Quote:
Originally Posted by dynalow
I would agree with this completely, but state law prevails. Whether selling it is in the best interest of the of the testator or the beneficiaries is another matter. Maybe a long term appreciation strategy? Who knows. Typical "boilerplate" lanuage usually gives the trustee these powers.
Here in NJ, it is the buyer's choice in selecting the Title Agency to do a title search. Dunno about AZ. That, naturally is a must do.
FWIW, I am not an attorney. MTI is an attorney and he lives in AZ now. He's the one to ask.
|
I am an attorney, though I no longer practice. My areas of practice included real estate, trusts and estates, both in Aridzona and Colorado.
And actually, state law does NOT usually prevail and certainly not in the usual circumstance.
Generally speaking, unless the terms of the trust are illegal (for example, the trust specifically requires dealing in heroin), they control. Where the terms conflict with state law, well, that's where attorneys make money (and malpractice suits may arise).
Moreover, the OP didn't specify where the land is, which is relevant in part, but not really as regards the trust itself, but more as to a transaction to transfer the land. (And, of course, whether the land was properly put into the trust to begin with, which goes back to step one in post #2.)
That said, unless there is a specific law in the state where the land is situated that makes the terms of the trust illegal, then if the terms permit it, the trustee is allowed to act to use the assets of the trust in whatever way is appropriate under the terms of the trust. Period. Even if it later turns out it was NOT in the best terms of the beneficiaries, so long as the transaction was arms-length, it will remain in place and the beneficiaries then have a claim against the trustee.
But the buyer of the trust asset is fine, again so long as the transaction was legitimate.