u/Afraid_Assumption739

See my previous post for context. Location: Ohio

I spoke with my grandparents and got more information about their intentions, suspicions, and the original funding of the trusts.

It turns out that my siblings, myself, and my mom each initially had trusts funded at a bit over $3M each. As a reminder, each of ours is now around $1.6M.

My grandparents were extremely upset by my dad’s request. They reiterated that each trust was meant for each of us individually. They also told me that when the trusts were first set up, my mom actually fought for the age of control to be set at 60 (my grandparents pushed back and ultimately compromised at 40). Her reasoning at the time, according to them, was that she didn’t want us to be spoiled.

They also brought up concerns about how the trusts may have been used over the years given my dad’s relatively modest salary and the lifestyle we lived. They said they occasionally asked for accounting but were never given real transparency, and they didn’t have the legal rights to force it, so they eventually stopped pushing.

Looking back now, I can see more clearly how a lot of our lifestyle seems to have been tied to the trusts in ways I didn’t really understand at the time. House projects were paid through the trust while we lived there. Family vacations were paid through the trust. Christmas gifts were paid through the trust. I always knew the trusts supported us, but I didn’t realize the extent of it.

I also found out my mom had a lot of very heavy spending habits. After she passed, we found things like 16 of the same Lululemon shirt still with tags on, closets full of unworn clothes, and large amounts of makeup and other items she could never realistically use. It has made me wonder how much of that kind of spending was indirectly being supported by trust funds that otherwise could have been invested and preserved for us long-term.

My dad worked extremely long hours (50–70 hour weeks for most of his career as a pricing analyst), and his compensation was only in the high $100k range. He has also said he does not really want to return to that job after my mom’s death. Looking at everything together, I can’t help but think the trusts could have been managed very differently, and that his retirement situation could have been planned in a more stable way if the funds had been handled differently.

I don’t want to say we didn’t benefit — we absolutely did. Education, housing support, and a lot of life experiences were paid for through these trusts, and I’m grateful for that.

At the same time, I’m now questioning whether the trusts were used primarily for long-term growth for the beneficiaries, or whether they ended up functioning more as a broader family support system than I originally understood.

We are currently retaining a trust attorney to freeze the accounts and figure out next steps.

My question: based on situations like this, how is fiduciary duty typically evaluated in practice? Is it mostly about strict trust language, or does intent and long-term depletion vs. growth usually matter in these cases?

See my previous post for context. Location: Ohio

I spoke with my grandparents and got more information about their intentions, suspicions, and the original funding of the trusts.

It turns out that my siblings, myself, and my mom each initially had trusts funded at a bit over $3M each. As a reminder, each of ours is now around $1.6M.

My grandparents were extremely upset by my dad’s request. They reiterated that each trust was meant for each of us individually. They also told me that when the trusts were first set up, my mom actually fought for the age of control to be set at 60 (my grandparents pushed back and ultimately compromised at 40). Her reasoning at the time, according to them, was that she didn’t want us to be spoiled.

They also brought up concerns about how the trusts may have been used over the years given my dad’s relatively modest salary and the lifestyle we lived. They said they occasionally asked for accounting but were never given real transparency, and they didn’t have the legal rights to force it, so they eventually stopped pushing.

Looking back now, I can see more clearly how a lot of our lifestyle seems to have been tied to the trusts in ways I didn’t really understand at the time. House projects were paid through the trust while we lived there. Family vacations were paid through the trust. Christmas gifts were paid through the trust. I always knew the trusts supported us, but I didn’t realize the extent of it.

I also found out my mom had a lot of very heavy spending habits. After she passed, we found things like 16 of the same Lululemon shirt still with tags on, closets full of unworn clothes, and large amounts of makeup and other items she could never realistically use. It has made me wonder how much of that kind of spending was indirectly being supported by trust funds that otherwise could have been invested and preserved for us long-term.

My dad worked extremely long hours (50–70 hour weeks for most of his career as a pricing analyst), and his compensation was only in the high $100k range. He has also said he does not really want to return to that job after my mom’s death. Looking at everything together, I can’t help but think the trusts could have been managed very differently, and that his retirement situation could have been planned in a more stable way if the funds had been handled differently.

I don’t want to say we didn’t benefit — we absolutely did. Education, housing support, and a lot of life experiences were paid for through these trusts, and I’m grateful for that.

At the same time, I’m now questioning whether the trusts were used primarily for long-term growth for the beneficiaries, or whether they ended up functioning more as a broader family support system than I originally understood.

We are currently retaining a trust attorney to freeze the accounts and figure out next steps.

My question: based on situations like this, how is fiduciary duty typically evaluated in practice? Is it mostly about strict trust language, or does intent and long-term depletion vs. growth usually matter in these cases?

I am the beneficiary of a gift trust in Ohio with a current value of around $1.6 million. My brother and sister each have their own with similar values. These trusts were set up by my grandfather (my mother’s father) and intended for us.

My mother was our trustee until she very suddenly passed away in January. She and my dad handled all the administration, taxes, maintaining the accounts, etc. They kept the money in money markets and other very conservative investments because my grandparents wanted the money kept safe, even when advisors apparently told them otherwise.

After she passed, my grandmother became successor trustee. Due to her age and the work involved, my father very quickly stepped in and encouraged them to pass the trustee responsibility to him, which happened within a couple months of my mother’s death.

I’m 28, recently married, and just bought a house. My parents were always extremely private about the trusts. I was never told the balances or fully what they were being used for. I accepted this because the trusts paid for things like my education, wedding, and house down payment, and I trusted my parents completely. I know how lucky I am and I’m genuinely grateful for what my grandfather left us, so I never really questioned anything.

Now that I’m managing a house and planning for my family’s future, I’ve started wanting more visibility into things. While visiting home for Mother’s Day, my dad brought up the trusts and asked what I ultimately wanted done with them. I told him that, frankly, I wish I had full visibility and control so I could actually build a long-term financial plan and probably invest the money at least somewhat more aggressively.

He actually surprised me by agreeing, but there was a catch.

He said that if he exits as trustee early (the trust otherwise keeps him in control until I’m 40, with some distribution provisions beginning at 30), then he believes he’s entitled to take a trustee fee. He explained that neither he nor my mother ever took trustee compensation because my mother wanted the trusts to grow as much as possible. According to him, because they never took fees before, he is now entitled to somewhere between $300k and $400k from each of our trusts. He openly said the intention would be to help fund the rest of his life.

I was honestly pretty speechless.

Part of why this concerns me is that since my mother passed, my father has made it pretty clear he does not want to return to his old career. He worked extremely long hours before (50–70 hour weeks as a pricing analyst), but now he’s stretching his short-term disability leave, has multiple vacations planned this summer, bought a sports car, and generally seems to be transitioning into retirement mode. I understand grief affects people differently and I’m not trying to morally judge him for that. I’m only including it because it obviously affects how I view a request for hundreds of thousands of dollars from the trusts.

Alongside all of this, he also explained that the trusts were “really for the family” and mainly structured this way for tax purposes. Because of that, a lot of family expenses over the years were apparently paid by the trusts if they could somehow be tied back to benefiting us. House projects, vacations, Christmas presents, etc. I understand that may have technically been allowed within the trust language, but my parents definitely benefited indirectly from the trusts during the years they managed them.

I also spoke with my grandfather about this. He strongly disapproved of my father taking a large fee and said the trusts were specifically intended for the grandchildren. He also revealed that my father is no longer in their will. Again, I’m not trying to turn this into a moral judgment post about my dad’s personal life, but I also have to consider the views and intentions of the people who created these trusts in the first place.

I’ve reviewed the trust documents myself and the language around compensation is vague, just “reasonable” trustee compensation.

Does this request actually seem reasonable?

My gut says no, but I also know emotions are obviously involved here and I want to approach this as objectively as possible. My siblings are extremely upset and currently saying they don’t want him getting a dime, which I don’t think is helping anything.

I’m considering whether the best path forward is bringing in a neutral third party (trust attorney?) to evaluate what fair compensation would actually look like here and remove some of the emotional component from this situation. I’m mainly trying to understand what is normal, fair, and legally defensible here.

TL;DR: Dad became trustee and wants to take a large trustee fee from mine and my siblings trusts in exchange for dissolving them early. Is this reasonable?

EDIT: I have retained a lawyer. I am just looking to understand others' thoughts on this matter.

I am the beneficiary of a gift trust with a current value of around $1.6 million. My brother and sister each have their own with similar values. These trusts were set up by my grandfather (my mother’s father) and intended for us.

Location: Ohio

My mother was our trustee until she very suddenly passed away in January. She and my dad handled all the administration, taxes, maintaining the accounts, etc. They kept the money in money markets and other very conservative investments because my grandparents wanted the money kept safe, even when advisors apparently told them otherwise.

After she passed, my grandmother became successor trustee. Due to her age and the work involved, my father very quickly stepped in and encouraged them to pass the trustee responsibility to him, which happened within a couple months of my mother’s death.

I’m 28, recently married, and just bought a house. My parents were always extremely private about the trusts. I was never told the balances or fully what they were being used for. I accepted this because the trusts paid for things like my education, wedding, and house down payment, and I trusted my parents completely. I know how lucky I am and I’m genuinely grateful for what my grandfather left us, so I never really questioned anything.

Now that I’m managing a house and planning for my family’s future, I’ve started wanting more visibility into things. While visiting home for Mother’s Day, my dad brought up the trusts and asked what I ultimately wanted done with them. I told him that, frankly, I wish I had full visibility and control so I could actually build a long-term financial plan and probably invest the money at least somewhat more aggressively.

He actually surprised me by agreeing, but there was a catch.

He said that if he exits as trustee early (the trust otherwise keeps him in control until I’m 40, with some distribution provisions beginning at 30), then he believes he’s entitled to take a trustee fee. He explained that neither he nor my mother ever took trustee compensation because my mother wanted the trusts to grow as much as possible. According to him, because they never took fees before, he is now entitled to somewhere between $300k and $400k from each of our trusts. He openly said the intention would be to help fund the rest of his life.

I was honestly pretty speechless.

Part of why this concerns me is that since my mother passed, my father has made it pretty clear he does not want to return to his old career. He worked extremely long hours before (50–70 hour weeks as a pricing analyst), but now he’s stretching his short-term disability leave, has multiple vacations planned this summer, bought a sports car, and generally seems to be transitioning into retirement mode. I understand grief affects people differently and I’m not trying to morally judge him for that. I’m only including it because it obviously affects how I view a request for hundreds of thousands of dollars from the trusts.

Alongside all of this, he also explained that the trusts were “really for the family” and mainly structured this way for tax purposes. Because of that, a lot of family expenses over the years were apparently paid by the trusts if they could somehow be tied back to benefiting us. House projects, vacations, Christmas presents, etc. I understand that may have technically been allowed within the trust language, but my parents definitely benefited indirectly from the trusts during the years they managed them.

I also spoke with my grandfather about this. He strongly disapproved of my father taking a large fee and said the trusts were specifically intended for the grandchildren. He also revealed that my father is no longer in their will. Again, I’m not trying to turn this into a moral judgment post about my dad’s personal life, but I also have to consider the views and intentions of the people who created these trusts in the first place.

I’ve reviewed the trust documents myself and the language around compensation is vague, just “reasonable” trustee compensation.

Does this request actually seem reasonable?

My gut says no, but I also know emotions are obviously involved here and I want to approach this as objectively as possible. My siblings are extremely upset and currently saying they don’t want him getting a dime, which I don’t think is helping anything.

I’m considering whether the best path forward is bringing in a neutral third party (trust attorney?) to evaluate what fair compensation would actually look like here and remove some of the emotional component from this situation. I’m mainly trying to understand what is normal, fair, and legally defensible here.

TL;DR: Dad became trustee and wants to take a large trustee fee from mine and my siblings trusts in exchange for dissolving them early. Is this reasonable?

EDIT: I have retained a lawyer. I am just looking to understand others' thoughts on this matter.