For example, in Lyon v. Holder, 163 P.3d 343 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007), Lyons, the principal beneficiary of a trust, filed a lawsuit against the agent who had paid himself $56,850 before his resignation after 12 years of service. It was indisputable that for most of his trust, the agent performed all his duties as an agent, regularly visited the beneficiaries and helped him to look after him. In 2003, the recipient began a relationship with a new friend whose agent was a suspect. The result was a rapid deterioration in relations between the parties and, ultimately, the resignation of the agent. Fair and fair compensation for an agent takes into account several factors if the amount is not broken down in the trust agreement. Also, it simply means that you appoint a member of your family to manage the position of trust, not that you don`t have to pay for it. You can get legal proceedings for compensation if there is no payment agreement.
Whoever you choose as a successor agent or agent, they will ask for payment for their services, even if they are family. Many states only seek “adequate compensation” without explaining what it is. However, if you want to use a trust company or other type of business, you may not want to manage the position of trust without a minimum payment guarantee. In determining the adequacy of compensation, it is necessary to take into account all the following factors: it is well established that the factors that must be taken into account in assessing the adequacy of a receivership tax include, but are not limited to: NOTE: If the terms of the trust do not specify the compensation of the agent, the agent may, at the discretion of the agent , point to the issue of excessive defence: Donahue v. Donahue, 105 Cal. Rptr.3d 723 (Cal. Ct. App.
2010), the legal fees incurred by the agent in the defence of claims for self-defence and conflicts of interest of the beneficiaries. At the heart of this case was the grievance that the defendant agent had sold trust assets for too little and that the sale was tainted by self-interest. The beneficiary stated that the trust`s losses were between $20 million and $25 million. The recipient stated that the agent had waived his right to accept a fee for the period of service of previous years (no argument was made on the amount of compensation, which amounted to approximately $4,000 per year for assets between $400,000 and $600,000 on average). The first instance ruled in favour of the agent and found that no waiver could be drawn from the non-assumption of a levy. However, the Court of Appeal set aside the first instance and found that “[t]he principle of this allegation is not in agreement. Kansas law has always recognized that the intent to waive a known right can be inferred from conduct. The recipient argued that the agent`s failure to assert his right to compensation for nearly 12 years should be served as a waiver. It supported this argument by pointing out the agent`s failure to take into account the royalties in the accounts that had been regularly made available to the beneficiaries. The Court of Appeal wrote, “While we refuse to determine the weight of this evidence, we conclude that the position of the agent, who was compensated for 12 years, was evidence of a renunciation.” As a result, the Court of Appeal remanded the case in custody at first instance for extrajudicial review. This compensation plan is difficult to determine, so it`s helpful to charge a trust and lawyer discounts for you. In the event of a fee dispute, an agent is generally entitled to reimbursement of the costs incurred in his defence as a management fee for the trust.
However, the right to refund does not allow for payment on an updated basis, unless it is indicated in the Trust (which is extremely rare). On the contrary, reimbursement is made by court order at the end of the fee dispute.