Latest news with #trustfund
Daily Mail
27-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
Can the council make me sell my mother's bungalow to pay for care?
My mother currently is in an elderly mental health ward suffering with depression and anxiety. Her £150,000 bungalow in Port Talbot has been put into a trust since 2015 with myself as the beneficiary and my mother remaining as a tenant. Should the need arise, and she needs to go into something like a sheltered housing complex, could the local authority make me sell her bungalow to cover any care and housing costs? S.M, via email SCROLL DOWN TO ASK YOUR FINANCIAL PLANNING QUESTION Harvey Dorset, of This is Money, replies: Care is something that many of us don't consider earlier in life, meaning that if or when this need arises we may not be ready or able to fund it without making financial life altering decisions. As many as 66 per cent of care seekers are self-funding, according to 2024 data from Just 16 per cent of care seekers were able to access funding from their local authority. For those who live alone, there is a risk that means testing could see their home's value used to pay for care. There has been forethought on your mother's part to place her property into trust. However, depending on the circumstances of this, it could still be deemed that the property can be used to fund any care needed. As discussed below, this largely relates to the decisions made in 2015 and the reasons they were taken. Yours is a complex issue. This is Money spoke to two financial advisers to find out what your mother needing care might mean for her property held in trust. Natalie Donnell, independent financial adviser at Flying Colours, replies: I am sorry to hear about your mother's illness. Having looked at your question, I think the key issue as regards the bungalow is intent. By that, I mean what was the intention from your mother when she placed the property into a trust in 2015? This is because if your mother were eventually to need full-time care, the local authority would conduct a capital assessment to determine who is responsible for funding the care (i.e. self-funding or funded by the local authority). When it comes to long term or full-time care, if the value of your mothers' assets is more than £23,250 (in England – it varies in other parts of the UK), she will be responsible for funding her care needs. This is different from the current situation, where I would think your mother's care, in a mental health ward, is being funded by the NHS. Intent comes into this because if the local authority deems that the property was put into trust in 2015 to reduce assets and avoid the eventuality of paying for full-time care later down the line, they could consider this this to be a case of 'deliberate asset deprivation'. That would mean they could treat your mother as still owning the asset (known as notional capital). They could also refuse to fund care (or assess your mother's situation as though she still owned the asset). In some cases, they could take legal action to challenge the trust. Whether the trust holds under scrutiny depends on several factors such as whether the trust was created at a time when future care needs were foreseeable, and the structure and type of trust (i.e. discretionary, life interest etc.). Trusts are a notoriously complex area so I would advise you to seek specialist independent advice on the likelihood of the current arrangement falling foul of the 'deliberate asset deprivation' category, and if so, to see whether there is any action you could take to mitigate against this. Get your financial planning question answered Financial planning can help you grow your wealth and ensure your finances are as tax efficient as possible. A key driver for many people is investing for or in retirement, tax planning and inheritance. If you have a financial planning or advice question, our experts can help answer it. Email: financialplanning@ Please include as many details as possible in your question in order for us to respond in-depth. We will do our best to reply to your message in a forthcoming column, but we won't be able to answer everyone or correspond privately with readers. Nothing in the replies constitutes regulated financial advice. Published questions are sometimes edited for brevity or other reasons. Adam Johnson, director at SJP partner practice New Forest Wealth Management, replies: The first consideration is whether your mother's care will be funded by the NHS (such as through NHS Continuing Healthcare) or subject to means-testing by the local authority. If her needs are deemed primarily health-related — for example, if she is sectioned under the Mental Health Act or qualifies for NHS Continuing Healthcare — the value of her property will be disregarded entirely, as the NHS covers all associated costs. If, however, the care is means-tested, the local authority will assess your mother's income, savings, and assets. If her savings exceed £23,250 and her income is insufficient to cover care costs, her home could be included in the financial assessment, depending on her living arrangements. Property use and living arrangements If your mother continues to live in the property or moves into another owned property (such as sheltered accommodation) and receives domiciliary care, the value of her home is typically ignored. However, if she moves into residential care and no longer lives in the property, the local authority may then consider the value of the home — unless it is exempt for another reason, such as a dependent still living there. Trust ownership and deprivation of assets As the home has been placed in trust, the key issue becomes whether your mother has any rights to the capital value. If the trust structure means she has no such rights — and only a right to reside, with the capital ultimately passing to you — she may no longer be considered to "own" the property for assessment purposes and therefore cannot be made to sell it. However, this leads to the question of deliberate deprivation of assets. If the local authority believes the home was placed in trust to avoid future care fees, they could treat her as though she still owns it. Their judgment will centre on why the transfer was made in 2015. Since the arrangement did not benefit inheritance tax planning (due to her continued occupation), they may question what financial objective was being addressed, and whether placing the property in trust was a proportionate response. There is no statutory time limit on how far back local authorities can look for evidence of deprivation. Although a transfer made 10 years ago may be less likely to be challenged, it cannot be ruled out. The outcome will ultimately depend on the local authority's interpretation of the facts and the strength of the explanation for the trust. I recommend reviewing the trust documents in detail.
Daily Mail
26-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Real Housewives of Salt Lake City star accused of 'stealing' $100,000 from ailing relative after alleging her bank account was 'drained'
Real Housewives of Salt Lake City star Britani Bateman has been accused of not paying back $100,000 to her former mother-in-law in a new civil lawsuit. Sandra Underwood, the mom of Britani's ex John Scott Underwood, filed a lawsuit against the 53-year-old earlier this month for allegedly not upholding a prior agreement in which the reality star had agreed to return $100,000 during a time of need. In the complaint, exclusively obtained by Sandra, 87, accuses Britani of using the $100,000 for 'her own personal benefit.' The money was deposited into a trust fund, of which Britani was named as a trustee back in 2021. The complaint states, 'Britani willfully, maliciously and through intentionally fraudulent conduct, also converted Plaintiff's funds and now refuses to repay the funds.' Part of an exhibit included in the May 6th filing is a letter Sandra's attorney sent to Britani in March requesting she return $100,000, which the ailing relative contributed to the corpus of a trust titled Integrity Trust. The Trust was created by Britani's father, Melvin Merrill Martin, with Britani as a trustee and beneficiary. From A-list scandals and red carpet mishaps to exclusive pictures and viral moments, subscribe to the Daily Mail's new Showbiz newsletter to stay in the loop. The corpus - commonly referred to as the 'body' of the trust - represents the assets the trust is managing and is essentially the principal that is transferred into the trust and held by the trustee for the benefit of the beneficiaries. Sandra deposited the $100,000 into the trust, which was money she had gotten from the sale of her home in June 2021. At the time, per the court filing, Britani 'urged' Sandra to contribute this amount to the corpus with the understanding that she could 'request it be withdrawn at anytime and it would be returned to her without objection.' In addition, Sandra contributed $217,000 - which she's not asking a return of - into building a home for herself on Britani's 10,000 square feet property in Provo, Utah, which is currently being renovated. The TV personality's 'dream home' has six bedrooms, seven bathrooms, and two kitchens. The other house on the massive property, called the 'Casita', has two bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a kitchen, the Bravo star shared in a recent interview with Her renovation list includes 'building out a pool and a really beautiful backyard' and 'another garage with an apartment above,' so the property can be an open home for 'nieces, nephews, [and] kids that need a place to live temporarily,' she said. In the March legal letter that was fired off to the real estate developer, Sandra's lawyers note that Britani 'implicitly agreed' that her mother-in-law was entitled to the money, and 'said something to the effect of, "I don't know why not."' Sandra, who is nearly 90 years old, allegedly 'does not have sufficient income' to pay for independent living or cover costs for her medical care and prescriptions for her undisclosed health issues, per the letter filed with the complaint. Her lawyer requested that Britani have 'simple decency and morality' to pay back the $100,000 so that Sandra could 'be able to live out her life in a semi comfortable way.' He states that he had hoped to resolve this issue within a reasonable time period, but after not hearing back from Britani or her lawyer, he filed the complaint less than two months later. Meanwhile, she alleged that her ex-husband John Scott Underwood (pictured), who is Sandra's son, 'drained' her bank account and cut her off from their shared businesses In the complaint, Sandra is requesting that she receive the $100,000 back 'plus interest at the statutory prescribed rate' from the date the money was transferred to the trust in 2021. She is also requesting Britani pay her attorney fees and costs of collection, plus a punitive award of up to three times the amount of her losses. Britani has yet to file her response to the complaint. reached out to her attorney for comment. previously reported on the RHOSLC newbie's messy divorce in which she accused Sandra's son and her ex John Scott Underwood of 'draining' her bank accounts and cutting her off from their shared businesses. The reality star filed for divorce from John on March 20, 2023, and it was finalized in October of that year. However, she informed the court in December 2024 that he had been non-compliant with the Domestics Relations Injunction. Britani detailed in the court documents what violations Underwood is accused of, including 'unauthorized expenditure of business funds on personal expenses, failure to add Britani to accounts related to the businesses of the parties, unauthorized draining of the account of the parties' business and failure to operate the businesses consistent with the parties' historical manner.' Their shared businesses include the Starwood Group, a real estate development company, Pure Productions, an entertainment production company, and Millcreek Builders, a construction company. In a separate lawsuit, Britani and John are embroiled in another war over how he treated her during their six-and-a-half year marriage. She filed a complaint for intentional tort shortly after their divorced was finalized, claiming she suffered 'severe emotional distress' during their marriage, and alleged that he demanded she have sex with him multiple times per day. She also alleged other instances depicting his 'controlling' behavior, including 'dictating what clothing, makeup, perfume, and other beauty products Britani could and could not wear or use, both in and out of his presence.' In a statement sent to Underwood's attorney Randy S. Keste denied Bateman's allegations, saying, 'This is just one of many vexatious cases for which Ms. Underwood has had the impetus, often making false and exaggerated claims. At least three prior cases which she was behind have already been dismissed.' Both lawsuits are still ongoing with the parties having scheduled upcoming hearings. Britani joined RHOSLC last season as a friend of Heather Gay. Once season six began filming in March, she was spotted filming with the cast from last season around Utah. Her other job is selling homes as a real estate agent. Earlier this year, she switched her license to work with Presidio, the brokerage of the Bravo show Sold on SLC. She is known for still being part of the Mormon community - despite some of her castmates cutting ties - and remains an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. She brought the drama last season after allegedly recording the cast's private conversations on her phone in a sprinter van and having heated arguments with cast members Bronwyn Newport and Angie Katsanevas. The star is also known for having an on-again, off-again relationship with Donny Osmond 's nephew, Jared Osmond, who made a few appearances in season five.
Bloomberg
23-05-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
UBS Client Can't Sue Bank Over Broker's Alleged Affair With Wife
By and Benjamin Bain Save A UBS Group AG client, who alleges his wealth adviser had an affair with his wife and tried to help her take control of family funds, can sue the broker but not the Swiss firm, a New York judge ruled. Richard Kallman claims UBS failed to supervise Ira Walker as the managing director allegedly schemed with Kallman's wife to move the family's trust fund to the firm and then disburse hundreds and thousands of dollars from it. Kallman has said Walker inserted himself into the couple's divorce, demanding millions of dollars on the wife's behalf.
Daily Mail
12-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
Brothers and sister of £18million health drinks tycoon win bid to battle his Maltese lover for a share of his fortune
The siblings of a multimillionaire British tycoon who made his fortune flogging health drinks have won the right to take his Maltese partner to court in a bitter battle over his £18million estate. Alan Lorenz, a former London divorce lawyer who gave up his legal career in the 1980s to join controversial weight-loss brand Herbalife, died in 2021 aged 78, leaving his entire fortune to his much-younger partner Sheila Caruana. But his brothers and sister – Robert Lorenz, 81, Anthony Lorenz, 77, and Vanessa Manasseh, 79 – insist he had promised them a share of the fortune and have now successfully appealed to have their claim reinstated after it was thrown out in the High Court. The Court of Appeal ruling clears the way for a full trial, where the siblings will argue that Alan created a 'secret trust' shortly before his death, asking Sheila to 'do right' by his family and divide his fortune with them – something she now denies. Charterhouse-educated Mr Lorenz built up an empire through Herbalife, the controversial US-founded direct-selling giant known for its nutritional shakes. He joined the firm in 1984, quickly climbing the ranks to become a senior member. By the time of his death, Mr Lorenz had amassed a sprawling £18million estate, including a £4million Mayfair townhouse, a luxury £3.5million villa in Malta, £8.8million in cash and £2.1million in Herbalife-related assets. He began his relationship with Sheila, now 59, around 2012. But with a 23-year age gap between them, the court heard that Mr Lorenz had been increasingly focused on tax planning in his later years. Although earlier wills had left his siblings a share of his fortune, in 2020 he drew up a new one, leaving everything to Sheila. The couple then entered a civil partnership shortly before his death, meaning she would not be liable for inheritance tax on his estate. Robert, backed by his brother and sister, brought a claim to court arguing that Alan – who they said had 'a history of aggressive tax avoidance and indeed an abhorrence of paying tax' – had entered into the civil partnership and revised his will only as part of a scheme to shelter his wealth, with the understanding Sheila would later pass half on to his family. They told judges he had assured them this would happen, and that he believed Sheila was '100 percent honourable' and would follow his wishes. 'Alan had a long-settled intention to benefit his siblings,' Robert said, claiming his brother was 'willing to enter into arrangements where the relevant authorities would or might be deceived as to the real purpose or effect of the transactions.' A solicitors' note at the time reportedly stated that Sheila would 'sort out his family in due course', and that Alan had personally told each of his siblings that this was the plan. Sheila, however, flatly denied any such understanding, saying: 'At no time did he say that there would be any restrictions on my use of the assets. Neither did he give me instructions to deal with the assets he was leaving in a particular way.' The case was first brought to court in December 2023, when a judge refused Sheila's bid to have Robert's claim thrown out. But it was dismissed last June in the High Court by Mrs Justice Joanna Smith, who ruled there was no realistic chance of proving a trust existed or of identifying which property it covered. She described the siblings' claim as amounting to 'little more than submitting that something may turn up at trial.' But last week, Lord Justice Zacaroli overturned the decision, ruling there was enough to warrant a full trial and allowing the siblings' claim to proceed. He noted that the only evidence from Sheila so far was a 'short passage' in her statement claiming Alan had not given her any specific instructions about his wealth. He continued: 'There has as yet been no disclosure from Sheila, there is scope for making requests for further information, and there may well be evidence from the authors of the attendance notes. 'If Sheila chooses to give no further evidence herself, then - while not underestimating the hurdle that Robert's case would need to overcome at trial - it may be possible to draw inferences from her failure to do so. 'If she does give evidence, then there is material in the contemporaneous documents which could realistically form the basis of cross-examination.' He said there is a 'real prospect' that evidence at trial might 'fill the gaps' in the case as to what property the alleged trust was dealing with and who the beneficiaries are. 'The only person who can speak to what Alan actually said is Sheila, and there is at least a potential inconsistency between her current witness statement and the contemporaneous documents as to whether any instructions at all were given to her,' he said. He overturned the decision to throw out Robert's claim, with Mr Justice Cobb and Lord Justice Stuart-Smith agreeing. The case will now go forward for a full High Court trial unless settled beforehand.
Telegraph
07-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Telegraph
Liam Payne died without leaving a will
Liam Payne left a fortune of £24.3 million but died without writing a will, according to court documents. The One Direction singer fell to his death from a Buenos Aires hotel room in October last year, aged 31. Court documents from the Probate Registry show that Payne died intestate. His estate had a gross value of £28,594,888, and the net value amounts to £24,279,728 Payne granted power of administration of his estate to Cheryl Tweedy, his former partner and mother of his eight-year-old son, Bear. The second administrator is Richard Bray, an entertainment industry lawyer. Under the rules of intestacy, the money can be placed in a trust for Bear until he turns 18. Administration was granted by the High Court of Justice on May 1. Lilly Toop, a private client solicitor at the law firm, Shakespeare Martineau, said his failure to write a will meant his partner, Ms Cassidy, would not inherit anything from him. She said: 'UK law is very clear and without a will, estates are distributed according to a set of fixed rules. 'In Liam's case, his son Bear will inherit the entirety of his free estate in the UK, which will be put in a trust and managed until he becomes an adult. Liam's partner is not legally entitled to anything, despite being with the singer for two years prior to his death.' A court in Argentina dropped charges in February of criminal negligence against three out of the five people who had been charged in connection with Payne's death. The singer had found fame when Simon Cowell formed One Direction on the ITV talent show The X Factor in 2010. Payne first auditioned in 2008 when he was 14, singing Frank Sinatra's Fly Me To The Moon, with Cowell telling him to return to the talent show two years later. Payne died on October 16 last year after falling from a third-floor balcony. Toxicology tests revealed traces of alcohol, cocaine and a prescription antidepressant in his body, according to the prosecutor's office of Argentina. At the time of his death, Payne was in a relationship with Kate Cassidy, a US social media influencer. She said that the star had written her a note saying they would be engaged or married within a year. Cassidy had been staying with Payne during their Argentinian trip but flew back to the US shortly before his death. In a recent podcast interview, she discussed their last conversation. 'I remember sitting there with him and I was going on and on and on, and saying to Liam how much I love him. And he laughed and interrupted me, and said to me, 'Kate, you're going to miss your flight… you're acting like this is the last time you're ever going to see me again.' 'Just to even look back in time and really know that that was the last time I was ever going to see him again is just so chilling.'
