I can't comment on the idea that trusts have been oversold. I've had dealings with three trusts and am convinced they keep things simple and tidy in a time when you don't want complicated and messy. There was no oversight as to the distribution, successor trustee was not required to make any kind of accounting but so as to avoid even the slightest hint of impropriety, the trusts were dealt with as written. Simple and no grounds for challenge. I imagine it all becomes less clear cut (with a trust it could be as much a moral issue as a legal one) when there are true special needs or when someone's perceived "special needs" aren't fulfilled by a bequest or when too many people know the terms before hand and are quibbling about or dividing up the estate and getting to despise each other while the benefactor is still alive. Money and the idea of inheriting money can really turn some people. The trust is a very good vehicle when and if it's the right one for you. Always extremely wise, as noted above, to pick a successor trustee you can trust without reservation. If someone's uncomfortable or incapable of acting as trustee, they can always resign - their appointment isn't chisled in stone - in favor of another person or institution who is. Not being in the legal profession, it'd be a little difficult to see any trends in this. In my family, and now with a host of deceased elderly relatives, I've never known of any challenge to a will or trust.

D., don't worry about it! I know this is a tough topic to discuss and I know the whole topic of protecting assets from the auction block is often fraught with the presumption of greed, selfishness, and entitlement. I've been reading your posts for some time now and know you aren't unreasonable. Truthfully? my parents wanted us to have the house, but were too ignorant/trusting that they couuld transfer it to us at the very end. You can't do that, any more; you have to PLAN the transfer years in advance or they will be quickly appropriated to fund LTC. Our case is no different from most families. There are liquid assets and there is real estate. We have protected the real estate, and the liquid assets are still largely intact minus a few permitted "gifts". My mother has been with me for 3 years now, at no cost to her. The idea behind our calculated decisions is that there will be sufficient funds to move her into long term care for a few years. Statistically, the person dies within a year/two of entering LTC. This was what the elder law attorney advised. I used to feel sort of "guilty" about the way we've set things up, but now I don't. We've used every legal means at our disposal to preserve some of what my parents stated time and again they wanted to leave to us, but were too ignorant to isolate and protect. And I understand completely that there are plenty of families that "skim the cream" and hustle the infirm family member off to the home and onto the public dole. That bothers me, too. Realistically, though, with the looming SS and Medicare/Medicaid crisis there will no safety net for the likes of me, even though I've paid more in taxes to fund Mum's benefits than she or my father ever paid in to the system. I will do my level best to parlay whatever I'm fortunate enough to inherit into long term, long range investments to buffer my own old age and inevitable infirmity. My 3 years of devoted care for my mother deserve to be compensated, too. Frankly, I'd rather inherit the real estate tax-free than be paid, moved into a higher tax bracket, and have to pay taxes on the earnings every year! I'm willing to wait for my compensation, no nursing home would accept that sort of arrangement.

The place I saw that I would like to go back to was about a block from the beach was originally a school for young ladies to prepare them for life, according to the step on guide. He said a woman designed it. It taught single women how to get a job, live alone and take care of themselves, back when women didn't live alone. Later they opened it to the public. I asked about the rates and it was around $80. a night. Someone said at those rates it may be dormitories, instead of private rooms. It would be fun to stay a few days, rent a bike and explore that area.

Oh it makes perfect sense and I hear where you coming from. Also Canadian but have US citizenship for the purpose of protecting myself in the event that husband goes first. I love the States, see myself being here forever, but I fought the citizenship route due to having to "renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen". Like it or not the citizenship route is the best way to go to avoid problems. Second best is the qualified domestic trust. The trust can be done post mortum actually. We looked into this trust, but if I remember correctly the big factor was that IÂd pay estate taxes on any disbursement of the principle unless I could prove hardship. No putting off the estate tax until I died if I cut into the principle. I just didnÂt want to let the IRS interpret "hardship". There were also a lot of loopholes and situations put forth by our CPA, which I cant remember that made the citizenship route the way to go. I took the easiest and best way out. Decided since we see ourselves here permanently, no longer vote in Canada or pay taxes there and live under the laws and constitution of the US and abide and support them I could take the oath with its nasty part and mean it. Not likely the US and Canada are going to war against each other and I will have to go back on my oath. And actually if I had to go back on the allegiance part of the oath, I would just move back home. You can always say your Canadian. You just donÂt say it to US Customs. Linked is an article on Trust and Estate Planning Considerations When Advising Canadians Living in the US Here is a link that might be useful: expat canadians in us estate and tax planning