What's happening
Writing a plain-English summary… Track this bill to get it by email.
Why it matters
Albany, before your first meeting.
Every bill that moved yesterday, summarized in a sentence and ranked by impact. The Albany Scorecard follows on Sundays.
Free. Unsubscribe in one click. Want alerts on specific bills? Create an account.
Who cares
Headline styles
Sponsors
Senator · Senate District 42
No co-sponsors yet.
History
- Referred to judiciary
Full text
The text isn't available here yet. Check nysenate.gov.
Sponsor's memo
BILL NUMBER:S7630
Title of bill
An act to amend the estates, powers and trusts law, in relation to the exercise of a power of appointment and an authorized trustee's authority to invade a trust; and to amend chapter 451 of the laws of 2011, amending the estates, powers and trusts law relating to the exercise of a power of appointment and an authorized trustee's authority to invade trust principal, in relation to the effectiveness thereof
This is one in a series of measures being introduced at the request of the Chief Administrative Judge upon the recommendation of her Surrogate's Court Advisory Committee. This measure would make technical corrections and clarifying amendments to chapter 451 of the Laws of 2011, which substantially altered New York's so-called "decanting statute" - EPTL 10-6.6, enacted in 1992. Section 10-6.6(b) codifies decisional law that permitted a trustee who has authority to invade the trust principal to exercise that power by creating new trusts. This effectively allows the rewriting of an irrevocable trust by permitting trust assets to be "appointed" or "decanted" to another trust. Chapter 451 enacted provisions to make the statute more flexible and more explicit with respect to the procedure required to effect a decanting.
Read the full memo (1,680 words)
(1) Exclusion of Successor or Remainder Beneficiaries
L. 2011, c. 451 enacted a new paragraph (b) to EPTL 10-6.6, to provide as follows:
"(b) An authorized trustee with unlimited discretion to invade trust principal may appoint part or all of such principal to a trustee of an appointed trust for, and only for the benefit of, one, more than one or all of the current beneficiaries of the invaded trust (to the exclusion of any one or more of such current beneficiaries. The successor and remainder beneficiaries of such appointed trust shall be one, more than one or all of the successor and remainder beneficiaries of such invaded trust (to the exclusion of any one or more of such successor and remainder beneficiaries)." (emphasis added.)
In light of the language of the second sentence of paragraph (b), the question has arisen whether the interests of all the successor or remainder beneficiaries of the original ("invaded") trust may be excluded in the new ("appointed") trust.
Although it can be argued that the phrase "to the exclusion of anyone or more literally can be read to encompass "to the exclusion of all", more importantly, permitting the exclusion of all of such successor or remainder beneficiaries appears more in keeping with the probable intent of the original grantor. A grantor who intentionally
provides a trustee with the unlimited discretion to distribute the entire trust property outright to one or more "current beneficiaries" has thereby rendered the interests of the "successor or remainder beneficiaries" inherently susceptible to exclusion. In addition, it is highly improbable that a grantor would intend that a trustee have the power to exclude all but one of any number of successor or remainder beneficiaries (as is clearly allowed under the present statutory language), but not have the power to exclude all such beneficiaries.
It is therefore proposed that paragraph (b) of EPTL 10-6.6 be amended to read as follows:
(b) An authorized trustee with unlimited discretion to invade trust principal may appoint part or all of such principal to a trustee of an appointed trust for, and only for the benefit of, one, more than one or all of the current beneficiaries of the invaded trust (to the exclusion of anyone or more of such current beneficiaries). The successor and remainder beneficiaries of such appointed trust (shall) may be one, more than one or all of the successor and remainder beneficiaries of such invaded trust (to the exclusion of any one (or) more than one or all of such successor and remainder beneficiaries)."
(2) Requirement of Majority or Unanimity in the Decanting Decision
Although the new statute is silent on the matter, the Legislative Memorandum to the statute recites that the decision to decant requires only a "majority" of trustees ("Unless expressly limited by the terms of the invaded trust, a majority of the trustees.... may pay part or all of the principal of the invaded trust to an appointed trust." P.6 of Legislative Memo).
On the other hand EPTL 10-6.7 provides that, unless the instrument provides otherwise, unanimity is required for the exercise of a "power of appointment" 'held by "two or more" persons. EPTL 10-6.7 would literally apply to the decanting power because such power is specifically denominated as a "power of appointment" under 106.6(d) ("An exercise of the power to invade trust principal under paragraphs (b) and (0) of this section shall be considered the exercise of a special power of appointment as defined in section 10-3.2 of this article").
However, under 10-6.6(h) a trustee has a "fiduciary duty to exercise the power in the best interests of the objects of the power" and it would therefore appear that the default rule should be the rule contained in EPTL 10-10.7, which applies to powers held jointly by fiduciaries, and which allows a majority decision to govern where there are "three or more fiduciaries", unless the instrument provides otherwise.
It is therefore proposed that EPTL 10-6.6(d) be amended to read as follows:
(d) An exercise of the power to invade trust principal under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section shall be considered the exercise of a special power of appointment as defined in section 10-3.2 of this article provided. however. that such exercise shall be governed by the provisions of section 10-10.7 of this article.
(3) Obsolete Reference to EPTL 7-1.17
L. 2011, c. 451 enacted a new paragraph (s)(1) to EPTL 10-6.6, to provide as follows:
"(s)(1) The term "appointed trust" means an irrevocable trust which receives principal from an invaded trust under paragraph (b) or (c) of this section including a new trust created by the creator of the invaded trust or by the trustees, in that capacity, of the invaded trust. For purposes of creating the new trust, the requirement of section 7-1.17 of this chapter that the instrument be signed by the creator shall be deemed satisfied by the signature of the trustee of the appointed trust." (emphasis added.)
A technical correction is needed to the second sentence of paragraph (s)(1) because, pursuant to a 2010 amendment to 7-1.17(a), the requirement that "the instrument be signed by the creator" has been changed, and 7-1.17(a) now provides as follows:
"Every lifetime trust shall be in writing and shall be executed and acknowledged by the person establishing such trust and, unless such person is the sole trustee, by at least one trustee thereof; in the manner required by the laws of this state for the recording of a Conveyance of real property or, in lieu thereof; executed in the presence of two witnesses who shall affix their signatures to the trust instrument." (emphasis added)
It is therefore proposed that paragraph (s)(1) be amended to provide as follows:
(s)(1) The term "appointed trust" means an irrevocable trust which receives principal from an invaded trust under paragraph (b) or (c) of this section including a new trust created by the creator of the invaded trust or by the trustees, in that capacity, of the invaded trust. For purposes of creating the new trust, the requirement of section 7-1.17 of this chapter that the instrument be (signed by the creator) executed and acknowledged by the person establishing such trust shall be deemed satisfied by the (signature) execution and acknowledgement of the trustee of the appointed trust.
(4) Discretionary Income Beneficiaries
L. 2011, c. 451 enacted a new paragraph (b) to EPTL 10-6.6, to provide as follows:
(b) An authorized trustee with unlimited discretion to invade trust principal may appoint part or all of such principal to a trustee of an appointed trust for, and only for the benefit of one, more than one or all of the current beneficiaries of the invaded trust (to the exclusion of any one or more of such current beneficiaries). The successor and remainder beneficiaries of such appointed trust shall be one, one or all of the successor and remainder beneficiaries of such invaded trust (to the exclusion of any one or more of such successor and remainder beneficiaries)." (emphasis added.)
Because paragraph (s)(4) of the new 10-6.6 defines a "current beneficiary" as someone "to whom the trustees may distribute principal at the time of the exercise of the power", (emphasis added) the question has arisen whether the interest of a discretionary beneficiary to whom income, but not principal, may be paid under the original ("invaded") trust, can be continued in the new (appointed") trust.
Although such continuation may seem literally prohibited under the first sentence of paragraph(b), there appears to be no reason why a grantor would want to prohibit a trustee from continuing such an interest in the new trust.
It is therefore proposed that paragraph(s)(4) of 10-6.6 be amended to read as follows:
(4) The term "current beneficiary or beneficiaries" means the person or persons (or as to a class, any person or persons who are or will become members of such class) to whom the trustees may distribute principal at the time of the exercise of the power, provided however that the interest of a beneficiary to whom income, but not principal may be distributed in the discretion of the trustee of the invaded trust may be continued in the appointed trust.
(5) The Effective Date Provisions
The effective date provisions of L.2011, c. 451 are as follows:
"This act shall take effect immediately and shall apply to trusts whether created prior to or after such effective date. "(emphasis added.)
The effective date of the new statute was August 17, 2011 and the question has arisen whether the statute applies to a trust created on that date. To clarify this issue it is proposed that there be a chapter amendment to L. 2011, c. 451 enacting the following effective date provisions:
This act shall take effect immediately and shall apply to trusts whether created prior to, on or after such effective date.
Legislative history
None. New proposal.
Summaries, headlines and scores are AI-generated from the official bill text. How we score bills. Source: NYS Open Legislation.