An EoD reader on involuntary redistribution of assets actions

From an EoD reader:

Involuntary Redistribution of Assets, a.k.a, “doing what they want to do with assets,” rather than following distributive rules regarding assets is the grand canyon of probate and estate fraud affecting far more than the beneficiaries – since those “duties” fall under state and federal laws where actions are recorded, in theory, upon state and federal tax returns. In fact, the only reason for having Executors and Fiduciary Trustees is the orderly administration of assets for recording purposes so that proper amounts of tax may be paid. The IRS cares little what happens to the assets or to whom they are distributed, in theory, as long as they are recorded properly in the fashion by which they alone set the design for recording purposes.

When trusts are written with language that disclaims responsibility of trustees or successor trustees, or Executors to “attend to or account for” assets of prior fiduciaries, and offers immunities to them for ignoring those responsibilities, an “open door” to theft, embezzlements, involuntary distributions, and misappropriations is created that are easily disguised as something they aren’t – even to the IRS. This fiduciary open door policy is even accepted by courts despite the primary obligation of fiduciaries to “collect and attend to, and account for” assets for the purpose of taxation, proper probate administration, and answering to beneficiaries. The primary obligations are “undone” by a self proclaimed ability of refusal to do that for which they are paid to do – a breach at the onset of undertaking such obligations. Assets do not disappear without acquiescence by Executor, or Trustee, and are not converted without acquiescence by Executor, or Trustee, or engineered to take advantage of the fiduciary “open door policy” to do so, using that simple excuse as the basis for exoneration and escape.

Not recognizing the simultaneous or former occurrence from happening is a denial of fiduciary obligation sufficient to prevent denial to beneficiaries and the basis upon which tax fraud occurs. When it occurs, subsequent fraud nearly always occurs as a continuing cover up of the theft, embezzlement, misappropriation of assets, and false tax filings, if any in order to take the hidden path to escape.

That beneficiaries are left with the problem is not an adequate solution to the fraudulently engineered fiduciary affair, and actually unfairly attributes to the beneficiaries control they may not have where fiduciaries are the controlling individuals of such affairs. When the Executor and Trustee (or successor trustee) are the two parties in control, collusion, or worse, one and the same entity destroys any possibility of impartiality, and therefore, integrity, in the process since the obvious objective is to control the appearance of fiduciary duty where absence of it exists.

While absence of fiduciary duty need not exist between the Executor/Trustee, presumption of innocence is destroyed where they are one and the same, and any appearance of impropriety exists. With no obligation to produce interim reports allows a virtual time frame that allows any manner of theft, embezzlement, and misappropriation to occur in a licensed situation that actually adds to the benefit of conversion of assets, and malfeasance that is done, and extension of tax return deadlines increases that period of disguise to prevent most recoveries, or to fall within the statute of limitations law sets up as the productive period of catching tortfeasors and criminals. Trust law is constructed to aid in trust breach and conversion rather than to prevent it. Refusal to reveal activities during estate and trust administration further accomplishes the ability of conversions and misappropriations, thefts, and embezzlements without the benefit of recourse. Hence, Estate and Trust law accounts are immensely profitable to those who make that their specialty in law and finance.

Expanding upon such open door policy to theft, trustees regularly confine beneficiaries in contracts made with former owners/trustees to allow such conventions as the right to value assets, the right to borrow assets, the right to sell assets without court order, and the right to exchange assets, or the appointment of agents to do so. Proper administration is inherently flawed by the ability of law to place assets in the hands of combined Executor/Trustees who themselves have inherent conflicts of interest, and more incentive to break, rather than to uphold proper administration, and to accord each an aura of propriety where none could exist and contracts are written to permit that treatment, and exonerate the participants. There is little courts can do to correct systemic fallacies adopted as legitimate law, and willing to endorse as acceptable administration of other people’s assets in such a flawed manner. Such mushy administration does not lend itself to credibility or to exacting legal principles to enforce.

The creation of a flourishing industry of probate, Estate, and Trust fraud can be the result, and from your columns, often is, by allowing perpetrators the full access, authority, and time frames to do so without accountability or veracity. The system is in a shambles compared to older standards of non-commercial probate, Estate and Trust Law.