The Pour-Over Will, the New Spouse, and the Trustee's Loan
In 2018, Martin, a widower with two adult children, executed a revocable trust funded with $1,500,000. The trust gave income to his then-fiancée, Lena, for life and remainder to his children. The trustee was Hudson Bank. In 2020, Martin married Beth. He never amended the trust or his will. In 2022, he signed a will leaving his $300,000 residuary estate 'to the trustee of the Martin 2018 Trust, to be administered under that trust.' Martin died in 2023. Beth timely filed a notice of election against the will. Meanwhile, Hudson Bank had invested $600,000 of trust funds in a start-up owned by Martin's son, and had borrowed $200,000 from the trust at 2% interest to renovate its own office. The trust document authorized 'prudent investments' but prohibited 'any sale or lease of trust property to the trustee.' The children argue that Beth has no claim against the trust and that the bank's actions were authorized. Beth argues that the pour-over will is invalid and that the bank must restore all losses. The governing law is New York.
1. Is the pour-over will valid?
Read the worked answer
Yes. New York's Uniform Testamentary Additions to Trusts Act, EPTL 7-1.17, validates a devise to a trust established before or concurrently with the will, as long as the trust is identified in the will and signed by the settlor. The will identifies the Martin 2018 Trust, and the trust instrument was signed in 2018. The trust was funded with $1.5 million. The fact that Martin did not amend the trust after marrying Beth does not invalidate the pour-over; the residue passes to Hudson Bank as trustee to be administered under the trust terms. Beth's elective-share claim is separate from the validity of the pour-over.
2. Can Beth elect against the trust assets?
Read the worked answer
Yes, likely. Under EPTL 5-1.1-A, the surviving spouse has a right of election against the decedent's net estate, which includes testamentary substitutes. A revocable trust funded by the decedent is a testamentary substitute; the trust principal is included even though legal title is in Hudson Bank. Martin retained the power to revoke and amend, so the trust is functionally testamentary. The trust was not limited to Beth, and she received nothing under it. The elective share is the greater of $50,000 or one-third of the net estate. The net estate includes the $300,000 residue and the $1.5 million trust principal, subject to adjustments; one-third is $600,000. Beth can elect against that amount. The children's argument that the trust is untouchable fails. The bank must account and may have to pay her share.
3. Did Hudson Bank breach its fiduciary duties, and what remedies are available?
Read the worked answer
Yes. The $600,000 investment in the son's start-up raises prudent-investor concerns: 40% concentration, related-party conflict, and lack of diversification. The trust authorized 'prudent investments,' not speculative related-party bets. The $200,000 loan to the bank is direct self-dealing: a trustee cannot borrow trust funds for its own benefit, and the trust instrument prohibited any sale or lease to the trustee. Even without that clause, EPTL 11-2.3 and common-law loyalty rules require undivided loyalty. Remedies include surcharge for losses caused by the start-up investment, disgorgement of the 2% interest and any profit, repayment of the loan, removal of Hudson Bank, and an accounting. The bank bears the burden to show fair dealing and no loss. Beth or the children can seek appropriate relief; the bank cannot hide behind the trust's investment power.