Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (11) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: emma06 Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 85  
Subject: RLT as 2nd Benificiary for Funds Date: 7/25/2005 3:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Can you name your trust as a secondary beneficiary on mutual fund accounts ? I've designated a person for my primary beneficiary but if that person dies I want my estate to be handled as I've requested in my RLT by my lawyer. At one time I didn't think you could name a Trust as a beneficiary but I thought that might have changed in the last few years.

Michelle
Print the post Back To Top
Author: foolazis Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 74 of 85
Subject: Re: RLT as 2nd Benificiary for Funds Date: 7/25/2005 3:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I believe so. I have my RLT named as contingent beneficiary for my life insurance policies and 401(k), so I imagine you can do the same for a mutual fund account.

foolazis

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AlisonWonderland Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 75 of 85
Subject: Re: RLT as 2nd Benificiary for Funds Date: 7/25/2005 4:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Can you name your trust as a secondary beneficiary on mutual fund accounts

Wouldn't you want the trust to own the mutual fund accounts?

~~ Alison

Print the post Back To Top
Author: foolazis Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 76 of 85
Subject: Re: RLT as 2nd Benificiary for Funds Date: 7/25/2005 4:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Wouldn't you want the trust to own the mutual fund accounts?

Good point! If they are not in an IRA, you would want the trust to own them.

foolazis


Print the post Back To Top
Author: emma06 Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 77 of 85
Subject: Re: RLT as 2nd Benificiary for Funds Date: 7/26/2005 11:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Wouldn't you want the trust to own the mutual fund accounts?

Good point! If they are not in an IRA, you would want the trust to own them.
______________________

Let's say the primary and secondary beneficiaries on the mutual funds are identical to what's in the trust. By naming the trust as a secondary beneificary the lawyer would act as a middle man and take a hefty cut, don't you think ?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2gifts Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 78 of 85
Subject: Re: RLT as 2nd Benificiary for Funds Date: 7/27/2005 7:33 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Let's say the primary and secondary beneficiaries on the mutual funds are identical to what's in the trust. By naming the trust as a secondary beneificary the lawyer would act as a middle man and take a hefty cut, don't you think ?


What lawyer? Do you mean the probate lawyer would get a cut? Wouldn't he get a cut anyhow no matter who the beneficiary is?

I'm confused.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AlisonWonderland Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 79 of 85
Subject: Re: RLT as 2nd Benificiary for Funds Date: 7/27/2005 9:18 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Let's say the primary and secondary beneficiaries on the mutual funds are identical to what's in the trust. By naming the trust as a secondary beneificary the lawyer would act as a middle man and take a hefty cut, don't you think ?

I think that would be the case only if the lawyer were the trustee or executor, as well as being the lawyer who drew up the trust.

~~ Alison


Print the post Back To Top
Author: emma06 Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 80 of 85
Subject: Re: RLT as 2nd Benificiary for Funds Date: 7/27/2005 11:34 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Let's say the primary and secondary beneficiaries on the mutual funds are identical to what's in the trust. By naming the trust as a secondary beneificary the lawyer would act as a middle man and take a hefty cut, don't you think ?

I think that would be the case only if the lawyer were the trustee or executor, as well as being the lawyer who drew up the trust.
________________________

My trust is set up to have a lawyer as the trustee. I intend to name the trust as beneficiary for my taxable accounts but I'm looking to have my IRAs stretched out by naming the beneficiaries to handle it themselves. I suspect my lawyer would liquidate the IRA's and payoff the beneficiaries or he might even stretch it our over time and make money off the trust on a yearly basis. I'm thinking the best approach is not to name the trust as beneficiary for my IRAs. Any thoughts ?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: foolazis Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 81 of 85
Subject: Re: RLT as 2nd Benificiary for Funds Date: 7/27/2005 12:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
My lawyer is not a trustee for my trust, so has no involvement whatsoever. It all depends on who your trustee is.

foolazis

Print the post Back To Top
Author: foolazis Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 82 of 85
Subject: Re: RLT as 2nd Benificiary for Funds Date: 7/27/2005 1:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm thinking the best approach is not to name the trust as beneficiary for my IRAs. Any thoughts ?

I concur with this. If you want to stretch your IRA payouts, then do not name the trust as a direct beneficiary. I have named primary beneficiaries and the trust is named as a contingent beneficiary.

foolazis

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sockgirl One star, 50 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 83 of 85
Subject: Re: RLT as 2nd Benificiary for Funds Date: 7/27/2005 3:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I agree with retitling the non-IRA funds i/n/o the trust, if it is a RLT and you are the initial trustee. It will bypass the probate process if you pass, and also give the successor trustee speedier access to the funds. You can use your sssn if you are the grantor/bene/trustee so you are really just retitling. You may have to provide the first/last pages of the trust to the mutual fund company.

Regarding the IRA mutual funds, naming the trust as contingent (not "second") beneficiary would be your backup estate planning. Remember, if something happens to your primary (not "first") beneficiary, to name a replacement if you can.

Sock

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (11) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement