mistrusting us bank -- august 6, 2003
filed immediately after august 5, 2003 meeting with us bank trustee

Links to Iowa Law on Trusts






COMES NOW, XXXXXXX and XXXXXXX, residual beneficiaries of the XXXXXXX Trust, to amend their response to the response to objections by XXXXXXX, Trustee for U.S. Bank and Trustee Agent on its behalf for the XXXXXXX Trust, filed with the Court on July 14, 2003 and further responded to by the Trustee in the meeting of August 5, 2003 with U.S. Bank. XXXXXXX and XXXXXXX state to the Court as follows:

1. Said trustee, U.S. Bank, has never formally completed the required Annual Accounting for March 2002 through February 2003. Said trustee agent, XXXXXXX, never provided an Annual Accounting to beneficiaries on February 5, 2003, contrary to what he has told the Court. Said trustee has stated and presumed, in the meeting of August 5, 2003, that the Initial Report and the Annual Accounting could be combined and submitted together by June 1, 2003. To the contrary, these are two separate obligations per Iowa Probate Code. The Initial Report does not constitute the Annual Accounting. The Initial Report is lacking in many of the financial details necessary for the Annual Accounting. Moreover, the Annual Accounting is now long overdue and was overdue on May 17, 2003 when it was submitted to the beneficiaries as if it were the same as the Initial Report.

2. Said trustee, U.S. Bank, has yet to submit a complete and detailed accounting of the net expenses, net income for the farm and for the Trust, and net distributions for the Trust for the 2002-2003 year. The accounting submitted with the Initial Report does not adequately distinguish and separate farm expenses from distributions to the income beneficiary. The accounting mixes the payment of propery taxes for 2002 with possible income benefits. The accounting combines distributions that should have been separate. The accounting does not provide full dates on invoices. The accounting does not completely account for all farm expenses, including all the bags of soybean seeds used in drilliing 196 acres. Current invoice only shows 22 bags when it should have shown between 250 and 300 bags of seed beans. Said beneficiaries, XXXXXXX and XXXXXXX, request a complete and detailed accounting of all expenses, income and distributions, including the net expenses, net income and net distributions for the Trust.

3. Said trustee, U.S. Bank, did not manage the farm land asset during 2002 in a manner that took advantage of discounts offered by XXXXXX& Sons.

4. Said beneficiaries, XXXXXXX and XXXXXXX, seek clarification of the role of Attorney XXXXXXX in representing both the Trust of XXXXXXX and the trustee, U.S. Bank. Said beneficiaries seek an understanding of what entity is responsible for paying for the services of said Attorney when representing and defending said trustee U.S. Bank in this matter.

5. Said beneficiaries, XXXXXXX and XXXXXXX, state to the Court that XXXXXXX, both farm tenant and beneficiary of the Trust, obtained guardianship of XXXXXXX, income beneficiary of the Trust, in February of 2003. Said guardianship according to the Court includes managing and accounting for the finances and assets of the ward and surviving spouse, XXXXXXX. XXXXXXX and XXXXXXX see a serious conflict of interest in said Trustee’s efforts to remove farm land from the Trust during the same time when the beneficiary and farm tenant, XXXXXXX, obtained control, via guardianship, of the surviving spouse’s assets and finances, including any transferred farm land. XXXXXXX and XXXXXXX view the attempt at removal of the farm land from the Trust as partial and unfair preference for the interests of XXXXXXX. XXXXXXX and XXXXXXX were never notified of nor invited to conferences between said Trustee, U.S. Bank, and XXXXXXX and his attorney regarding the removal of the farm land from the Trust.

6. Said beneficiaries, XXXXXXX and XXXXXXX, maintain the same responses to the response by the Trustee, U.S. Bank, as were filed on July 24, 2003 with the Court. The response of July 24, 2003 to the Court stands as the same response of XXXXXXX and XXXXXXX after the meeting of August 5, 2003.

WHEREFORE, the undersigned, XXXXXXX and XXXXXXX, continue to not approve of the initial report by said trustee, U.S. Bank, and trustee’s agent, XXXXXXX, and do hereby request that the Court remove and replace U.S. Bank and/or XXXXXXX with a different trustee, preferably one from Banker’s Trust in Des Moines.