XXXXXXXX: I have a few observations for you, but not much else in the way of useful advice.
When property is owned by a trust it is actually titled in the name of the trust. So if were real estate, the real estate deed would have been made out to ___ and ___ as Trustees of the _____ trust. If there were stock, it would again be titled in the name of the trust. So generally it should be very difficult for someone to sell property belonging to someone else's trust. At a real estate closing the closing agent would know what name was on the title and would require that the person sitting at the table prove they were trustee of that trust. If someone were selling investments, the transfer agent would require proof that the person was trustee of the trust that held title to the asset.
Similarly, there is an obvious paper trail when there is such a transaction. It shouldn't be that difficult normally to trace who did what, and what the title to the asset originally was.
If the attorney you hired was not able to verify the paper trail as far as what happened to show that you father had invaded the 1988 trust, then it may be because the situation is more complex than it should have been and/or your assertion that the assets were in fact property of the 1988 trust is not as clear cut as it normally would be in the situation of well managed trusts.
If there was a clear cut proof that your father had invaded the 1988 trust and sold assets, then pocketed the money (or put it in his 1992 trust), then that could be an act of conversion which is a form of theft. If that were easily proven, you may have a case to present to the DA's office for criminal prosecution. However the fact that your attorney was not able to relatively easily establish a paper trail in this matter leads me to wonder whether the case is clear and decisive enough for the DA to take it seriously as a criminal matter. They have no interest in being in the midst of what boils down to a family dispute, and in the case of white collar crime they need clear proof of intentional wrongdoing and high enough $$ to make it worth their while to proceed.
I'm not sure that I have been much help here, but it has hopefully helped to shed light on what I see as the most critical points.
I hope this has been helpful. Let me know if you have any followup questions. If none, please remember to click on the ACCEPT link so that I may receive credit for working on this topic with you. (I'd greatly appreciate it!)Thank you,Dan--------------The information provided is general in nature only and should not be construed as legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. You should always consult with a lawyer in your state.PS: If an answer appears to you to have been very helpful, or to have taken above average expertise and/or research, or if the answer shows an above average amount of time and dedication devoted to your issue, a bonus is nice way to say "Thank you". Thanks!
Retired JD
Retired attorney, general practice, with an additional background in financial planning,
If there is proof that there were assets titled in the name of the 1988 trust, which he was not trustee of, nor a beneficiary of, and that he executed documents falsely identifying himself as trustee of the 1988 trust, in order to either transfer assets out of the trust or sell the assets on behalf of the trust and kept the proceeds for himself, then that would be conversion, which I have indicated is a form of theft. (Property of another is converted to your own use.) If you have adequate proof, a DA may be interested in the case. I can't promise it, but they may. As I indicated, this could be something they see as being more of a family power struggle than actual theft. You have to convince the DA that it was theft.
As far as the title company goes, they would only be liable if they made a legal error in the process of handling the sale of property. WIthout additional information that is impossible to comment on. If your father executed the appropriate affidavits, the title company is entitle to rely on those.
You mentioned that the 1992 trust was a 'fake trust'. There can be more than one trust, even serving the same people and having similar purposes. There is nothing inherently wrong or illegal with his having created another trust. The only illegality would be if he took for his own purposes assets that were legally the property of the 1988 trust.