-
ODT Gun Show this Saturday! - Click here for info and tickets!
NFALawyers Initial Review of 41P
- Thread starter heavyd
- Start date
Yes
I am thinking you mean add them as a beneficiary as minors don't serve as trustee because they do not have the ability under law to enter into a binding contract, and when boiled down to its basics, that is what a trust is.
Well I'm not a lawyer, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night....but I'm pretty sure he meant what he said based on what I read in this very thread.
I am a lawyer, and trustees are bound to a trust by legal contract. A minor cannot enter into a legally binding contract, therefore, cannot serve as a trustee. A minor can be a beneficiary though. In this context, the language used is important.
Yes, I realize you are a lawyer. I wasn't sure if you jumped in without reading the recent posts, or if "correcting" him was your way of saying that your opinion differs.
I won't be trolled when I am trying to clarify a point to the forum. Call it what you want, but minors not being able to enter into contracts is a fact. If you read back on the thread, you will see I have actively participated in this discussion.
Yep. You are correct. I did mean that minor children may be listed in your trust as co-trustees.
We all know the minor children will not serve as a co-trustee while they are minors. However, when they turn 18, they may affirm their appointment. At that point they would be able to possess NFA weapons in my trust.
And that clarifies it, they are not co-trustees until they are no longer minors. That was my point. Then they are automatically made co-trustees when they are no longer minors. Language matters. No one needed to rely upon a statement that might lead them to believe a minor was already a trustee of any type while still a minor.
Similar threads
