“Keep in mind – beneficiaries are like cats and they will bite you for no good reason.”[1]  Serving as the trustee of a trust can be challenging because a trustee’s administrative responsibilities are, at times, layered with complicated family or beneficiary dynamics.  While there is no way to guarantee a problem-free administration or termination of trust, Ohio law provides a method to expedite the process to complete distribution while providing protections for the trustee against future claims of the beneficiaries.

Reminger Co., LPA is pleased to announce that Paul R. Shugar will be presenting at the 2018 Ohio Guardianship Association's 13^th Annual Education Conference alongside attorney Kathryn Joseph on “Invasion of Independence in Guardianship: A Case Study. Lessons from the Case Involving the Exploitation of Dr. Charles Sifford.”

Paul Shugar will be presenting "Top Personal Representative Mistakes in Handling Distributions" via a live teleconference in connection with National Business Institute on Tuesday, May 22, 2018 from 2 pm to 3:30 PM EST. Content covered includes:

Reprinted from Probate Law Journal of Ohio, with permission of Thomson Reuters.  Copyright © 2017.

Years after the initial enactment of the Ohio Trust Code and articles published in this journal¹ the Tenth District Ohio Court of Appeals in Zook, et al. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association, et al., 10th Dist. No. 15AP-751, 2017-Ohio-838, confirmed the viability of options under the Trust Code that afford trustees a path to finality in trust administration not subject to continuing court jurisdiction. Specifically, the Zook court confirmed what readers of this journal and those familiar with the Trust Code already “know”:

Can a disinherited person force the production of information necessary to substantiate the efforts required to pursue a challenge to a Will, beneficiary designation, or Trust?

Isolation and manipulation of a loved one by those who are intent on deriving benefits from an estate are frequent realities in estate litigation cases.  Undue influence, the process by which a person’s mind is subjugated so that the decision-making is actually that of the perpetrator, is almost always done behind closed doors.  The byproduct of isolation and conduct perpetrated in the dark is lack of information.  Family members are left with only questions and no answers.

The loss of a loved one is a devastating event, and can be a chaotic and confusing time for those left mourning. The making of phone calls to family and friends, the preparation of funeral arrangements, and the handling of other post-death matters must be addressed. But what do family members do when they find out that something suspicious has happened with their loved one’s last will and testament?

Ten years after the first enactment of the Ohio Trust Code, in Zook, et al. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association, et al., 10^th Dist. No. 15AP-751, 2017-Ohio-838, the Tenth District Ohio Court of Appeals gave insight into protections under the Ohio Trust Code afforded trustees against beneficiary claims and a provided a roadmap for a beneficiary to challenge such protection.

When Ohio House Bill 432 and Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2137 became effective on April 4, 2017, estate fiduciaries were given new tools for managing a decedent’s digital property.

From social-media profiles, to email accounts, to Apple and Amazon digital libraries of music, movies, and media, more and more people are dying with digital assets stored in various clouds. Upon Chapter 2137 becoming effective, executors, administrators, and trustees can request a catalogue of the decedent’s digital assets with various providers and access to the same.