Special offer

Owning Massachusetts Property in Trusts--Fo once our Legislature is Ahead of the Curve and Making Things Easier

By
Services for Real Estate Pros with Topkins & Bevans-etopkins@topbev.com

Owning property in a trust, or having a trust as an entity that made loans secured by real property, at one point was downright impractical. One solution was recording the entire trust document. This was expensive and really divulged much more personal and financial information than most people wanted to disclose. There was also the nominee trust route, which permitted the underlying trust to be the beneficiary of a nominee trust which was recorded with a not small recording fee of $225.00.

This being the case, you can understand why real estate practitioners, investors and individuals were pleasantly surprised by Chapter 508 of the Acts of 2002, which added the current Chapter 184, Section 35 of the Massachusetts General Laws. This well written law has taken the "sting" out of acting in a trust capacity, both from a financial point of view and for ease of operations.

In a word, Chapter 184, Section 35 has provided the "Easy" button for transactions which at one time were complicated.  In order to own property in a Trust, or be a Lender who is a Trust, a Certificate needs to be filed in the appropriate registry of deeds. [recording fee is $75.00]. This Certificate needs to include the following:

•1.       The identity of the Trustees or the Beneficiaries under the Trust;

•2.       The authority of the Trustees to act with respect to real estate;

•3.       The existence, or non-existence, of a condition precedent to acts by the Trustees {normally addressed and discarded because such a condition does not exist]

Once this Certificate is on record the Trust can operate, and any acts taken by the Trustees "shall be binding on all trustees and the trust estate in favor of a purchaser or other person relying in good faith on the Certificate".

Voila!!!  Trusts can own property, inexpensively and without divulging important information. Ditto investors.  There is no bad news connected with this statute, only progress. If any of you want advice in this area, give me a shout. Many, many doors have opened as a result of this statute. I think that is what laws are supposed to do; make it easier to enter into favorable transactions, without archaic restrictions.

Patrick Scott
OConnor Title Guaranty, Inc. - Chicago, IL

Hello Elliott,

This is not only an interesting topic for me, but a timely one too.  I think I will take you up on your offer of advice.  I will post my initial questions to you here in case anyone might be as interested in the answers as I would.  Here's the story:

My mother-in-law, a widow, owns two properties in Massachusetts.  She recently moved from the family home in Medway and now resides with us in Illinois.  The second property is a three unit investment property in a nearby (Massachusetts) town.  Mother-in-law would like to sell both properties quickly, but realizes that it's a poor market for sellers and may take a while.  The investment property is currently on the market with one of three units occupied.

I guess my first question for you would be this:  As she and her daughter (my wife) are here in Illinois, and the remaining sibling has just moved back to Massachusetts, and the properties both being in Massachusetts, in which state should she establish her trust, if that is what she chooses to do?

My thought is that she would do well to create a trust, with herself as the trustee and a daughter as successor trustee (or substitute in the event the trustee is unable to act.  She's getting up there in age).  Then, when the properties are eventually sold, the process can go smoothly regardless of the physical or mental status of the principal.  Does this make sense, or am I way off base?

Aug 13, 2010 07:49 AM