Ads
related to: will vs naming beneficiaries illinois law group settlement- Estate Planning Guide
Wills? Trusts?
What do you need?
- 13 Retirement Blunders
Retire at ease, avoid these errors.
Blunder #9: buying annuities.
- 8 Major Investor Mistakes
Learn the 8 biggest mistakes
investors make & how to avoid them.
- 15-Minute Retirement Plan
Download our free retirement guide.
Covers key planning factors & more.
- 401(k) and IRA Tips
Learn the differences.
Is it time to rollover your 401(k)?
- 99 Retirement Tips
Easy-to-remember tips to help you
navigate into & through retirement.
- Estate Planning Guide
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Naming your kids as beneficiaries might seem wise, but it can cause legal and financial issues. ... An article from the Village Law Firm explains: “Suppose one child is 16 and the other is 21 ...
In trust law, an express trust is a trust created "in express terms, and usually in writing, as distinguished from one inferred by the law from the conduct or dealings of the parties." [ 1 ] Property is transferred by a person (called a trustor, settlor , or grantor) to a transferee (called the trustee ), who holds the property for the benefit ...
Qualified beneficiaries" are defined as a beneficiary who, on the date the beneficiary's qualification is determined: (A) is a distributee or permissible distributee of trust income or principal; (B) would become a distributee or permissible distributee of trust income or principal if a present distributees' interest ended on that date without ...
Objects. The beneficiaries of the trust must be clearly identified, [17] or at least be ascertainable (Re Hain's Settlement). In the case of discretionary trusts, where the trustees have power to decide who the beneficiaries will be, the settlor must have described a clear class of beneficiaries (McPhail v Doulton). Beneficiaries may include ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, if a person cannot afford to pay a fine, it violates the Equal Protection Clause to convert that unpaid fine into jail time to extend a person's incarceration beyond a statutory maximum length. [1] The syllabus of the case stated:
The only notice of the settlement proceedings required by §100-c to be given to the trusts' beneficiaries was that after filing such petition for judicial settlement of its account the petitioner shall cause to be issued by the court in which the petition is filed and shall publish not less than once in each week for four successive weeks in a ...