asset protection for title holding trust ?

[TrustUser]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

when i set up documents for people, i like to set up one trust document for just the beneficiaries. lets call this the Beneficiary Trust.

i then set up another document for the grantor, called the Grantor Trust, with the beneficiary being the Beneficiary Trust.

if the grantor owns a home, or for every property, i like to place each property in its own title holding trust. and then i usually like to make the beneficiary of this tht the Grantor Trust while the grantor is alive, and the Beneficiary Trust when the grantor is deceased.

when the grantor dies, the Beneficiary Trust comes into play, and is irrevocable. with the proper clauses, the Beneficiary Trust is protected from the creditors of the beneficiary.

the tht now has this irrevocable, protected trust as its sole beneficiary.

my question is the following : does this tht also have the same asset protection as the Beneficiary Trust ? or do i need to transfer the property into a subset of the Beneficiary Trust to gain protection ?

i always keep lawsuit or public recorded assets separate from non-lawsuit and non-recorded properties, for protection purposes.

 

[tranquility]

"Set up documents for people"? Please. If you're going to practice law, become an attorney. If you are an attorney, get something from CEB or a Rutter guide to help you with such complexities.

 

[TrustUser]

please, just answer the question, if you have an answer and would like to.

save your diatribe for yourself.

 

[tranquility]

While not an administrator, most posters avoid helping people commit crimes. I suspect you'll find that the case here.

 

[TrustUser]

it is not a crime to help someone with their estate.

i have not come on this site, giving my opinion regarding lawyers, and do not intend to.

i have tried to help some posters regarding stuff, if i know it.

and i am always willing to be helped.

any answer i get, i would always like to pursue for further confirmation.

one of the most important things that i think a prospective trust user should be told is that they have a choice of keeping their assets in trust, and therefore protected from the creditors of the beneficiary. few such prospective users are ever aware of this.

i am more than happy to listen to your experience regarding my question, if you care to answer it. i dont expect anyone's answer, including an attorney, to necessarily be correct, since it is not a question that many attorneys would ever even have been asked.

 

[tranquility]

it is not a crime to help someone with their estate.

It is a crime when that "help" involves legal advice and you are not an attorney. How many of your people come in saying "I want a beneficiary trust and a grantor trust and my house in a different trust which flows to the appropriate trust at the proper time with asset protection clauses. Can you help me with the paperwork for that?"

None.

You are giving legal advice regarding important things and are trying to do some things you clearly don't understand. When you start doing complex things, little errors make a big difference. A difference which cannot be changed after the fact. That, purportedly, is the reason why there are statutes agains practicing law without a license. Filling in the blanks on a pre-printed living trust is one thing--your scheme is quite another.

 

[TrustUser]

mainly i am interested, for myself.

the people i help are family and close friends, and only if i get prodded to do so.

let's not get into a discussion other than the question that i asked.

i agree it is a complex one, that most people, including most attorneys wont know.

and i am apt to get 10 different opinions from 10 different people, including attorneys.

keeping the property in its own title holding trust probably makes it cleaner in terms of transfer, which is why i would like to keep it there. and since there is nothing private in that document, one can give that document to a loan officer if refinancing, or a title officer if selling, and not be concerned about giving out any info other than that of the property.

but if i cant keep it protected, then i might choose another alternative.

let's not get into a pissing match. i am not here to get into personal arguments.

 

[tranquility]

let's not get into a pissing match. i am not here to get into personal arguments.

Good idea. Here let me help you screw up people's lives and commit a crime. To the question(s), "does this tht also have the same asset protection as the Beneficiary Trust ? or do i need to transfer the property into a subset of the Beneficiary Trust to gain protection ?", the answer is no.

Go ahead, "pursue for further confirmation."

 

[TrustUser]

hi tranquility,

no matter how much i know about a topic, i never want to allow myself to think that i am too knowledgeable, because that can possibly curtail the acquisition of new information.

i wont pursue confirmation on your answer, because i was quite confident that the tht did not carry the same asset protection as the beneficiary trust.

had you given me an answer of "yes", then i would want to have pursued that further, before i was willing to use it as part of my arsenal, because that was the answer that would make things flow easiest for me.

without talking to a lawyer, and with just your current knowledge, how would you accomplish what i am trying to accomplish ?

my current trust document gives the trustee the ability to place an asset in a separate trust, still guided by the same set of trust instructions, but as a separate trust (so that any suit against that property does not travel along the other assets). in your opinion, is this a valid thing to do ? i am talking after the grantor dies. i realize that the assets in a living trust are not protected while the grantor is living.

i understand if you dont want to answer, for whatever legal reasons you may have.

 

[JimPeters]

Maybe I don't understand the purpose of this forum, but I thought it was for people to learn about legal issues without going to a lawyer. Is this right?

Are there lawyers writing on this forum? I can understand if some lawyers feel that it is a conflict of interest or a threat to their profession to give free advice. I am here because I am not going to be hiring lawyers. I see nothing wrong with "ordinary" people trying to help others, as long as they don't claim to know something thay don't.

Are those who give advice here illegally practicing law without a license? It would be good to know the background of those who answer our questions, but I know we cannot, since anyone may join and say anything. I know going in that someone may steer me wrong, but I hope that if so, someone else will pipe in, then I'll have to try to sort it out.

By the way, I've been mislead by actual lawyers.

 

[anteater]

Jim,

You need to read the fine print at the bottom of the page.

FreeAdvice Forums are intended to enable consumers to benefit from the experience of other consumers who have faced similar legal issues. FreeAdvice does NOT vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any posting or the qualifications of any person responding.

If you read through some of the other threads, you will notice that most posters' questions are general in nature. And most of the responses are also general in nature referencing general principles of law, or cite specific statutues, or contain cautionary language, or simply advise that the situation is too complex and an attorney should be consulted.

When posters begin asking very specific questions (like your questions, for example), most responders will either simply advise consulting with an attorney or decline to respond at all. Have you noticed that you have really received responses only from one user?

When a responder begins making absolute statements such as....

... wills are an antiquated idea

or

boy, it just never ceases to amaze me at what people will do to even their own families. using trusts is so much better than wills.

When a responder repeats a "one size fits all" solution with only the barest of facts about a poster's situation.....

When a responder does not seem to be aware that law and processes differ between states...

When an admitted non-attorney responder begins guiding you through the preparation of documents and also openly states...

when i set up documents for people....

Then, they are going to be called on it.

If you refuse to use an attorney, that is your choice. But, caveat posterus.

 

[TrustUser]

hi jim,

i think you knew that i am not an attorney. i try to give you reasons for my statements, so that you can better determine whether my statements seem accurate, or not.

if you read my posts, you will see that i constantly talk about differences in states. owning property is a "state right". i think i also mentioned that other than the state of louisiana, that the rest of the states developed trust law from the english system, and with trusts you will find much more similarity than difference.

here is the google search when you type in "contesting wills". there are 4490 entries.

http://www.google.com/search?q="contesting+wills"&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-19,GGGL:en

here is the google search when you type in "contesting trusts". there are 52 entries.

http://www.google.com/search?q="contesting+trusts"&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-19,GGGL:en

you draw your own conclusions.

 

[seniorjudge]

hi jim,

i think you knew that i am not an attorney. i try to give you reasons for my statements, so that you can better determine whether my statements seem accurate, or not.

if you read my posts, you will see that i constantly talk about differences in states. owning property is a "state right". i think i also mentioned that other than the state of louisiana, that the rest of the states developed trust law from the english system, and with trusts you will find much more similarity than difference.

here is the google search when you type in "contesting wills". there are 4490 entries.

http://www.google.com/search?q="contesting+wills"&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-19,GGGL:en

here is the google search when you type in "contesting trusts". there are 52 entries.

http://www.google.com/search?q="contesting+trusts"&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-19,GGGL:en

you draw your own conclusions.

A Google search is supposed to prove something?

You are hilarious.

Thanks for the laugh!

 

[anteater]

if you read my posts, you will see that i constantly talk about differences in states. owning property is a "state right". i think i also mentioned that other than the state of louisiana, that the rest of the states developed trust law from the english system, and with trusts you will find much more similarity than difference.

Typical spin from you when questioned.

You rattle on about trust law. The question concerns your absolutist assertions about the superiority of living trusts vs. wills. You did not acknowledge that differences in law and process between states have a major effect on that decision until you were called on it.
https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=418230

here is the google search when you type in "contesting wills". there are 4490 entries.

http://www.google.com/search?q="contesting+wills"&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-19,GGGL:en

here is the google search when you type in "contesting trusts". there are 52 entries.

http://www.google.com/search?q="contesting+trusts"&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-19,GGGL:en

Care to speculate on whether that has any statistical significance?

Here, I'll give you my anecdotal eveidence. On a blog, a California attorney claiming to be an expert in estate litigation said that the ratio of living trust to will contests that he sees is 10:1.

 

[TrustUser]

if i recall, i also said that the difference in probate costs just meant how much worse it was in some states than others - but in almost all situations, still more costly than a trust.

i still stand by that statement - trusts are much better than wills, in just about every situation.

i know this site is full of attorneys. i do not want to get into any sort of lawyer-based arguments, as i have no doubts that the head of the site is an attorney, and would simply delete me from the site.

i am here to get advice, which at this point, i probably wont get any from any lawyer. and to help others if i can, on a few issues.

i think we both know that anyone can make their conclusions about an individual giving info on his own blog, versus anecdotal evidence of sites actually advertising something. that is all i care to say about it.