Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Trust Drafting Tips: How to Make Trusts Harder to Reach in Divorce
Trusts have traditionally been used to protect wealth from divorce. However, what many estate planners refer to as “traditional” trust drafting (which continues to be used by many practitioners) is not nearly as effective at protecting wealth from the potential risks of divorce as approaches advocated by what some loosely refer to as “modern trust drafting.”
Much of this article compares and contrasts what might be viewed as a traditional approach to drafting clauses in an irrevocable trust, to what the modern approach to trust drafting would advocate. While the reasons that the modern approach will likely prove superior to the traditional approach might be obvious, the point is explained not only so that it is clear to matrimonial practitioners, but so that hopefully it will encourage estate planning attorneys to focus their drafting efforts on providing greater protection from future matrimonial actions of beneficiaries.
There are also a number of ancillary drafting considerations that might have an important impact on the security of trust assets from later matrimonial challenges, and these are explained as well. This article does not, however, get bogged down on nuances of state law, but rather focuses more on general planning ideas that should have applicability in a wide range of client matters. Individual practitioners will have to address how the application of those constructs may be impacted by their home state laws. While some of these concepts were addressed in “Trusts and Divorce” in the January and February 2010 issues of TheMatrimonial Strategist (see http://bit.ly/2nJzekb and http://bit.ly/2p107Q, respectively), this article expands on those concepts and addresses many new drafting and planning ideas that were not covered there. Trust drafting has also evolved rather substantially since that time.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.