Reply – Re: Contracts in Infancy
Your Name
Subject
Message
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: Contracts in Infancy
— by liberated liberated
I am not totally up to speed as far as setting up the inter vivos trust that is mentioned on the forum nor specifically what the res is, who would be the trustee and the beneficiary. While I have my thoughts on the specifics i am not sure it is the correct path so further study and seeking is in order for me. That said since we have a beneficial interest in the NAME/BC TRUST, or if it is in fact true, then we have the right to grant it away, thus could be the res for another trust. Exactly what the "value" is, is unclear however the liability of that trust still remains with the State. Therefore, the new trust merely has the trustee do the various set offs or acquisitions in what ever manner that they do it. I'm inclined in thinking a public officer is appointed as trustee however language in the trust has to be clear that the beneficiary has some input, which I think is permissible. I recall years ago, I had a contract to build an equestrian building for a woman. The property was in a trust, her father was the grantor who was deceased, she the beneficiary and Sun Trust Bank was the Trustee. While she negotiated the deal the bank was the one that signed and paid the bills. She provided all the details she wanted and approved all the plans ALONG with the trustee.She was not a trustee and the bank made that clear. It appeared whatever she wanted the Trustee/Bank went along with. I concluded that there must have been language in the trust that either stated "give the beneficiary whatever she wants" or the grantee made some provisions that gave the beneficiary leeway somehow because normally trustee's don't have to listen to beneficiaries, they are only obligated to provide an accounting to a beneficiary and to follow the terms of the trust. The trustee in this case paid for everything, purchase of the house, construction of the equine building and other improvements and all other expenses related to the property and welfare of the beneficiary.

as far as the State "paying"

I attempted to have purchased a town house through the name and the contract was contingent upon trustee completing transaction. I sent agreement to the finance director for Cleveland and after a little over a week she stated she was unable to do anything outside of Ohio. I of course asked, so of it were in Ohio you could handle this. She replied, what you sent me I cannot do anything with outside of Ohio. When I asked who would handle such a thing she responded possibly the State treasurer. During that week however I was visited by Marion County Sheriff Deputy as a courtesy to Cleveland Police Dept. Rec;d a call from some woman sergeant accusing me of committing fraud. I asked how so? She replied, who do you think you are trying to have Cleveland buy you a home? I replied, how did you arrive at the presumption and why, may I ask are you interfering in a private matter that has nothing to do with you? She ended the call with a warning. Once the Finance director said she could not do anything she asked if I wanted all the paperwork back so I could forward it, which i agreed and she sent it overnight fedx. The following day or two the developer said he did not want to wait any longer in keeping the unit off the market so that came to an end. IN prior instances, I did receive communication from Vital Statistics in Ohio that they created the Name and that they owned it thus the reason I could not obtain all the originals I requested be sent to me and that they were kept in a vault at the Capitol. I sent 5 bills to the Governor and never received another bill nor was any collection action taken or anything put on the credit report.  If they don't handle the obligation, based on the things we read about the Lieber Code and Hague one would think they are violating the law as well as public policy and perhaps notice should be sent to the State AG, US AG and Provost Marshal and perhaps the Chief Civil Affairs Officer, who I have been unable to ascertain who that is currently.  After all if the BC is indemnification then wtf