All Forum Posts by: Brian Bradley

@Brian Bradley the point of this ruling was the criminal and fraud aspect of what he did and you can’t hide from the justice system in that sense. But you want to be *** close to judgment proof as possible link a domestic trust with a Cook island trust. You should not be able to hide from criminal acts and fraud. The court was right. But the cook island trust still withheld despite.

@Rob K. Caselaw only gets reported when the law is unclear. So courts don’t spend the money on reporting cases that don’t need to be reported since nothing to appeal or no clarification. Caselaw only provides clarification of unsettled areas of law. This is settled areas. So to find more cases go look up unreported cases on settled areas of law.

@John you guys attacked and are not offering anything educational or value. Just conclusions with nothing to support.

@John Hyre so glad you brought up that case. with a extrene Case and specific fradulent transfer action. you cant use AP for fraud. They did and the donstic trust destroyed since set for fraud and criminal activity. the crazt part of it tHough is the cook island trust still hrld strong despit fraud. so my point with tiyr case is strengthend. dont commit fraud and AP is tax neutral. thanks for proving my point ASSET PROTECTION ISSUE: Is a Domestic Asset Protection Trust (DAPT) set up in Alaska effective regarding a Montana fraudulent transfer action? CASE SUMMARY: Donald Tagwell sued the Wackers in Montana state court in 2007. The Wackers counter-sued Mr. Tagwell as well as several other related parties, including his wife and mother-in-law Toni Bertran. The Wackers won and received judgments against Tagwell and Bertran in 2010. Shortly before the judgment was entered the Bertran’s set up the Toni 1 Trust, a DAPT based in Alaska. Mrs. Bertran then filed Bankruptcy in Alaska in an attempt to secure Alaska as a jurisdiction and to stop the Montana sheriff from seizing property held by the trust in Montana. The transfer was a pretty clear case of fraudulent transfer and the BK court found exactly that. The interesting issue that the court dealt with which is instructive from an asset protection standpoint is related to the Alaska DAPT Statute itself, Alaska § 34.40.110(k), specifically states: “A court of this state [Alaska] has exclusive jurisdiction over an action brought under a cause of action or claim for relief that is based on a transfer of property to a trust that is the subject of this section.” In other words, the Alaska statute purports to have sole control over determining whether any transfers to the trust shall be deemed fraudulent. This is quite a bold attempt by the Alaska legislature, as it is already well-established by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution that Federal law is controlling over State law. Add to that, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV Section I of the Constitution, which states that the States must respect the judicial proceedings of the other states, and one can see that Alaska was really reaching. TRIAL RESULT: The BK TRIAL RESULT was as expected. The Bankruptcy court analyzed the Alaska statute and found that there was very clear legislative intent by the Alaska legislature and that indeed the purpose of the statute was to seize all control of the determination of transfers. Nevertheless, the court rejected that Alaska had the power to remove another States rights to make a determination, specifically regarding property in that other state. Considering both the Full Faith and Credit Clause as well as the Supremacy Clause, this was both predictable and expected. ASSET PROTECTION SUMMARY: From an Asset Protection standpoint, this case has one very big point – You cannot rely on the DAPT statue of any State, nor the Trust document or recitals to establish JURISDICTION! In the end the COURT which has the case in front of it, whether State, Federal or Bankruptcy, will determine which law applies, regardless of what the Trust document, and now even the DAPT Statute itself attempts to establish. In this respect the Wacker case follows both the Dahl Case and the Huber Case in its disregard for the stated jurisdiction of the Trust. TAKE AWAY: DO NOT USE A DOMESTIC ONLY ASSET PROTECTION TRUST (DAPT)!!! Unless you like the idea of lots of uncertainty and lengthy legal proceeding which costs lots of money, and the fact that if anything is not perfect your client is likely to lose their assets, just don’t use a DAPT. It has become exceedingly clear that relying on a DAPT gives your clients little to no predictability when it comes to the actual defense of the Trust and if courts will decide to continue to show that they will do what they wish to achieve the result they want! Either use a fully Foreign Asset Protection Trust (FAPT), OR use a BRIDGE TRUST ® , which combines the ease of maintenance of a domestic trust with the superior protection of a Foreign Trust.

@Michael Plaks seriously agree

talk to your team members CPA and asset protection attorney to get set up correctly 

@Michael Plaks this really easy to answer. Article 1 section 4 of the constitution. Full Faith and Credit Clause. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. What it means. Each state must respect and honor the state laws and court orders of the other states, even when its own laws are different. For example, if citizens of New Jersey marry, divorce, or adopt children in that state, Florida must recognize those actions as valid, even if the marriage, divorce, or adoption would not have been possible under Florida law. Similarly, if a court in one state orders a person to pay money or stop certain be- havior, the courts in other states must recognize and enforce the other state’s decision. Congress also has the power to determine how the states honor each other’s acts, records, and court decisions. For example, Congress may pass a federal law that specifies how states must handle child custody disputes when state laws are different or the process by which a person winning a lawsuit in one state can enforce the order in another state. Now, if you wanted to be protected from a rogue judge or jury and be judgment proof. Then you get a foreign trust account with a bridge trust and when the trigger is engaged by a pre-established threat then the domestic trust moves all assets into the Cook island trust which does not recognize US courts or judgments. Then who cares. But full faith and credit is the corner stone of our legal system.

@Rob K. you are so off the path its funny. This forum is not for case law. It is a quick here you go. Its strange how its been around for 28 years and over 13 states keep adding it. And its interesting how you seem not to understand how case law works. National Securities Series case is used as legal president that shows the courts recognize Separate portfolios of a series business and that if each series is treated as a separate trust and the creditors of one series of the trust may not reach the assets of any other series of the trust. this is just basic law 101. Not sure if you actually do anything in court and write briefs and argue in-front of judges etc. The Series Classification of assets has been ruled on a long time before the Series LLC existed and further supports and strengthens it since the legal principle was established before its existence. the position taken in the investment fund private letter rulings and the principle of Rev. Rul. 55-39, 1955-1 C.B. 403, make it likely that the Service will take the same view in the case of an LLC series. Bishop and Kleinberger, Limited Liability Companies ¶ 2.11 (May 2006). More legal experts stating the same. Just saying Rob you have zero clue what you are talking about and keep discrediting yourself.

A project on the federal tax classification of a series was included in the Treasury’s 2008-2009 Priority Guidance Plan, and reappears in the 2009-2010 Priority Guidance Plan. General Tax Issues, Item 20 (classification of series LLCs and protected cell companies under §7701) (Nov. 24, 2009). If each series is treated as a separate business entity for federal tax purposes, then it appears that each series is an “eligible entity” that may elect its own tax classification See Treas. Reg. Section 301.7701-2.  Even the IRS is ruling on the favorability of the Series LLC as Separate. Sorry. again you are way out of your league Rob. 

CA is one of the tricky states with Series LLC's and we have already discussed the work around of that in multiple ways. Used openly by almost all firms. So again, you are wrong. 

You seem to blindly attack what you do not understand or know and are not open to learn. Not good. And not an attack. just an observation from your conclusionary statements that just keep getting blown up.  I am not going to go into every case law that exist since it is not the point of this forum or BP. Go take CLE courses and learn from experts in the field before you opine. 

@Michael Plaks and if you want that Legal trieties to skim through just email me and I’ll send it. Attorneys will differ in approaches etc just like doctors and CPAs etc. And everybody will have their own opinion. Forums like this are general questions and answers not detail. You want great detail just email me and I’ll get you that 40plus page Legal trieties to go through then circle back and ask more questions.

@Michael Plaks you rely on a lot of blogs. Like I said the legal system itself is set up from the beginning on reciprocity of other states laws and codes and structures. I sent the name of a law book on the topic of AP and Series’s LLCs you can get to read. Like I said, I can send you a 40 page plus Legal treaties on the topic of asset protection and entities to use in unstable time which focuses exclusively on the Series LLC and the code and case law. I can’t sent it as an attachment to you on this site since we are not connected. Stop using blogs as if they are anything. I have offered a lot of options for you to learn about the law supporting the series llc etc but you seem to not want to read about it. Every clients need and combination will very per client and their specific needs and situation. The costs are not as much as you would speculate. As a general rule most firms say spend 1% of what your trying to protect. It can get done cheeper than that and allow for scalability and growth. You keep assuming expensive costs. Misconception and relative to what you are trying to protect and how much and growth plans. It’s different for each person.