Law advice needed!

[danaeris]

So, lawyers are giving my mother conflicting stories. Here's the deal:

My grandfather dies in New Jersey, leaving my brother and I inheritances, but specifies that they should remain in trust, with my mother as the trustee, until we each reach the age of 35.

Some people are telling us that the money must stay in New Jersey, invested there, until that time. Others are telling my mother that she can move the money elsewhere now that the estate is finally settled.

Anyone have any idea which is correct? Hey, it's worth a shot. :)

Comments

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

The correct thing to do is to find an attorney in NJ and get an answer from him or her, and not to trust free lagal advice form the internet.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

Josh, I'm sure you mean well, but have you examined the way you phrased that statement? Because it really comes across to me as a subtly underhanded put-down. And I know you don't mean that, because you're a nice guy.

Needless to say, my mother is already waiting to hear from a lawyer. However, I know people who are lawyers. I don't BELIEVE any of them have licenses in NJ, but I could be confused.

[night--watch.livejournal.com]

He has a point...

for my non-expert opinion, I'm pretty sure a "trustee" can do anything but spend it.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

I never meant to imply that he didn't have a point. I simply take issue with the way he chose to phrase his point. Intentionally or not, it came across as mocking and contemptuous. I could try to dissect the sentence in order to support my statement, but I'd rather avoid that if possible.

[unseelie23.livejournal.com]

I can't speak for NJ, but as of 10 years ago in MI, a trust formed in Michigan needed to stay in Michigan.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

Good to know...

One of the reasons I asked here is because the idea seemed so unlikely to me. Why would they make such a law? In my case, both myself and my trustee live in a different country (forget a different state!) from where the money would be, which is a bit of a ridiculous situation. Having a law which necessitates that situation seems a little silly. But, knowing that one state has such a law, it makes the idea that NJ does that much more plausible.

[rocketgeek.livejournal.com]

Unless there is some direct provision in the trust documents, then your mother only has a duty to manage the money in the manner most beneficial to you and your brother.

[redhawke.livejournal.com]

DISCLAIMER: I am an attorney, but I am not YOUR attorney. I have no training in New Jersey law, and hereby expressly disclaim any expertise either in probate/testamentary law, or in New Jersey law in general. DO NOT TAKE ANYTHING WRITTEN HERE AS LEGAL ADVICE OR COUNSEL. Nothing herein should constitute either an offer or acceptance of legal representation whatsoever. If you have any questions regarding the below opinion, PLEASE SEEK COMPETENT COUNSEL IN YOUR JURISDICTION.

Sorry about that. Legal necessity.

I haven't found anything in a cursory search of NJ law online one way or another, but such a rule wouldn't surprise me, for one simple reason - jurisdiction. Generally, once money or property crosses state lines, it leaves the ability of the state to control or oversee it. It would be a big pain, should something go wrong with the money, for a NJ court to enforce a judgment over the funds in question.

Take a simple hypothetical - money trusted in NJ is moved, say, to California, and then half is lost by a spendthrift trustee. Where do you sue the trustee? Under which state's law is the case decided? Most importantly, if the court wants to take action like rescinding the trustee's authority, how will they get the money back?

Some of this is easy to answer. The trust is a NJ creation, and so its terms would almost certainly be interpreted according to NJ law. Other courts will try to properly interpret NJ law if they have to, but you likely would have difficulty suing the California trustee in NJ courts, if for no other reason than that NJ, under federalism, has no police power to go get the money. They rely on California's kindness (and certain treaty obligations) to act on their behalf. Nowadays, that's mostly pro forma, but when the laws were written, it wasn't. Even nowadays, the procedure for lodging one state court's judgments in another state court are a bit long and involved, and can be fouled up pretty easily by a canny lawyer. And frankly, multiply that by about a thousand if the money crosses international borders, where international treaties are involved. And legislatures very infrequently differentiate between a friendly government like Canada's, and a less-than-friendly one like the Cayman Islands, partly because one interpretation of the Constitution says they can't. Better, often, in state legislatures' minds, to just keep the money where that state's courts can lay their grubby mitts on the money in question.

FWIW.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

Thank you so much for this answer! Although obviously you cannot give me a definitive answer on whether this is the law in NJ, you have given me something equally valuable: an understanding of the reasoning behind laws of this nature.

Doesn't mean I like the law any more though.

If I didn't trust my mother, though, it WOULD keep my money safe. So I shouldn't complain too much. :)

*sends hugs your way* I hope all is well with you and Jo. I'm hoping that I can visit in December. We'll have to see!