Jay Adkinson: “If you don’t want to read this whole article, and then just take this quick summary and go on to something else: The 2011 decision in Dahl v. Dahl does not, absolutely not, nope, nada, nein, nyet, nuh-uh, support an argument that DAPTs provide protection to settlor/beneficiaries against third-party creditors who are not a party to the trust document. If you want to know why it doesn’t support this, or why somebody might suggest that it would, then read on. On May 17, 2013, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington issued an Order in the case of In re Huber, which was the subject of my article, Domestic Asset Protection Trust Blows Up Bigger Than Alaska In Huber Case. The Huber decision, which applied Washington state law to a Domestic Asset Protection Trust (DAPT) formed in Alaska, where the settlor/beneficiary was resident in Washington state, called into very serious question the viability of DAPTs both in bankruptcy and for settlor-beneficiaries who are resident outside a DAPT state.”
Why Dahl Doesn’t Support The Viability Of Domestic Asset Protection Trusts
By On the Net|2013-09-07T10:03:28-07:00September 7th, 2013|
About the Author: On the Net
This blog post links to the quoted article found else where on the internet. Click on the lnk to read the entire article.