I had contacted several employees with US Bank, from the time that Trustee Meyers 'REFUNDED' the Trust (4/2003). Steve Stroud condoned and defended the Trustee John Meyers, who had 'refunded' Dad's Trust. Pat Grewe confirmed the rules of a Bank Trustee but Steve Stroud was NOT aware of a Trustee's duties. Trustee Meyers removed the most aggressive Asset, so to favor my brother, who was living with our Mother.
After Mother passed, they were to close Dad's Trust but they were not accurate with their accounting. I brought that to the attention of Jerry Grundhofer, US Bank CEO, Wm Williamson, Robert Webster, Steve Stroud. My letter to Jerry Grundhofer, (US Bank CEO) was passed to Sally Mullen (US Bank Personal Trust Service) so I then corresponded with her. The following is a letter to Sally Mullen.
December 15, 2005
Sally A. Mullen
Chief Fiduciary Officer
US Bank Trust Services
101 East Fifth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55101
RE: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. Trust
Dear Ms. Sally Mullen:
This letter is to notify you that even as we have finally received a Trust statement from your bank, US Bank, on October 28, 2005, there remains numerous problems and discrepancies with this most recent accounting and previous accountings for our father’s Trust, XXXXXXXXXX Trust, of which we are the direct beneficiaries. Thus, we do not accept this statement as a final accounting for the Trust.
We would also like to note that we were originally promised this accounting statement in a letter at the beginning of July of 2005, with the notation that it would be issued in July. However, we never received the statement at that time, as had been promised in that letter. We had to repeatedly request the statements from US Bank for nearly four months before finally receiving them at the very end of October. Why did we have to keep requesting what had been originally promised to us in July? And now what we have received from your bank is entirely unsatisfactory and fails to explain how you arrived at the final disbursement figures. We find those figures very suspicious and questionable since they were rounded-off to 224,000 even. How did your bank manage to round off those numbers? It is quite obvious that they should not have been rounded off.
Thus, your bank owes us an explanation as to how you arrived at the numbers on the disbursement checks, given that there are no explanations and no balances in the accounting that you have provided. We would also like to be able to see precisely how much money was in the Trust during each month between September 30, 2004 and September 30, 2005, so that we can calculate the rate of returns and compare it to what was in the Trust at the end of the last accounting statement that we received in November of 2004. The current statement fails to provide that essential information. In other words, it fails to provide beginning and ending balances, and it fails to show trades and all transactions. Without that information, there is no way to know how you arrived at the final disbursement figures, and thus we do not accept the final disbursements as the correct numbers.
We would also like to know why you paid $3,323 in estimated Federal Fiduciary taxes to the US Treasury on December 29, 2004 and then another $8,030.00 in Federal Fiduciary Taxes on April 8, 2005 out of the main Trust account, for a grand total of 11,513.00 for 2004 when the Trust barely even made that much money in 2004. How do you pay $11,513 in taxes when the Credit Shelter Trust did not make that much after fees and expenses? In fact, we demand copies of Federal Tax statements for 2004 and 2005 that document and explain those numbers. As beneficiaries, we are entitled to those Federal tax statements, which your bank has never provided to us. Based upon the limited information available thus far, we also believe that there are potential tax refunds that your bank has failed to distribute back to the Trust.
We also question why on page 2 of the current accounting, there is an item entitled “Miscellaneous Disbursements” in the total amount of 22,765.45. We would like an itemization of what those “miscellaneous disbursements” included. What exactly was included in that 22,765.45 that was subtracted from the main Trust account?
We would also like to know exactly where the “cash balance forward” figure of 9,308.93 on page 3 of the statement came from. There is no correspondence between that number and previous statements. It makes no sense whatsoever, neither in the context of this statement nor previous statements. We also want to note that there remains a 634 dollar discrepancy in the balance of the previous years’ statements. This discrepancy originated from January of 2003, when your bank failed to deposit 634 dollars of receipts. As far as we can detect, US Bank has never restored that 634 dollars to the Trust.
We would also like to know why you were paying the (Mother’s) Estate $6,000 out of the Trust Sub Account on June 20, 2005. What exactly was that 6,000 in reference to and why was it being paid to our mother’s estate instead of the beneficiaries since the Trust agreement says that all funds and income are to go to the beneficiaries after our mother’s passing. And why did your bank distribute another 782.60 to her estate on September 8, 2005? There should not have been any distributions to her estate after her passing. This disbursement appears to represent a special and unwarranted favor to XXXXXXXXXX (our brother), and thus total disregard for the terms of our father’s Trust agreement. Again, we feel as if we have been cheated here by US Bank, and that US Bank has privileged the interests of XXXXXXXXX (brother) and disregarded our interests as beneficiaries of equal standing.
We are also greatly troubled to discover that your bank distributed the farmland into XXXXXXX (brother) name when that farmland deed should not have had his name on it whatsoever. His name should not have been placed on the deed. Even if he is the current and temporary executor of our mother’s estate, his name should not be on the deed in any capacity. This is only further evidence that your bank was wrongly doing favors for him and privileging his interests beyond ours. This was a clear violation of the Trust Code and a violation of our interests as beneficiaries of equal standing. We continue to regard these actions as discrimination. We also question how your bank was able to keep that deed transfer out of the local newspaper when all deed transfers are supposed to be published. Why didn’t you want us to know about the transfer and how did your bank manage to evade publication?
We would also like for US Bank to explain a “tax information letter” that we just received on October 22, 2005 from US Bank, in which it is stated that there are “excess deductions on termination” of 7,231 per beneficiary. We would like to know precisely how those “excess deductions” were calculated and what precisely they are in reference to.
Additionally, we remain greatly troubled by the obvious and illegal backdating of transactions that occured during the first week of June of 2004. The accounting itself -- when put in its proper chronological order -- is proof that those transactions were backdated as an apparent favor to XXXXXXXXX (brother) and thereby cheating us out of over 20,000 apiece that would have been due to us had your bank not backdated those transactions and had your bank not wrongly and unjustifiably disbursed over 61,000 dollars when you did not have that cash amount available in the Trust. Your own US Bank trustee, John Meyers, was unable to explain those transactions, and even said during testimony that that kind of “rebalancing” occurs after the passing of spouse, which meant that it did not occur during the first week of June but was rather wrongly backdated so as to make it seem like the money was disbursed before our mother’s passing when it should have been distributed to us three children according to the terms of the Trust. Indeed, your bank hasn’t even explained how you arrived at that 61,000+, especially when you hadn’t even subtracted your various fees for 2003 and 2004 yet, and the disbursement of that 61,000+ was well in excess of net income after the subtraction of fees and expenses. Also, you had already distributed a portion of the 2003 income to our mother on May 8, 2003 so that amount of 61,000 was well in excess of any 2003 income since May 8, 2003.
And we remain furthermore troubled by the fact that on May 8, 2003, when, according to the accounting, US Bank leveled off the Credit Shelter Trust to 675,000, your bank failed to leave the increases in principal since April 2001 in the Credit Shelter Trust as you were supposed to have done. The Trust should not have been rounded down to 675,000 on May 8, 2003 when the principal had grown since April of 2001 and that increase in principal should have remained in the Credit Shelter Trust. This is another example of your bank’s discrimination against our interests as beneficiaries and your failure and/or unwillingness to protect our financial interests.
You say in your letter that you “have thoroughly reviewed the administration of the XXXXXXXXXX (Dad’s) Trust and [you] believe that [you] have acted appropriately at every juncture.” We entirely disagree with your claims, which we find to be incredibly dishonest and self-serving. You left virtually the entire Trust invested in your bank’s own proprietary money market fund for over 20+ months combined, while never informing us that you had sold out of our father’s original investments and never informing us that you had placed them in your own proprietary fund. You never even informed us that these were bank-owned investments after you finally gave us the accounting statements in November of 2004. And you never informed us that your bank and/or the US Bank trustee were receiving commissions and fees for the use of those proprietary funds. In fact, we were entirely left in the dark for nearly two years, despite our documented requests for information. We find this to be dishonest, unethical and self-serving on the part of your bank. We also find your actions with the farmland to have been extremely dishonest and against the Trust’s and our best financial interests. Indeed, your bank, US Bank, entirely disregarded our interests as beneficiaries.
It is obvious to us that your bank, US Bank, advocated against our financial interests behind the scenes and in Court. Had you not actively advocated against our interests and had you not advocated for the removal of the farmland, as documented in John Meyers’ letter from February of 2003, the farmland would have never been removed from the Trust. This represented an active betrayal of us, as beneficiaries, and of our father’s Trust on the part of your bank, and thus a violation of the Trust Code. Our father would be extremely upset if he were still alive to see what you did to his Trust, to his farmland and to his family. Your bank, US Bank, also profited far more from our father’s Trust than we did while you left us, the beneficiaries, with absolutely nothing in the end. In essence, your bank ripped-off our father’s legacy for three and a half years for US Bank’s profit alone.
Again, we do not accept these accounting statements from October (2005) because they do not offer explanations for the disbursements and because they do not provide balances nor the necessary financial information that one would expect in a final accounting statement. Nor do the statements rectify the remaining problems and deficiencies in the previous years’ accounting statements for the Trust. We also feel that the Trust overpaid Federal taxes and that tax refunds -- for perhaps several years -- have apparently not been distributed back to the Trust.
We look forward to your prompt response to all of these concerns. This matter is by no means concluded until all of these issues are addressed and properly remedied by US Bank.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
cc: Steve Stroud, US Bank
Deb Minkler, US Bank
Robert Webster, US Bank
Jerry Grundhofer, US Bank CEO
Throughout the duration of Dad's Trust with US Bank, the Trustee 'churned' the Cash Assets, as the Trustee moved Dad's Cash Assests from Edward Jones to US Bank's Proprietory Fund (First American Funds). Only a Bank Trustee could get by with what John Meyers did with Dad's Trust.
I am currently in the process of writing a letter to a bank which has misrepresented it's elderly client. I am very interested to know if the matter has been resolved .
Posted by: [email protected] | 07/26/2011 at 10:15 AM