The Donor‑Fund Fight: A $21 Million Family Legal Battle

A family in Kansas has taken a nonprofit to court over a $21 million donor‑advised fund (DAF) that was started by the father in 2005. The son, who has been the sole advisor since his mother’s death, says the sponsor—WaterStone—has stopped letting him see the account and has ignored his grant requests. He claims WaterStone keeps the principal forever and only gives out investment income, which would cut his yearly donations from $2. 3 million to a tiny fraction. After he tried to move the fund to another sponsor, WaterStone cut off contact. The lawsuit highlights a growing issue: DAFs are the fastest‑growing vehicle for philanthropy, holding over $300 billion in assets. They let donors claim an immediate tax break and then decide later where the money goes. But the legal control of the assets lies with the sponsor, not the donor. Critics say this can lead to “wealth hoarding” and a mismatch between donors’ intentions and what sponsors do.

Experts explain the trade‑off. A tax professor notes that donors give up legal control to get a deduction, so they only have advisory rights. Another professor points out that the biggest sponsors are tied to banks and usually keep donors happy unless it hurts their bottom line. A think‑tank director warns that sponsors earn fees and may prefer to hold funds longer, which can limit distributions. The case is not the first of its kind. Earlier disputes have seen donors suing sponsors for selling assets too fast or for misusing funds after a sponsor went bankrupt. Courts have generally upheld that donors lose control when they claim a deduction, but this case focuses on the right to advise rather than own. The son says he tried to resolve matters privately for two years before filing suit. He hopes the outcome will clarify how much power donors actually have and whether sponsors can be held accountable for honoring a donor’s legacy.

Actions