Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingScot
I think this is where we differ. To me, it is irrelevant that the camp is worth $18MM. The donor's objective as I understand it was to provide a great camping experience for kids, it was not to set up a financial endowment. He essentially gave them free rent in perpetuity so that the model would work forever. Now that the land value has skyrocketed, the Scouts see the dollar signs and they have gravitated to your position. But that does not mean the model does not work, it only means the Scouts are trying to maximize their finances
|
Only for the Girls Scouts of Arlington, a successor organization, or at the very extreme an Arlington organization dedicated to the same function.
It states nothing about a New Hampshire operation not tied to the original benefactors having an option.
Outside of the first three, it does state a sale with the benefits returning to Arlington.
So the fiduciary responsibility falls to a question of math.
Technically, it advises a sale.
Openly, would a rental that returns what the invested proceeds be permissible under the wording? The trust would retain the land for future sale, so the asset would also appreciate over time for future benefit to Arlington.
The court needs to make those decisions.