Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
No. of 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  


When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.