mercredi 15 février 2017

Special Needs Trusts in America: There s/he goes again, off the deep end







Henry Matisse


SNT Trustee to herself: 
"I think I know what he should or would enjoy.  In any case the real point is thatI would like him (her) to buy this.  That is something I could approve of.  The things he proposes buying that he says he enjoys are not things I approve of or like a lot.  I dislike them.  And I don't approve of men or women with nose-rings.  They're so ugly and probably carry germs.  I don't know if I should let him (her) buy any.

I'm tired of hearing the benefactor that he s/he doesn't get what s/he wants from the SNT.  I will tell him (her) that I will resign if s/he continues to complain, and let's how s/he fares then.  How dare s/he complain when I'm not asking for a penny.  It's me that is supposed to make the decisions.  Who does s/he think s/he is, anyway?  I don't have to let him (her) buy $20 worth of postage stamps."

 

A SNT does require that the trustee authorize (approve) of all disbursements from the SNT. But there is some confusion about this word approval in the context of the SNT means.

Approval of a disbursement is not the same thing as approval based on what the trustee thinks the beneficiary should buy.


“I cannot approve of this disbursement because I don’t think you should want [even if the beneficiary states that he would enjoy or benefit from the item] this item“ is a violation of the intent of the SNT.

The trustee's position is to not decide whether the beneficiary should or should not enjoy or benefit from a good service i.e., to substitute his or her desires for those of the beneficiary unless it can proven that the beneficiary is incapable of deciding what he enjoys or what enhances his life.
because that would violate the intent of the SNT which is to benefit, enhance the life or enjoyment of life of the beneficiary.  

This also why items bought using the beneficiary's credit card cannot be used to benefit a third party, including the benefactor friends or associates or the trustee himself or herself..

If the trustee were to substitute his or her preferences or choices of a good or service, this would mean that it is primarily the trustee rather than the beneficiary is benefiting from the disbursement, as the freedom to choose for each individual is an inalienable right that cannot be surrendered to another individual, even a relative, unless the individual is truly incapable or willingly surrenders these decision-making powers to another.

This is why often senior citizens resist going into assisted living homes, where they fear they would have to surrender freedom, e..g, have staff make choices for them.  Even so, such choices must be made to benefit the resident and not to enhance the power or self-esteem of staff.   Individual desires and needs have to be ascertained not by assuming the staff already know what an individual resident needs or desires but.

In the case that the trustee of an SNT is unable to perform his or duties, i.e., this capacity or unwilling to put the needs and wants of the benefactor as determined by.

The element of free choice within the parameters of the SNT must at all costs be preserved, and the distinction between guardian and trustee clearly understood by one assuming the position of trustee.

Free choice is a part of every person's dignity and self-respect, the ability to make decisions and choices on one's behalf rather than be dictated by another individual or organization (such as the state).  When we surrender free choice to another individual or group, we instinctively know we are losing our freedom.  And men and women will fight to preserve the freedom which is so dear to them.

The question of whether the trustee has the right to influence the choices made by the benefactor is an interesting one.   Pressuring the benefactor to not purchase what the trustee does not like ("approve of") and buy only what the trustee thinks the benefactor should like is a type of malfeasance, in this author's opinion, based on his own experience and research on the subject.

An example of this would be for the trustee to deliver messages like "I don't have to pay for a penny on your behalf...I don't know if I should let you buy this," which indicate that the trustee is not following the provisions and intent of the SNT.

I know of one particular case where the trustee, in essence, "hijacked" the SNT not for financial gain but for psychological reasons (for the enjoyment of demonstrating mastery to the benefactor and self-mastery to herself, to be able to pin the blame for and assuage her guilt over her own overspending habits on the benefactor, etc.) which she refused to admit.

Admonishments to "spend money with restraint, keeping in mind how hard our parents worked for it to leave it to us" or "My God!  I was shocked at your credit card statement!  I thought it can't be!  How could he spend so much money?" on a subject who is already shopping for clothes at second-hand stores and does not have a cellular plan, automobile, or cable television, things most Americans possess, and is already sensitive to every mood of the trustee make clear this intention.

The trustee is known to have gone out and spent out $55,000 on furniture immediately after she received her share of the inheritance.

The case may be headed to court.

* "projection" in psychological jargon)




The real question a trustee should ask:  Does the good or service fall into the categories stated in the SNT?

Not:  How do I know whether the benefactor will benefit from this even if s/he states s/he will?


  

The trustee might have doubts such as "I am not sure if the item is in conformity with the provisions."  But "I don't think I should have this [because I don't like it or think you should buy something else]" is not a legitimate reason for not approving a good or service unless it is clearly not covered in the categories of the SNT (food shelter to benefit a third party) or a substance/activity that is legal, poses danger to benefactor or others (going to a jihadist training camp in Syria, buying dynamite or a firearm by a benefactor with a felony record, etc.).

(name withdrawn for reasons of privacy)




Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire