Receipt Release and Refunding Agreement Form

Reproduced with permission from the October 11, 2017 issue of NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL © 2017 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Any further reproduction without permission is prohibited. For more information, call 877-257-3382 or reprints@alm.com. #070-10-17-09 In light of this, the court concluded that the syndic`s evidence was sufficient to raise real factual questions about what was known or disclosed to the applicant. The court held that, although a trustee acts at his own risk in requesting a general discharge without accounting, nothing in the law imposes this as a necessary condition for its validity. In fact, nothing prevents a trustee from taking a quick and cost-effective way to forego accounting when requested and accepted by informed beneficiaries. In addition, the court rejected the idea that only the trustee could make the necessary disclosure in order to obtain a release to the beneficiary. Rather, the Court held that the appropriateness of disclosure must be determined in light of the circumstances, the touchstone being fairness.

Recently, the Surrogate Court and the Appeal Division had the opportunity to provide additional guidance on the impact of receipts and authorizations through the decisions in In re Salz, NYLJ, July 27, 2017, p. 22 (Surrogate`s Court, New York County), and Matter of Lee, 2017 NY Slip Op 06276 (2d Dep`t 2017). Well, the first part there, the beneficiary confirms the receipt of the money. There is nothing complex about that. It`s just a written receipt. Okay, I received $50,000 from a trust. The second part is more important. The trustee is the administrator of a trust. The trustee is the one who writes the cheques to the beneficiaries.

The trustee therefore manages the trust and ensures that the money goes to the people who are supposed to get it. Well, when the trustee issues a cheque to someone, it`s a best practice for them to ask that person to accept, not to sue the trust later, and to agree, “Hey, in exchange for getting that money, we`re fair. We are, in fact. Nothing else is due to you. About four years later, the plaintiffs commenced proceedings to hold BNY and Merrill Lynch accountable for each of the trusts. The respondents` applications to dismiss were allowed and the applicants appealed. Significantly, the Appeal Division found that the Substitute Court should not have dismissed the motions against BNY on the ground that the claims invoked were excluded by the releases, since BNY did not assert that all applicants who were not represented by counsel at the time the documents were signed were fully aware of the nature and legal effect of the releases at that time. Nevertheless, the tribunal found that the Substitute Court correctly held that the claims against BNY for accounting were time-barred, as the accounting claims arose when Merrill Lynch succeeded BNY as trustee in 2001 and 2002. In addition, the tribunal found that the surrogate court had correctly concluded that the claims against BNY were not covered by the fraud and that the principle of fair estoppel was not applicable. The undersigned releases and releases [JOSHUA FRY SPEED], as successor trustee of the Trust, from and from all claims for dividend shares and from all acts, claims and demands arising out of or arising out of or arising out of any other act, matter, reason or matter arising out of the aforementioned Trust, the Estate or its administration, as well as its representatives, lawyers, accountants and/or other representatives.

I understand that I have the right to seek the advice of independent counsel, but I am waiving that right at this time. It was created by attorney Aaron Hall (aaronhall.com) exclusively for educational purposes. This information may not be appropriate for your situation or jurisdiction. This may be outdated, outdated, or otherwise inaccurate. YOU SHOULD CONSULT A LAWYER BEFORE RELYING ON THE INFORMATION HERE. Ten years later, the applicant initiated proceedings in which he requested an investigation and a turnover, in which he claimed, inter alia, that works of art were absent from the deceased`s estate due to fraud and misconduct by the deceased`s spouse. (In the meantime, the deceased`s spouse has died, resulting in the trustee of the inter vivos trust to which his estate was transferred in the event of death becoming a party to the proceedings.) The defendants requested that the proceedings be dismissed in part on the ground that the applicant`s claims had been released. In granting the claim on this and other grounds, the court concluded that, in the context of the executors` accounts, after receiving and reviewing the report and representing it by a lawyer, the claimant had compensated all the claims and grounds of action he had against the trustees, in their capacity as representatives and individually. The court ruled that the general wording of the release, which exempts the deceased`s spouse from any claim the plaintiff had or might have, was sufficient to include fraud claims. In addition, the court concluded that the applicant`s pleadings did not identify fraud distinct from the subject matter of the disclosure that could serve as a basis for the allegation that the enforcement of the disclosure was initiated by fraud. This model will be made available to the public free of charge. As with any legal form or model, you should consult your lawyer before relying on anything you read on the Internet.

This form may not be appropriate for your situation or jurisdiction. The lawyer should determine whether it is appropriate to settle an estate or trust on the basis of an agreement such as the one above. While this process may be less demanding and faster for the lawyer`s services, the protection afforded to the trustee is significantly less than that of filing a court case. Longer and more complete forms of such an agreement with the accounting and the corresponding documents can be used. You may be wondering how a release is useful? A release offers the trustee a significant advantage. A release provides protection to the trustee in a scenario where the beneficiary later decides to sue the trustee. The trustee can use the waiver to prove that the beneficiary has released him from any legal claim that the beneficiary may later assert. This is the wording that makes it possible: receipts and authorizations were used both as a shield and as a sword in probate proceedings when trustees were faced with claims that had already been resolved or at least would have been resolved. Although it is instinctively assumed that a publication is an absolute obstacle to the continuation of a dispute, the actual circumstances of obtaining release, as well as the conditions of the publication itself, often determine the outcome.

In an attempt to oppose a summary decision, the trustee stated that, although no informal account was provided to the Claimant at the time the releases were made, her husband and a trusted friend who was the asset manager of the real estate interests held by the trusts provided her with appropriate and complete disclosure. (Notably, the beneficiary was not represented by a lawyer at the time she signed the authorizations.) In addition, the written evidence provided by the trustee indicated that the applicant was familiar with the assets of the trust and the transactions underlying the rejections. In dismissing the application and ordering a hearing, the court warned trustees who were attempting to avail themselves of the protection afforded by a release, noting that since a transaction between a trustee requesting the release of a beneficiary is essentially independent, the law requires that it provide full disclosure of the facts of the situation and the beneficiary`s legal rights by the beneficiary. Trustee. as well as appropriate consideration. In addition, the court concluded that the mere absence of misrepresentation, fraud or undue influence in obtaining release does not protect the instrument from subsequent attacks by beneficiaries. Rather, the trustee must prove in the affirmative that the beneficiaries have been informed in full detail of the nature and legal effect of the transaction. In that context, on the basis of the applicant`s allegations and the absence of documents to the contrary, the Court held that the applicant had argued prima facie that the authorisations in question had not been obtained equitably and therefore did not necessarily exclude her right to accounts. In Salz, the Substitute Tribunal concluded that the terms of a receipt, release and compensation agreement signed by the applicant excluded her claims for investigation and turnover under SCPA 2103. The proceedings had been initiated against the surviving spouse of the deceased by one of the deceased`s sons from a previous marriage, who was favoured according to his will. In particular, his wife, who was his curator, was the subject of controversial accounting proceedings before the death of the deceased, during which the applicant and his brother had questioned the correctness of his administration.

In one relevant part, they claimed that the deceased`s spouse did not take into account all of their father`s works of art. This dispute continued several years after the death of the deceased, at which time it was settled in accordance with the terms of an “agreement on settlement and recruitment”, which provided, inter alia, that the wife of the deceased “individually and in her capacity as custodian and in any other capacity. of all the claims they have had now or never” against the payment of a certain amount. .