Fwd: your advice

As I wrote a little while ago, I did write a long response to your last -- deeply depressing -- letter, but decided not to send it. I may return to that letter later but will keep to some factual matters that ought to be cleared up.

But now I'm writing just about one point, which seems to be the core of the problem -- a problem, which, again, I don't understand. But let's put that aside, though I hope we can clear it up soon. All of this is a painful cloud that I never would have imagined would darken my late years.

The core issue seems to be the marital trust. I've explained how M and I actually set it up with Eric, which seemed to us just plain common sense. I've also explained Max's different interpretation. I've asked you for yours, but haven't heard it. But let's put that aside too, and just resolve the matter, as can be done very simply -- with no need for lawyers to explain the fiduciary responsibility of the trustee I appointed years ago to replace me, something I never paid any attention to before.

The simple solution is to divide the trust into two parts. One part will go to you, to use as you wish. One part will go to me, for me to use without any investigations of my financial situation and other such intrusions that I won't accept. Then the trust can simply be dissolved, and it is all over.

So I suggest that we proceed this way, and end the whole matter -- at least, whatever it is that I understand about what is of concern to you.

Im glad that you find the idea interesting and think that you might co=sider it, though you have to consult lawyers first.

My own =iew is different. To me the proposal I suggested seems to be a very =imple way of settling this matter, which to me is extremely troubling..=A0 I realize that this is just another case of a longstanding difference i= the way we approach these problems, a difference that has been clear ever=since we were discussing the interest on the loan from the Trust and found=that we could not communicate because I mistakenly assumed that it was a d=scussion among family members while your letters made it very clear and ex=licit that you saw it as a legal issue to be settled among lawyers and Bai=co, perhaps with a mediator in the adversary proceeding. All matters=1 find it very hard to comprehend, and to live with, but so be it.

So by all means consult with your lawyer, or perhaps a battery of l=wyers, to make sure that your interests are properly protected. I do='t need any lawyer's advice. The matter is perfectly clear a=d straightforward. So there is no reason for me to hire a lawyer to =eal with the question and to have a lawyer contact yours and initiate a di=cussion in which we all participate.

The matter is very sim=le. We can proceed without delay if you agree to settle the issue in=the simple manner that I suggested.

As for your proposals i= your letter of March 29, as I wrote you, the letter was so shocking that =t was hard for me to bring myself to respond, but I did, in detail, but de=ided not to send it. Perhaps I should. Will think about it.

As for your proposals, my response was the obvious one. ='m sorry for the stress you had to endure, but your efforts were a was=e of time for reasons I had already fully explained before you undertook t=em. As I'm sure you recall, a few years ago, I requested tax pay=ents from the marital trust when my IRA was being rapidly depleted by my a=visers who were distributing half to family and using the other half to pa= management fees and taxes for the entire estate, so that to pay Alex'= medical expenses and the expenses for Wellfleet I had to withdraw excess =unds with exorbitant taxes, all that before withdrawing even a cent to liv= on again with exorbitant taxes. Your response was to refuse the req=est unless I agreed to intrusive and insulting financial investigations --=of a kind I never considered when providing funds to you for something you=needed. I made it clear and explicit at the time that I would not su=mit to this procedure. Since your efforts and proposals simply repea= the same procedure, they were a waste of time.

There were=some things in your letter that were correct. You're right that =espite what has happened, I'm still a "wealthy man," with in=ome well above the median, though lacking a pension and accumulated proper=y, not at the level of my peers. Furthermore, I can supplement my in=ome by teaching large undergraduate courses, something I'd never done =nd that is not that common for people approaching 90, but something that l=enjoy. And you too are a wealthy man, for the same reasons: the reas=ns are that I've worked hard all my life, lived fairly simply (and liv= even more simply today), and was therefore able to put aside enough money=to ensure that my children and grandchildren are very well cared for, inde=initely.

But I again suggest that we put all of=this aside, and deal quickly and simply with what appears to be the one ou=standing issue: dividing the Marital trust and then dissolving it, all ver= simple, needing no lawyers, at least on my part.

It sounds like you would like me=to say yes or no to your proposal exactly as you have stated it, without f=rther discussion. I can't do that. Here are some reasons:

1. It's not permitted under Massachusetts trust law.

<=div>

Can you -- or perhaps your lawyer -- refer me to =he part of Mass Trust Law that makes it illegal for beneficiaries to agree=on distributing funds from a marital trust and then liquidate it? I =an't find it.

Sorry, I made the same error =s before. I'm finding it hard to shake the illusion that we are =iscussing things within a family, and are not characters in Bleak House= I'll try to remember. Below.

I'd like to put together a proposal =hat I think would address some of your needs and ease our communications.=C2* The proposal would give you some additional access to the trust asse=s. It would also include appointing a new independent trustee to rep=ace Max. However, it would not terminate the trust, and I would rema=n as one trustee.

Are you interested in seeing su=h a proposal?

If you feel that it would be a good=use of everyone's time, I will work with my lawyer Jillian to write up=an outline of what I have in mind. We will send the outline to you a=d Rich, unless you would prefer we send it only to you.

You may want to consult a lawyer to learn more about why we can'= just terminate the trust and split the assets as you suggested. If =our lawyer disagrees with Jillian and feels that such a split would be via=le, Jillian would be happy to discuss it with your lawyer.

I am re-sending the=letter below, since it wasn't answered, and I would like to clear up t=is very painful affair -- which I do not understand -- as quickly as possi=le.

To repeat the essentials, concerning the marital trust, there are severa= options discussed in earlier letters. I won't again review the =act that the marital trust was set up so that funds would be available to =he survivor, with what remains going to the children. Though that is=a fact, it seems that your interpretation is different, though you have no= responded to my repeated inquiries about that. But let's put th=t side. On the basis of our letters, the options seem to be these:

1.0=A0 You can resign and then you will have no further obligations and no fea=s about further liabilities from which you have to be protected. We =an then return to the situation before I appointed you as trustee in my pl=ce. I

1

EFTA_R1_01879029
EFTA02643618

will be the trustee. As before, there will be no problem= about fiduciary responsibility, no concern about liability, no problem ab=ut funds that are needed, no lawyers or intrusive inquiries into finances.=/div>

Furth=rmore, you can be assured that after I die most of the trust will be added=to your inheritance. Now that the radical depletion of my IRA has be=n overcome, and I have responsible financial advisers, there will be limit=d occasion to access the Trust, and my advisers will ensure that there are=no distributions from it without my knowledge and that other requirements =ill be honored with regard to interest and other matters.

2. We can adopt your suggestion, leaving you in charge, i= which case you will ensure that the entire Trust will go to you. To=repeat the very simple logic, a few years ago, before I found out about it= my IRA was being very seriously depleted. Half of the mandatory wit=drawal was being distributed to family, the other half was being used to p=y management fees and taxes for the entire estate. Therefore, in ord=r to pay Alex's medical bills and expenses for Wellfleet, I had to mak= extra withdrawals with an onerous tax payment. And since I also nee=ed something to live on, I had to make still more withdrawals, with even f=rther onerous tax payments. At that point I asked Max to release som= funds from the marital trust for tax relief. You refused, demanding=an intrusive and insulting financial accounting that no one with a shred o= dignity would accept -- particularly under these remarkable circumstances= It follows that any request without such very clear justification w=ll also be refused. So you can be assured of receiving the entire Tr=st. I also suggested an improvement: you can take all of it right no= and we can dissolve the Trust.

<=pan style="font-size:12.8px">3. We can pursue my suggestion: divid= the Trust right now and dissolve it. To repeat, there are some arca=e tax issues, but can easily be resolved, as your lawyer can explai= to you, with common consent among the beneficiaries -- which means your c=nsent.

These appear to be the options. I hope we can settle this quickly.=C24> As I have repeatedly explained with no response, I cannot expect wha= my father was able to enjoy, but at least I would like to end this partic=lar horror as quickly as possible. Could you please, then, send me y=ur specific suggestions.

You've asked me to send you my specific suggestions. I made six=suggestions already, in my long message of March 29th. Let me add on= more suggestion now.

Negotiate a package of c=anges

You may want to make some changes to th= terms or administration of the trust. I'm open to doing so, pro=ided we can agree on a package of changes to implement.

We would need to undertake a negotiation process to settle on a mutu=lly acceptable package. You can start that process at any time by ha=ing your lawyer contact Jillian. I'm not willing to carry out th=s kind of negotiation by e-mail between you and me — our disagreem=nts and misunderstandings run too deep for us to reach agreement this way.=/div>

You've made a number of proposals in your rec=nt messages. I'm not going to accept or reject any of them in ex=ctly the way you've stated them. Some of the proposals have elem=nts that seem promising and that might become part of a final package we a=ree to. I hope our lawyers can help us make that happen.

Another one. what should =e be doing?