<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Nick,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">You are a
<u>champ</u> for sharing this. Very interesting read. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">I would love to see the Supreme Judicial Court overturn this, and provide a different and narrowing analysis. But I’m not holding my breath on this one.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">It’s not a terrible opinion, honestly; nowhere near as awful as Idaho Sup. Ct.’s utterly nutty
<i>Ferguson</i> opinion in summer 2020 (holding, among other things, that a mother owed her son enforceable fiduciary duties
<u>during her lifetime</u> after signing a <u>will</u> that exercised a (revocable-until-her-death)
<u>testamentary</u> power of appointment in his favor). If you’re ever having too good a day, go read that gem.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">A couple observations for we practitioners to learn from who do asset protection planning:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">I would argue unfortunate and avoidable choices at both the
<u>design</u> phase and at the <u>litigation</u> phase had a hand in the outcome. The devil is usually in the details.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The trust contains both a
<u>general</u> (not limited) testamentary power of appointment (see footnote 13) <u>
and</u> a <u>mandatory</u> <u>outright</u> distribution at the grantor’s death (see footnotes 7 and 8). In my view, these ultimately sunk the case.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">These overshadowed entirely the
<u>discretionary</u> distribution standard that applied during the grantor’s lifetime.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Sure, there is a postponement clause, which the court correctly (and generously) held applied to the mandatory distribution right after the grantor’s death. (See footnote
12.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">But even the postponement clause contained a judicially
<u>enforceable</u> “compelling reason” standard for postponement. (It’s not a <u>
divestment</u> clause, they point out.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">And “enforceable” means, to judges and others,
<u>vested</u> and <u>final</u>. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">In turn, “mandatory” + “vested” = “property right.” That’s how Massachusetts sees it, and maybe they are correct.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The postponement clause (as a “protective-seeming remedy” to “blunt mandatory distribution”) thus turns out to be a long paragraph that muddies the waters totally and defeats
the asset protection it’s supposed to preserve, as this opinion demonstrates. <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The trust could have instead simply
<u>retained the discretionary standard</u> after grantor’s death. In the proper independent trustee’s hands, that can be used to achieve (1) accumulation when smart/needed, (2) full outright distribution when the time is right (even immediately), and (3) lots
of options in between. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The wife could have had a
<u>limited</u> power of appointment (and done lifetime estate tax planning separately if needed because of resulting includability).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Much of the opinion would be impossible to write if the above two paragraphs were the case.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Forcing</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> full distribution outright is
<u>just not true asset protection</u>, in my (probably controversial) view. <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Why? Because clauses like the postponement clause combined with mandatory distribution ask FAR TOO MUCH NUANCED UNDERSTANDING of judges and lawyers who do NOT do this all
day every day. (See footnote 19 and accompanying discussion.) <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Why do I believe a simple discretionary standard with a truly independent but trustworthy and well-informed trustee still works?
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Because even this court understood and correctly described the
<u>discretionary standard</u> and accorded it the correct respect: see footnote 10 and accompanying discussion on pp 11-12.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">What killed it? This sentence at the end of that discussion:
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">“[W]hile the trust clearly contains discretionary components, the wife largely ignores the mandatory distribution language and the limits on the trustee's discretion to
postpone such a distribution.” Not just point, set, match; this is point, point, set, match. (The
<u>general</u> testamentary POA later becomes point three.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">(Their later discussion about equity applying fiduciary standards to enforce (or “give judicial teeth to”) discretionary trusts is aimed at holding naughty trustees accountable
when they won’t distribute without good reason, far more than it is aimed at justifying inclusion in a marital estate.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">And then this litigation error was killer:
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">There was no postponement in place (because technically there did not need to be “yet”), and, worse, wife did
<u>not</u> establish that her trust assets would be required to be used to satisfy the 10-year promissory note award to the husband, although it seems implied the trust funds would be required. (Her trust was actually
<u>100% allocated to her</u> in the end. So other assets theoretically could be used to pay the husband.) See footnote 14:
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">“There has not been any postponement here on these or any other grounds. Nor was there any evidence that the wife ever requested, or would need to request, a distribution
in order to make any of the payments to the husband required by the amended judgment of divorce.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Lastly, to add to the oversights, wife’s record did not include any hard numbers – or even
<u>estimates</u>– of the tax burden (entirely allocated to wife, see p. 21) of cashing out taxable assets to pay the husband over 10 years with interest. Wife’s lawyer simply asserted the concept without numbers or examples. (See pp. 28-29.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">(I experienced something similar in a Spokane case to which I was tangentially related the past three years. Divorce commissioner didn’t get it; superior court TEDRA judge
barely got it; different superior court divorce judge definitely didn’t get it; opposing lawyers and financial expert obviously did all they could NOT to get it; and even a former Gonzaga professor was somehow persuaded to write all sorts of words that jumbled
the relevant issues. All because, in that case, the beneficiary was also a co-trustee. So, sure,
<u>technically</u> that doesn’t blow up asset protection or do other unhappy tax things – to IRS agents and trust lawyers. But
<u>optically</u> and <u>practically</u> it sure appeared the beneficiary/co-trustee/spouse had a great big asset to include in the marital estate.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">So, I think ultimately the choice is either “true commitment to asset protection with an independent trustee you know and
<u>trust</u> and maybe write a letter of instruction to or talk with” <u>or</u> “limited asset protection that might work and might not but is not really full asset protection.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">And now I realize I may be pummeled.
</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif">😉</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> I’m braced.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">All the best, Josh
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ligatures:none">Joshua D. McKarcher<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ligatures:none">McKarcher Law PLLC<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ligatures:none">537 6th Street<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ligatures:none">Clarkston, WA 99403<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ligatures:none">(509) 758-3345<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ligatures:none">(509) 758-3314 (fax)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ligatures:none"><a href="mailto:josh@mckarcherlaw.com"><span style="color:#0086F0">josh@mckarcherlaw.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ligatures:none"><a href="http://www.mckarcherlaw.com/"><span style="color:#0086F0">www.mckarcherlaw.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ligatures:none">From:</span></b><span style="mso-ligatures:none"> wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Nick Pleasants<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 20, 2023 2:05 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [WSBAPT] End of Asset Protection?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi All,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In further evidence that Irrevocable Trusts may not be quite so irrevocable anymore, I wanted to share a Massachusetts Appellate decision that came out September 6, 2023.
<a href="https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2023/09/06/q21P0655.pdf" target="_blank">
<i>Jones v. Jones</i></a>, No. 21-P-655, 2023 WL 5729650 (link to the opinion). Divorce case, wife has an irrevocable trust she inherited from her mother. Trial court decided that it could include wife’s trust among the marital assets because, “The wife's mother
played a significant role in shaping the marital lifestyle and financial expectations.” Trust has an independent trustee in Michigan, but that didn’t stop Massachusetts from asserting jurisdiction and issuing the alimony order. This wasn’t even her separate
property, it was an asset-protected independent trusteed asset.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Shocking to see it upheld on appeal. Disappointing to see wife’s mother’s careful estate planning get ripped to shreds in her daughter's divorce. I hope this is not the new norm for divorce courts across the country.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Nick<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-ligatures:none">Nicholas Pleasants | Shareholder
<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black;mso-ligatures:none"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#70AD47;mso-ligatures:none"><img border="0" width="223" height="95" style="width:2.3214in;height:.988in" id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.jpg@01D9EBE9.D1385EA0" alt="OseranHahnAttyatLaw 8"></span><span style="color:#70AD47;mso-ligatures:none"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#70AD47;mso-ligatures:none"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;mso-ligatures:none">11225 SE 6<sup>th</sup> Street | Suite 100 | Bellevue, WA 98004<br>
Main: (425) 455-3900 | Fax: (425) 455-9201 | E-mail: <a href="mailto:npleasants@ohswlaw.com">
npleasants@ohswlaw.com</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;mso-ligatures:none"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1F497D;mso-ligatures:none">CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail message contains information belonging to the law firm of Oseran Hahn, P.S.,
which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you think that you have received this message in error, please e-mail the sender. If you are not
the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>