can my brothers ex sue our trust/estate if he refuses to pay child support?

[bradthebloke]

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

sorry if this is in wrong forum. im the executor of both an estate and a trust fund which includes my two brothers and myself as beneficiaries. One of the brothers is a complete deadbeat who will not pay his child support despite repeated requests from the other brother and myself to get a job and do so. She has now hired a lawyer and has plans to go after his money in the trust and estate. Im completely fine with that as I feel he should pay his child support. The thing is, the ex is saying she wants to go after all of our shares. My question is, if the three of us have an equal share in the trust and estate, will the ex be able to attack the money as a whole? or only his 3rd in each account? I dont want to have to pay this deadbeats ex for kids that are not mine. thanks in advance

 

[LdiJ]

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

sorry if this is in wrong forum. im the executor of both an estate and a trust fund which includes my two brothers and myself as beneficiaries. One of the brothers is a complete deadbeat who will not pay his child support despite repeated requests from the other brother and myself to get a job and do so. She has now hired a lawyer and has plans to go after his money in the trust and estate. Im completely fine with that as I feel he should pay his child support. The thing is, the ex is saying she wants to go after all of our shares. My question is, if the three of us have an equal share in the trust and estate, will the ex be able to attack the money as a whole? or only his 3rd in each account? I dont want to have to pay this deadbeats ex for kids that are not mine. thanks in advance

She can only go after his 1/3...and really not even in the way you are thinking. She cannot "go after" the estate or trust. She can only attach any distribution he might get from the estate or trust. So, for example if this were the kind of trust where he gets a yearly income from the trust but cannot touch the principal, then she could only attach the yearly income.

 

[bradthebloke]

She can only go after his 1/3...and really not even in the way you are thinking. She cannot "go after" the estate or trust. She can only attach any distribution he might get from the estate or trust. So, for example if this were the kind of trust where he gets a yearly income from the trust but cannot touch the principal, then she could only attach the yearly income.[/QUOT

that what I was thinking, wanted to post it on here. thanks LdiJ

 

[Trustholder]

She can only go after his 1/3...and really not even in the way you are thinking. She cannot "go after" the estate or trust. She can only attach any distribution he might get from the estate or trust. So, for example if this were the kind of trust where he gets a yearly income from the trust but cannot touch the principal, then she could only attach the yearly income.

I think she can "go after" the amount the targeted beneficiary has a right to get--no matter if it is to be distributed or not. I had a situation like this once (Not from Texas though, they might be different.) where I was a trustee of an irrevocable trust where I had to send out Crummey letters each year to the beneficiaries.

For those who don't know, a Crummey letter is one asking the beneficiary if he gives up his right to receive a distribution from a trust. The power is required to show the IRS the trust is truly a present gift and any assets it holds should not be included in the person who is making the gift's estate. In this case it was a life insurance trust (ILIT). If the beneficiaries did not have Crummey powers, the grantor would have had a LOT more in his estate at death.

One of the beneficiaries had a judgment against him similar to the type bradthebloke is talking about and the creditor wanted to get at the right of distribution even though no distribution was planned to be made or really desired by the trust to be made. The creditor had the right to the greater of the 5 and 5 power (greater of $5,000 or 5%) as long as the right to take the distribution had not lapsed.

 

[LdiJ]

I think she can "go after" the amount the targeted beneficiary has a right to get--no matter if it is to be distributed or not. I had a situation like this once (Not from Texas though, they might be different.) where I was a trustee of an irrevocable trust where I had to send out Crummey letters each year to the beneficiaries.

For those who don't know, a Crummey letter is one asking the beneficiary if he gives up his right to receive a distribution from a trust. The power is required to show the IRS the trust is truly a present gift and any assets it holds should not be included in the person who is making the gift's estate. In this case it was a life insurance trust (ILIT). If the beneficiaries did not have Crummey powers, the grantor would have had a LOT more in his estate at death.

One of the beneficiaries had a judgment against him similar to the type bradthebloke is talking about and the creditor wanted to get at the right of distribution even though no distribution was planned to be made or really desired by the trust to be made. The creditor had the right to the greater of the 5 and 5 power (greater of $5,000 or 5%) as long as the right to take the distribution had not lapsed.

That still however, goes along with what I said. The creditor cannot take more than what could be distributed.