Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: March 10, 2021
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comDespite what the name suggests, it is possible to modify an irrevocable trust. One of the options is known as “decanting,” where the trustee transfers some or all of the principal and undistributed income of the trust to another trust for the benefit of the beneficiary.
As the name suggests, when transferring assets to an irrevocable trust, the grantor relinquishes the right to amend or revoke the terms of the trust in exchange for certain legal and tax benefits. In contrast, a revocable trust allows the grantor to revoke it or change the terms at any time.
Family, financial, or legal circumstances can change after the execution of an irrevocable trust and may make the original terms of the trust less desirable to the settlor, trustees, or beneficiaries. In some cases, the cost and expense of subsequently amending the terms of a trust through court proceedings can be avoided through decanting.
In its most basic terms, decanting involves transferring some or all of the assets of one irrevocable trust to another. Reasons for decanting typically fall under one of two categories — administrative or dispositive. Administrative reasons for decanting may include changing trustees, clarifying a trust provision, and appointing a trust advisory committee. In contrast, dispositive changes involve changes to a beneficial interest, such as amending the distribution standard, changing the age attainment requirement, and adding or elimination current/remainder beneficiaries.
Generally, the trustee must have the authority to decant, either through the trust documents, a state decanting statute, or common law. In total, 29 states, including New York, have decanting statutes. While New Jersey is not one of them, decanting is still permissible in certain circumstances under the state’s common law.
In Wiedenmayer v. Johnson, 106 N.J. Super. 161 (App. Div. 1969), the Appellate Division held that a trustee had the authority to distribute the trust assets to a new trust on behalf of the beneficiary, while eliminating two contingent remainder beneficiaries. The irrevocable trust at issue was established by John Seward Johnson for the primary benefit of his son, John Seward Johnson Jr. The trust directed the trustees to pay to the son “so much of the net income in any year as the trustees in their absolute and uncontrolled discretion may deem to be for his best interests,” following his attainment of majority.
In approving the transaction, the Appellate Division concluded that the son’s “best interests” were not limited to a finding that distribution served his best “pecuniary” interests. “His best interests might be served without regard to his personal financial gain,” the court explained. “They may be served by the peace of mind, already much disturbed by matrimonial problems, divorce and the consequences thereof, which the new trust, rather than the old contingencies provided for in his father’s trust indenture, will engender.” The appeals court concluded that because the trustees’ decision was made in good faith, after consideration of all the facts and attendant circumstances, and for reasonably valid reasons, it should not intervene. As the court explained: “Courts may not substitute their opinions as to the son’s ‘best interests,’ as opposed to the opinion of the trustees vested by the creator of the trust with the ‘absolute and uncontrolled discretion to make that determination.”
Trustees have long relied on Wiedenmayer to support decanting. Unfortunately, the decision is not applicable to every situation. Most notably, it will generally not apply if a trustee isn’t governed by a best interest standard or lacks unfettered discretion to make distributions. In such cases, the alternatives to decanting include seeking to alter the terms of the trust via a judicial reformation or modification proceeding and changing the situs of the trust and its governing law to a state with a decanting statute.
Decanting is a powerful tool that allows trustees to alter the terms of an irrevocable trust. However, to avoid unintended liability, it should not be taken lightly and without consulting with experienced legal counsel.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Jeff Pittard, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Corporate consolidation involves two or more businesses merging to become a single larger entity. The result is often a stronger and more competitive company that can better navigate today’s competitive marketplace. What Is Corporate Consolidation? Corporate consolidation closely resembles a basic merger transaction. The primary difference is that a consolidation creates an entirely new business […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Business law plays a critical role in nearly every aspect of running a successful enterprise, from negotiating a commercial lease to drafting employee policies to fulfilling corporate disclosure obligations. Understanding what is business law and your legal obligations can help your business run smoothly and build productive relationships with clients, business partners, regulators, and others. […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Corporate transactions can have significant implications for a corporation and its stakeholders. For deals to be successful, companies must act strategically to maximize value and minimize risk. It is also important to fully understand the legal and financial ramifications of corporate transactions, both in the near and long term. Understanding Corporate Transactions The term “corporate […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Ongoing economic uncertainty is forcing many companies to make tough decisions, which includes lowering staff levels. The legal landscape on both the state and federal level also continues to evolve, especially with significant changes to the priorities of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) under the Trump Administration. Terminating an employee is one of the […]
Author: Angela A. Turiano
While filing annual reports may seem like a nuisance, failing to do so can have significant ramifications. These include fines, reputational harm, and interruption of your business operations. In basic terms, “admin dissolution for annual report” means that a company is dissolved by the government. This happens because it failed to submit its annual report […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Antitrust laws are designed to ensure that businesses compete fairly. There are three federal antitrust laws that businesses must navigate. These include the Sherman Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Clayton Act. States also have their own antitrust regimes. These may vary from federal regulations. Understanding antitrust litigation helps businesses navigate these complex […]
Author: Robert E. Levy
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!