their share held in trust until such time as they reach the age of 25 years.

Termination of Trust: The share or proportionate part thereof of the trust principal set aside for each primary beneficiary shall be held and eventually distributed and paid over free and clear of trust [children’s names deleted]… within three years of the death of [mother’s name deleted] ….

One of the children survived his mother but died a year later [before the distribution date], leaving a surviving spouse but no children. His surviving spouse contested the trust seeking to recover her husband’s share of the trust for his estate [and ultimately in her pocket as his sole heir]. The trial probate and trust court entered its judgment against the wife and in favor of mother’s trust. The trial judge found the intent of the trust agreement was that in order for a child to inherit the child had to be alive at his mother’s death and also when the distribution was made. And because this child left no children his bequest had lapsed.

PICTURE OF BRENT'S OFFICE

FRONT DOOR TO BRENT’S OFFICE AT 1800 EAST MEMORIAL ROAD, OKLAHOMA CITY

The appellant court reversed the trial court. The interpretation of an unambiguous trust agreement is a question of law. Corr v. Corr, 2001 OK CIV APP 31, 21 P.3d 642, 644 [The appellant court cited a case handled by my law office :)]. In construing a trust agreement, our primary purpose is to ascertain and give effect to the trustor’s intent. If the language of the agreement is unambiguous, we must ascertain the intent of the trustor from the terms of the agreement as a whole.

The appellant court said there was no ambiguity in the language of the trust agreement in this case. Contingent rights vest when the contingency is removed. Pursuant to the trust agreement, the contingent beneficiaries’ rights in the trust vested upon the trustor’s death. The mother directed the co-trustee to establish separate and distinct trusts for the benefit of each beneficiary upon her death, establishing that date as the Division Date. As of that date, the contingency was removed and the beneficiaries’ interests vested. Personally I think the lawyer who drafted the trust could have made it clear that if a child did not survive to the division date his share would lapse.

The appellant court went on to say that a trust’s terms may postpone vesting of a beneficiary’s interest to the happening of some future event, such as survival to a distribution date. The appellant court observed in another decision the trust language provided that if any beneficiary was not living on the distribution date, then that person’s share would go to her issue per stirpes, or if she had no surviving issue, it would be divided among the other beneficiaries. Trust language may also provide for the interest of the beneficiary to be divested upon the happening of a condition subsequent.

In the case at hand the mother’s trust did not use any language establishing a distribution date. This is something the drafting lawyer missed. Because of this, the son’s share will pass to his surviving spouse under his estate.

The dissent was more sympathetic with the drafting lawyer. It said that the majority’s holding, that a gift in trust vested at the time of the trustor’s death and could not lapse when the beneficiary died before the distribution date, is incorrect pursuant to Oklahoma law and the unambiguous intent shown in the mother’s trust document.

With no authority, the majority declares “the contingent beneficiaries’ rights in the Trust vested upon the trustor’s death.” The majority finds that the death of the trustor was the contingency, then notes authority that a later event may divest the beneficiary’s rights, but that it did not in this case. Oklahoma authority shows that a trust gift vests on the distribution date, absent an express declaration to the contrary.

In construing a trust instrument, the intention of the trustor controls. In re Dimick’s Will, 1975 OK 10, 531 P.2d 1027, 1030. In Dimick, the testamentary trust directed that after the corpus was delivered to the trustee, the trust would continue for ten years, at which time half the assets would be divided between the testator’s two daughters and the other half would remain in the trust for the care of his wife until her death, at which time the remaining funds would be divided between the two daughters. At the end of the ten years, the trust was in debt so the trustees did not distribute any assets. One daughter survived the ten year period but died before the assets were distributed. The trial court held that her quarter share of the trust was a vested right and the court directed the trustee to distribute that share to her estate. The appellate court framed the issue as whether at the end of the ten year period, the then-surviving daughter acquired a vested interest in her share of the trust, which was not divested by her subsequent death before the actual distribution of the trust corpus. The court noted that if an instrument provides a definite time when the right to receive the legacy accrues, then the gift vests at that time, even though actual distribution may occur later. Id. at 1030. The Oklahoma Supreme Court found that the trust showed the testator’s intent that half the trust property should be vested in and distributed to his daughters alive at the end of the ten years, or if either was dead on that date then to her children. Id. at 1031. The court held that the daughter who survived the ten years had a vested interest at that time, even though distribution occurred later. Id.

In Sivia v. Snyder, 1973 OK CIV APP 8, 517 P.2d 813 (cert. denied), the trustor created a living trust which provided that on his death, the trustee should pay various last expenses and after all of the preceding parts of the trust had been complied with, pay the residue to four named persons. The trust provided that if any of those persons were deceased but had living issue at the distribution date, then the trustee should distribute their share to their issue, but if the deceased left no living issue, then that share would be divided between the surviving named residuary beneficiaries. After the trustor died, the trustee paid the expenses as required by the trust, but the IRS proposed additional taxes. The trustee then planned to distribute the trust to the four beneficiaries but retain the amount of the proposed additional taxes. After the partial distribution commenced but before it was complete, one of the beneficiaries died without issue. The trustee asked the court to construe the trust to determine whether the deceased beneficiary survived until the “distribution date” so that her share of the trust would be paid to her estate. The trial court found that the deceased beneficiary’s interest vested at the time of the testator’s death. The appellate court was unable to see how the trustor could have intended “distribution date” to be his date of death because the trust directed certain payments to be paid upon the trustor’s death, but payment of the residuary was not among those. Id. at 815. Indeed, the court noted that the trust provided the residuary beneficiaries were to be paid after all the other trust provisions were complied with, which necessarily indicated some later date. The court noted an estate is never distributed on the date of death and to find otherwise would be to give the phrase “distribution date” an “interpretation contrary to its ordinary meaning.” Id. at 815-816. The appellate court noted there were two remaining possibilities for the “distribution date”-either the date of actual distribution, or the date the trustee could first have made distribution. The court concluded the second option “seems to comport more nearly with what the settlor most likely intended.” The court found that the settlor would not have desired the beneficiaries’ enjoyment of the gift to depend on accident, delay, or inconvenience. The court held it chose to follow the majority view, and the more practical one, that vesting in these circumstances takes place on the first date the legacy could reasonably be paid by the trustee, which was when all the provisions of the trust had been complied with, with the exception of payment of the additional tax, for which a fund was set aside. This date of course was prior to the death of Miss Sivia. To hold otherwise would be to find that the settlor, by using ‘distribution date’ in the trust, provided for such unpredictable occurrences and delays to defeat the gift. Such occurrences and delays would then replace the settlor’s manifest intent to give to certain named beneficiaries. We find such an interpretation would be completely contrary not only to settlor’s intentions, but also contrary to the very purpose for which the trust instrument was prepared in the first place.

In this case, the trustor clearly showed an intent that the distribution date differed from the date of death and she provided for an outside limit to the distribution date, to guard against unforeseen delays as shown in Sivia. The distribution date cannot be more than three years after her date of death. But as in Sivia, the interest of the beneficiaries does not vest on the date of the trustor’s death. Because Donald did not survive until the distribution date and because he did not leave children, his share lapsed under the plain language of the trust instrument.

This outcome is also supported by the Restatement. The trust instrument here shows the trustor’s intent to provide for her seven children. Restatement (Second) of Property, Don. Trans. § 27.3 (1988), provides: If a gift is made in favor of a class described as “children,” “grandchildren,” “brothers,” “sisters,” “nephews,” “nieces,” “cousins,” or by similar class gift terms that describe a one-generation class,

(1) a person within the primary meaning of the class gift term who dies after the dispositive instrument takes effect but before such class member is entitled to distribution of his or her share is not excluded from the class by reason of such death, if such death does not make impossible the fulfillment of a condition, unless additional language or circumstances indicate otherwise, or an applicable statute provides otherwise.

(2) If additional language or circumstances indicate otherwise or an applicable statute provides otherwise, the share in the class gift that such deceased class member would have taken had he or she lived, when the share of each class member is not a specified amount, goes to enlarge the shares of the class members not excluded, except to the extent that substitute takers are provided to take in place of the deceased class member by additional language or circumstances or by a statute.

Here, distribution was conditioned upon the class member or his living issue surviving until the distribution date. Donald’s death without issue prevented fulfillment of that condition.

The trust instrument at issue here shows the trustor’s intent that to receive a share, a beneficiary must survive (or have surviving issue) by the time of distribution, which was to be no more than three years after the death of the trustor.

The trustee has complete discretion when to distribute during that time frame. It also seems clear that the trustor’s intent was to provide for her seven children. If any child died before the distribution date, without children, that child’s share would necessarily go to the remaining living children. That comports with the trust language and the trustor’s intent. Donald died before his interest vested and the trial court correctly found that his interest lapsed.

PHOTOGRAPH OF BRENT IN HIS OFFICE.

BRENT COLDIRON’S OFFICE IS LOCATED AT 1800 EAST MEMORIAL ROAD, OKLAHOMA CITY AND 2801 PARKLAWN DRIVE, MIDWEST CITY. BRENT HAS OVER 39 YEARS EXPERIENCE!

As well as the dissent argued it could not save the mother’s trust from the drafting of the trust attorney. An experienced living trust attorney like Brent D. Coldiron, knows what to do in these situations. His fees are reasonable. The best money ever spent is to get good legal advice before signing your name to something. Contact Brent at (405) 478-5655 or 737-2244. His website is http://coldironlaw.com.

Joint Tenancy is Trumped by a Living Revocable Trust

While most knowledgeable attorneys would say that a living trust is superior overall to owning property in joint tenancy, a joint tenancy with right of survivorship is the poor man’s trust. While American’s love their idioms, do you really want … Continue reading →

OKLAHOMA’S DNR

Have you thought about what would happen if you became terminally ill, brain dead or subject to a long term disease that rendered you unable to speak or make your decisions about medical care? Would you want a feeding tube … Continue reading →

PLAN YOUR ESTATE

Does a loved one of yours have an estate plan? Have you thought to yourself that you need one. Are you wondering where to start or how to set one up.  Do you want to avoid probate? Estate planning is … Continue reading →

JOINT OWNERSHIP OR A LIVING TRUST. EACH AVOIDS PROBATE. WHICH IS BETTER?

Joint Ownership is not as useful as a Living Trust. In fact it can be dangerous to your financial security and to the inheritance you may hope to leave. Joint ownership becomes especially dangerous when there is a second marriage, … Continue reading →

RELYING ON A WILL COST THE HEIR

An Texas  lawyer drafted a will for an Texas resident. The only problem was that the Texas resident owned oil, gas and other minerals in Oklahoma. The will stated, “all [of the mother’s] property of every kind and character of … Continue reading →