My question involves estate proceedings in the state of: CA
About 20 years ago, my uncle, who was the executor of my late grandfather's trust, gave my father a sum of money. He told my father that it was a personal loan/gift from him, when in actuality, it represented a portion of my father's inheritance from my grandfather's estate.
My father used the money to buy a house. In my father's trust, he designated me, as well as three cousins as co-beneficiaries of said house. He included the cousins due to his erroneous belief that the money used to purchase said house was a personal loan/gift from my uncle. He viewed the house as a gift from my uncle to the next generation.
Six years ago, my father passed away.
Eight months ago, I bought out the cousins’ interests in the house, paying them 50% of the market value at the time. I did so, being unaware of the erroneous information on which my father’s inclusion of my cousins as beneficiaries was based.
Six months ago, my uncle told me the truth, that the money he gave my father was his inheritance, rather than a personal loan/gift. He said that the reason he misled my dad was because it would be easier for my dad to accept (my dad was generous and reluctant to accept money from anyone). I have a written statement from him that he misrepresented the nature of the funds to my father and that he believes that the house is all mine, by birthright. In the thread title, I mention "fraudulent info", however since my uncle did not mislead my dad for personal gain, I suppose "misleading info" is more correct. There was fraud on the part of another uncle however, who carried on the deception, despite knowing the truth, in order to benefit his son, who was one of the beneficiaries.
I believe that if my dad had known the truth, he would not have included my cousins as a co-beneficiaries. Also, one could argue that my father's trust as well as the buyout/settlement agreements I later issued to my cousins are contestable or voidable, since they were created based on information that has since been discovered to be incorrect and misleading.
I’d appreciate advice on whether I can recover all or part of the money I paid to the cousins to buy out their interests in the house. Could the cousins' ownership interests be declared invalid in light of the facts? If so could the buyout agreements (prepared based on misleading information) be retroactively voided?
I realize that the statute of limitations in CA is two years, however in certain cases, the two year period begins on the date of discovery, which in this case would be six months ago, when I learned the truth from my uncle.
Thanks in advance for your opinions.
About 20 years ago, my uncle, who was the executor of my late grandfather's trust, gave my father a sum of money. He told my father that it was a personal loan/gift from him, when in actuality, it represented a portion of my father's inheritance from my grandfather's estate.
My father used the money to buy a house. In my father's trust, he designated me, as well as three cousins as co-beneficiaries of said house. He included the cousins due to his erroneous belief that the money used to purchase said house was a personal loan/gift from my uncle. He viewed the house as a gift from my uncle to the next generation.
Six years ago, my father passed away.
Eight months ago, I bought out the cousins’ interests in the house, paying them 50% of the market value at the time. I did so, being unaware of the erroneous information on which my father’s inclusion of my cousins as beneficiaries was based.
Six months ago, my uncle told me the truth, that the money he gave my father was his inheritance, rather than a personal loan/gift. He said that the reason he misled my dad was because it would be easier for my dad to accept (my dad was generous and reluctant to accept money from anyone). I have a written statement from him that he misrepresented the nature of the funds to my father and that he believes that the house is all mine, by birthright. In the thread title, I mention "fraudulent info", however since my uncle did not mislead my dad for personal gain, I suppose "misleading info" is more correct. There was fraud on the part of another uncle however, who carried on the deception, despite knowing the truth, in order to benefit his son, who was one of the beneficiaries.
I believe that if my dad had known the truth, he would not have included my cousins as a co-beneficiaries. Also, one could argue that my father's trust as well as the buyout/settlement agreements I later issued to my cousins are contestable or voidable, since they were created based on information that has since been discovered to be incorrect and misleading.
I’d appreciate advice on whether I can recover all or part of the money I paid to the cousins to buy out their interests in the house. Could the cousins' ownership interests be declared invalid in light of the facts? If so could the buyout agreements (prepared based on misleading information) be retroactively voided?
I realize that the statute of limitations in CA is two years, however in certain cases, the two year period begins on the date of discovery, which in this case would be six months ago, when I learned the truth from my uncle.
Thanks in advance for your opinions.
Trust Administration: Can You Revise a Trust Based on a Claim that the Settlor Was Misled About Key Facts
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire