{"id":2670,"date":"2012-11-07T20:04:48","date_gmt":"2012-11-07T20:04:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/wordpress\/?p=1720"},"modified":"2023-02-16T12:23:59","modified_gmt":"2023-02-16T12:23:59","slug":"contesting-trust-massachusetts-mutc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cape-law.com\/contesting-trust-massachusetts-mutc\/","title":{"rendered":"Contesting a Trust in Massachusetts | How the New MUTC Works"},"content":{"rendered":"
Lawyers in estate planning know the term \u201cdead hand\u201d to refer to efforts that living persons make to control property after they pass away. And while the term itself can cause an unpleasant mental image, it is the idea behind it, a.k.a. the \u201csettlor\u2019s intent,\u201d that has created serious difficulties with millions of beneficiaries over the years. That is because for centuries courts have been required to enforce the original intent of the drafter of a will or trust to the utmost extent when interpreting such a document\u2019s provisions. But much of this history has been turned upside down with the enactment of the Uniform Trust Code in Massachusetts. Instead, it seems now that the trust beneficiaries are in the driver seat. <\/p>\n
Since this article covers how to terminate trusts, it makes sense to identify what steps the settlor (creator of the trust) still can take in order to protect trust provisions from attack. And that centers mainly on the language featured throughout the Massachusetts UTC statutes of \u201cmaterial purpose.\u201d In the past, while many estate planning attorneys did advocate that settlors identify a trust purpose, those provisions in trusts had no actual legal effect. They were used to help courts and trustees interpret the settlor\u2019s desires, but there were no laws calling for these provisions. Now, however, as we\u2019ve been discussing, the laws do call for language regarding a purpose. <\/p>\n
But the inclusion of this concept of a \u201cmaterial purpose\u201d doesn\u2019t quite rise to the importance that a \u201csettlor\u2019s intent\u201d once had. Instead, the term is merely used as a basis for all kinds of actions taken by Massachusetts trust beneficiaries; An agreement or petition to contest a trust, to modify a trust, or to terminate a trust must refer in some way to the trust\u2019s material purpose. Many times, as in situations where no purpose is listed, the purpose might merely be \u201cto hold property for the beneficiaries.\u201d <\/p>\n
A key provision to the new Massachusetts Trust Code pertains to common fact that after a settlor has passed away, nobody except the beneficiaries has any interest in what happens to trust property. Because trusts are for the most part private documents, and not part of any public record, the beneficiaries of a trust are usually the only persons aware of trust property. So, in lawyers\u2019 offices throughout the United States, trusts of all kinds were \u201cillegally\u201d terminated and liquidated by consent of all beneficiaries. The new Uniform Trust Code provision merely acknowledges that fact, and allows for a \u201cnon-judicial settlement agreement.\u201d<\/p>\n
Still, such agreements are only valid to the extent that they do not violate a \u201cmaterial purpose,\u201d whatever that may be. And they are only binding upon the interested parties that have been given notice to the agreement. Massachusetts Courts, still having jurisdiction over such agreements, can therefore be used to challenge a trust that was illegally or deceptively changed or eliminated. <\/p>\n