Hi,
My mother had a personal superannuation trust (SMSF) with binding nominations on the death benefits. The trust deed complied with regulation 6.17a of the SISR meaning the binding nominations expire after 3 years and need to be redone. The binding nominations themselves had no expiry, but under the deed rules they expired after 3 years. All good so far.
She then revoked that Deed and replaced it with a replacement Deed that states the binding nominations do not expire. She did that 5 years ago.
She has passed away and the trustee of the fund is claiming that the original rules of the first deed apply as the binding nominations were done under that deed, and the nominations have in fact expired. It is now at the trustees discretion to allocate the benefits ignoring the wishes of my mother.
I'm at a bit of a loss. It seems clear that when my mother replaced the deed she thought she was ensuring that her nominations would not expire and her benefits would be paid to her choosing.
Anyone out there in LawAnswers land help me? I'm turning the internet upside down looking for clarity on the matter and I can't find it.
Thanks
My mother had a personal superannuation trust (SMSF) with binding nominations on the death benefits. The trust deed complied with regulation 6.17a of the SISR meaning the binding nominations expire after 3 years and need to be redone. The binding nominations themselves had no expiry, but under the deed rules they expired after 3 years. All good so far.
She then revoked that Deed and replaced it with a replacement Deed that states the binding nominations do not expire. She did that 5 years ago.
She has passed away and the trustee of the fund is claiming that the original rules of the first deed apply as the binding nominations were done under that deed, and the nominations have in fact expired. It is now at the trustees discretion to allocate the benefits ignoring the wishes of my mother.
I'm at a bit of a loss. It seems clear that when my mother replaced the deed she thought she was ensuring that her nominations would not expire and her benefits would be paid to her choosing.
Anyone out there in LawAnswers land help me? I'm turning the internet upside down looking for clarity on the matter and I can't find it.
Thanks