SARASOTA, Fla. - You've been named the beneficiary of a trust fund.  So what have you got to complain about? Your bank. 
About 80 trust beneficiaries who gathered in this sunny resort town last  weekend did just that. Their biggest beef: Banks take trust clients for   granted because many lack the power to take their business elsewhere. In   short, the beneficiaries legally lack "portability."     
  
That term was the buzzword of the moment at this conference, organized  by Heirs Inc., a nonprofit group that is pushing for trust and estate   reform.   
"We think the Holy Grail is to have portability - to have the ability to  remove the trustee without burden of proof," said Standish H. Smith,   organizer of the Villanova, Pa.-based group.   
  
At issue are laws in many states that allow beneficiaries to switch  trustees only if this authority was explicitly granted when the trust was   created, or if they can prove that a trustee failed its fiduciary duty to a   client.     
Conference participants maintained that banks have gone overboard in  trying to keep clients - and have even penalized customers who have highly   restrictive trusts.   
"We're almost convinced that if you have a portability clause in your  trust, you're probably going to be charged less by your bank," Mr. Smith   said. "That's crazy!"   
  
A handful of states have made it easier for trust clients to move their  accounts. California, for instance, allows beneficiaries to change trustees   when a merger occurs.   
Right now, Heirs Inc. is waging a lobbying battle for portability in Mr.  Smith's home state of Pennsylvania. 
Mr. Smith - himself a trust client - is pushing the general assembly to  adopt a law giving beneficiaries the power to remove corporate and   individual trustees. A favorable vote on Senate Bill 770 would be "a   bellwether for the rest of the country," Mr. Smith said.     
Though portability is clearly a hot button, it's not the only issue that  makes heirs angry. Here are some other gripes from people who attended the   Heirs Inc. conference:   
  
*One man in his late 30s lamented that his trust officer was buying  Pennsylvania tax-free municipal bonds - providing no tax benefits for the   Maryland resident. He said his complaints had fallen on deaf ears.   
*A brother and sister, beneficiaries of a single trust, complained that  their accounts are being managed far too conservatively, producing returns   of 6% and 3% for the year to date, respectively.   
*A woman in her 40s said her trust bank was more concerned with  preserving assets for the next generation than with meeting her need for   current income. The problem, she maintained, is "remainderman" clauses   included in many trusts, which govern how an estate passes from generation   to generation. "The law says they're responsible to you first, but they   hold that remainderman thing over my head," she said.         
*One elderly man groused during a general session that capital from  trust accounts is routinely being used to "jump-start" proprietary mutual   funds at banks. His complaint drew a chorus of "Yeahs!" from audience   members.     
*Several participants complained that trust departments are experiencing  too much personnel turnover, and worried that they have become a training   ground for the rest of the bank.   
But the participants were not just heaping criticism on banks. At one  point, Mr. Smith singled out Philadelphia-based Glenmede Trust Corp. for   praise, saying its policy of allowing trust customers to leave means "there   are no unhappy campers."     
Only three bankers braved the crowd. They huddled together at a Saturday  evening cocktail party, looking distinctly uncomfortable. 
Richard M. Zimmerman, a vice president at Bankers Trust Florida in Palm  Beach, managed a nervous joke: "I'm one of the bad guys here." 
"It's good to hear the perspective of beneficiaries," allowed Joan B.  Kayser, vice president of trust administration in the Sarasota office of   Northern Trust Co. of Florida.   
For all its feisty ways, Mr. Smith said Heirs Inc. is more interested in  negotiating with bankers than in fighting with them. 
He has recruited Robert Wittman, a University of Connecticut law  professor, to help the process along. 
"There has never been a dialogue with the banks, and it's very hard to  get them to talk," Mr. Wittman said. "Instinctively, they circle the wagons   and fight off any kind of change."