Dear mapam-ga;
Thank you for allowing me to answer your interesting question. I?ve
had many years of experience in reading legal documents and while I
can tell you what the statement generally means, my answer is not
intended for the purposes of legal advice (see disclaimer at the
bottom of this page).
Not knowing any other details the loose interpretation of the legalese
you referred to is that a person or entity (the ?seeker? mentioned) is
hoping to obtain a decision (adjudication) from any court that will
conclude that the agreement or contract in question here (the ?trust?)
or any of the rules or stipulations (provisions) contained in this
agreement or contract are, presumably due to some impropriety, illegal
act, incorrect wording, technical issue, etc., not binding (void).
In short, the message conveyed here is that the seeker is looking for
a legal decision from any court that casts doubt on the authority or
integrity of the trust.
I hope you find that my research exceeds your expectations. If you
have any questions about my research please post a clarification
request prior to rating the answer. Otherwise I welcome your rating
and your final comments and I look forward to working with you again
in the near future. Thank you for bringing your question to us.
Best regards;
Tutuzdad-ga ? Google Answers Researcher
INFORMATION SOURCES
My information comes from more than 20 years of reading legal
documents in my professional law enforcement career. |
Clarification of Answer by
tutuzdad-ga
on
13 Sep 2004 12:25 PDT
In addition, with input from the gracious (and graceful) Pinkfreud,
the statement you referred to is nromally part of a "no contest"
clause (sometimes called an "in terrorum" clause)
LEGAL DICTIONARY
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/In%20terrorem
It is a clause similar to this one that states that a legacy is given
to a person upon condition that he or she does not attempt to dispute
the validity or the dispositions of it. Basically the purpose of a ?no
contest? clause is to discourage beneficiaries from challenging Wills,
Trusts, and ther ?dispositive? instruments by disinheriting all
beneficiaries who challenge the them:
?If any beneficiary under this trust, singly or in conjunction with
any other person or persons, contests in any court the validity of
this trust or of a deceased settlor?s last will or seeks to obtain an
adjudication in any proceeding in any court that this trust or any of
its provisions or that such will or any of its provisions is void, or
seeks otherwise to void, nullify, or set aside this trust or any of
its provisions, then that person?s right to take any interest given to
him or her by this trust shall be determined as it would have been
determined if the person had predeceased the execution of this
Declaration of Trust without surviving descendants.?
Regards;
tutuzdad-ga
|
Request for Answer Clarification by
mapam-ga
on
17 Sep 2004 03:08 PDT
why, then, would a beneficiary file a petition for instruction
challenging the integrity of the trust knowing (because of this
clause)
they would lose their inheritance (according to your definition) regardless
of what is decided. the petitioner is claiming a typo omitted a word.
yet, according to your definition, even if the courts concur, the petitioner
has, nonetheless, contested the trust.
are you sure? how could this clause ever be interpreted loosely?
i appreciate whatever help you are able to give me to understand this.
|
Clarification of Answer by
tutuzdad-ga
on
17 Sep 2004 06:30 PDT
I can?t begin to speculate, under normal circumstances where the
courts honor a ?no contest clause?, what would motivate someone to
challenge a trust if this clause is in effect. I suppose some people
do but trying to ?guess? why they do it would be futile wouldn?t it?
One guess would be that the challenging party believes that the trust
itself (and as such, this clause) is invalid and hopes the court will
set aside the trust thus rendering the matter ?intestate? and subject
to the state?s ?intestate succession? laws. Another guess might be
that the challenging party doesn?t really care about the inheritance
and if the court chooses to honor the provisions of the clause it is
neither here nor there to them.
?Am I sure??
Yes.
?Are legal clauses like this, designed to protect someone?s interests
and wishes, ever interpreted loosely??
I can?t imagine that. BUT - There are some instances where such a
trust itself can be successfully challenged though. There are several
grounds for contesting a will. The one most often used for contesting
a will is that the testator was not competent. If the trust is found
to be invalid then the no contest clause within is moot. Another
ground is that the formalities for executing the will were not fully
met, and so the will is invalid. Wills may also be challenged on the
grounds of fraud or mistake, or that the document was never intended
to serve as a will in the first place. In addition, some courts won't
honor a ?no contest? provision if the person bringing the challenge
can show a reasonable basis for making it, even if the challenge
proves unsuccessful. This would vary from one jurisdiction to another
and only a locally licensed attorney knowledgeable about trusts can
tell you if your jurisdiction is one of them.
I hope this adds significantly to what we have already discussed.
Tutuzdad-ga
|
