• 28
  • September
    2010

A prominent real estate developer with a wife and six children put together a multimillion dollar trust for his own benefit and for the family members' benefit. When the developer, Samuel Tamposi Sr., died in 1995, the trust was divided into twelve separate but equal trusts. One for the benefit of each child, and one "generation skippping" trust for each child's family.

In a move somewhat unusual for a trust, Tamposi Sr. also added a "no contest" or "in terrorem" clause: if anyone challenged the arrangement, they would be cut off. It would be as if that beneficiary were dead.

His daughter Betty challenged it.

Florida contested will attorneys following the case have noted that when Samuel Sr. died on May 25, 1995, the family trust held around four hundred properties in Florida and New Hampshire. The properties were worth roughly $70 million, but debts totaled roughly $50 million. Since then, the value of the properties in the trust has increased enormously.

All of the new twelve trusts were managed by the same trustee using the same properties for the benefit of all the trusts. Each trust consisted entirely of shares in the various family businesses and properties. Tamposi left his eldest and youngest sons, Samuel Jr. and Stephen, in charge of managing those assets. This was the aspect of the arrangement that Betty Tamposi objected to.

Last month, a probate court judge ruled that Betty Tamposi had violated the no contest clause, that she could not benefit from any of the trusts, and that she would have to pay her siblings' legal fees, which are likely in the millions of dollars.

Betty is going to appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

(Continued...)

The judge wrote, "By bringing this action, Elizabeth M. Tamposi has violated the 'in terrorem' clause of the Samuel A. Tamposi, Sr. 1992 Trust and thereby forfeits all of her right, title and interest" to the trust.

"It was clearly the intent of Sam, Sr. in devising his trust strategy that the Tamposi family business would continue; that the trust assets would be managed and invested together; that his children would be treated equally; and that family bonds would be cemented as a result.

"In this litigation, the petitioners aspire to defeat these purposes by disengaging the interests of Betty and her issue from the train, taking it down an independent track where they will be free to choose their own destination and route for getting there."

Betty Tamposi can no longer receive any money from the trusts and must pay back whatever she has received since filing the suit in October 2007, the judge ruled.

With a state Supreme Court appeal under way, it appears the legal battles and expenses will continue for the foreseeable future.

Source: Nashua Telegraph "Tamposi battle drags on with millions at stake" 9/26/2010