Re: Yes, I tried that argument - Posted by Stacy (AZ)
Posted by Stacy (AZ) on May 22, 2000 at 21:47:46:
You are correct, Rule #1 is not jail time, but the conveyance is “voidable by the other party”. If exercised it could end up that the buyer’s beneficial interest is taken away. Not jail, but not good either. I understand your work-around, but I wanted to point out to Jim that none of the prior advice on this thread would have worked to avoid this, since AZ law is obviously different. Actually, I’ve used a different strategy completely, so far. But if the risks are ever above my threshold, I’ll use your work-around.
As for rule #2, you may recall that I emailed you about my concerns, and you sent back a reply similar to your post. Unfortunately, I have yet to get anyone to agree with your interpretation of subsection D. Everyone interprets the law as applying only to the actual occasion of a beneficiaries death. If “upon the death of a beneficiary” the interests of the dead guy vest in his estate, or another previously identified beneficiary, there’s no need to disclose change in beneficial interest. Well, I don’t plan to die when I have the seller transfer all beneficial interest to me, as buyer. In other words, this clasue was obviously planned to speak to what should happen when a beneficiary actually dies, not to allow special treatment of a trust that happens to plan ahead for this occasion.
Anyway, you’re the legal eagle, not me. But I can’t get anyone around here to agree with you on this one.
And let me say, I feel completely in-between you (who I repect greatly) and everyone else I have to deal with to get the job done. Remember, my original post was to inform Jim that the advice he received was incorrect for AZ. I’ll stand pat on that, at least.