I am surprised that there hasn't been response to this post...
Can we discuss what happens in the absence of a trust?
If some property is used as a naked owner (possession, beneficial interest) but there has not been a trustee designated as the controlling party, a construct trust may be instituted by the county/state/federal goons, yes?
What a trust does in theory:
1) it designates a legal controller/representative
2) it indicates the law that will apply to the property
3) it serves to indicate intent to protect the rights of the beneficiaries and to keep the property private if executed correctly.
This is all my understanding from study but not from first-hand experience.
One very important thing I've come to understand from my reading is that the terms of the trust ARE the law in regard to how the property will be used and what the property might be subject to. If the intent is clear at all, the property is bound by the terms of the trust. The terms do not need to be made public, but redacted version of the trust document can be issued to a court or a party that needs to know. The trust document is never recorded or otherwise made public.
Thoughts? Corrections?
Thanks all-- I am glad to be here and hope for some good talk on these ideas.
-Brian