2

Husband and Wife are drafting their wills and have hired a law firm to do so.

For example, there is a clause that states that the trustees may make loans to the beneficiaries on whatever terms. Why would it not be under "reasonable" or "market prevailing" terms?

There is another clause that states that they may appropriate any assets of the estate at their value in or towards the satisfaction of a legacy or a share of any person in the estate, without the consent of any beneficiary. Why would any beneficiary allow such a thing without consent? With such a clause, it seems that the trustees could sell my the estate's house to settle some debts rather than use any cash assets to do so.

My question is: is it possible for a solicitor to draft a will that is still "legally binding", but gives them free reign to essentially do what they want with the estate, rather than acting in the benficiaries' best interests at all times?

Without approaching another law firm or governing body, is there a somewhat "standard" or "neutral" will template that can be looked at as best practice for a will that ensures that the benficiaries maximally benefit from the will and all associated costs (especially legal fees) are reduced?

Improve this question
3
  • Hello! I removed quite a bit of your question, because as you had written it, it was a request for specific legal advice, which we cannot accept on Law SE. Because of this, I removed the details of your circumstances, leaving only the generic legal question. Hopefully this will be enough to get a useful answer; if you do need specific advice, you will need to hire another lawyer.
    – Someone
    Commented Nov 8, 2023 at 5:34
  • 1
    @Someone your cutting knife was sharp - and left the question much broader at the brink of too broad.
    – Trish
    Commented Nov 8, 2023 at 7:14
  • 2
    @Someone Fair enough about making the question not look like specific legal advice (it wasn't my intent to get legal advice - I was curious because of what I'd read), but I agree with Trish that it's now too broad. For example, I had stated that the law firm is the trustee AND executor. So Dale M seems to have answered the question assuming that the solicitor isn't the trustee, when in fact they are.
    – Arj
    Commented Nov 8, 2023 at 12:17

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

A trustee always has a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries

It’s not necessary to spell this out in a will or trust deed because it’s a fact of being a trustee.

It may be in the beneficiaries’ interest to make loans at other than market rates so this clause allows the trustees to do so without need of further justification.

The other clause simply allows the trustee to, say, give the house to John and the cash to Bill if that is in the beneficiaries’ best interest.

This has nothing to do with the lawyer - they aren’t the trustee- the named executor is.

Improve this answer
1
  • As one example, the estate could loan money to the beneficiaries while everything is being sorted out. It would make no sense to charge the beneficiaries interest on money they will ultimately receive anyway. Estates can be complex things taking even years to settle everything.
    – Jon Custer
    Commented Nov 8, 2023 at 13:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .