Worked that way with two Oklahoma family trusts. Sisters may or may not like what I do but, ultimately the grantor has control, not trustees. While mom was alive, I was the trustee when she couldn't manage the trusts whether I liked the rules or not, I lived within them. Now she is out of the picture so things are a bit different but, the rules are pretty much the same since 'they' are still trustees only. Ultimately, only the grantor has control in a properly constructed trust.
As a matter of family planning, with various spouses, exes, children, and, stepchildren things can get real messy when you need a quorum to decide anything. Things also tend to change over time and no one thinks to update the trust generally. You do meet with your lawyer once a year don't you? This can be the downfall of patriarchs or matriarchs best intentions since it overlooks different personalities (and personal conflicts) of direct heirs and the lack of knowledge or interest (other than cashing out).
I get "one mans trash is another's treasure" but, that doesn't work in the real world for the most part. When one trustee thinks everything is worth a fortune and the other thinks nothing has tangible value only sentimental value, things would be unworkable in the real world without unilateral control of one knowledgable person with an appropriate professional background to establish real tangible values and manage everything in a reasonable way for everyone's long term benefit (versus just cashing out like a lottery win for cars and drugs ). I've personally witnessed the 'lottery' effect when farms were cashed out and both times ultimately led to very bad outcomes for many of those involved.
Bookmarks