Legal Question in Wills and Trusts in California
Thank you for your answer Michele. I am asking this question once again for a second or third opinion, as it is most appreciated. The question is below as follows:
My Mom passed away in June of 2010. My brother is Steve Richardson (Trustee). I am Alex Richardson. On the Trust it states that the Trustee shall divide the children's Trust into two equal shares, one share for each of the Grantor's two children Steve Richardson and Alex Richardson. Provided Alex Richardson is living at the Grantor's death and elects to receive the improved real property at [Address], the property shall be distributed to Alex Richardson as part of his distributive share. The real property shall be valued at its net fair market value, net of selling expenses, which shall be assumed to be 10% of the fair market value. The amount so calculated shall be referred to as the Net Fair Market Value. In the event the net fair market value of the residence is greater than the share Steve Richardson receives, Alex Richardson shall pay such amount as required to equalize the difference in distributions between Steve Richardson and Alex Richardson not later than the tenth anniversary of the Grantor's death.
My question: If Alex Richardson elects to reside at the property, is it fair that he pays the full amount of property tax and homeowners insurance for ten years while residing at the property, or should Steve Richardson (Trustee) pay half of the property tax and insurance for ten years, since he is also half owner of the property? (Please note: Steve Richardson (Trustee) does not reside at the property).
1 Answer from Attorneys
You have an error in your question. If the terms of the trust are as you describe, Steve would not be an owner of the property for those ten years. At most he would have some kind of equitable lien on it. With a trust as you describe the trustee should convey free and clear title to Alex at or around the time Alex elects the property as part of his share of the trust distribution. Steve should retain no interest in the property except the right to a payment ten years later.