Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
When spouses divorce, they may be surprised to discover that certain trust assets may not be protected from each others' reach. It is often difficult to find a bullet-proof trust, holding assets firmly and securely away from the divorcing spouse. In Massachusetts, the divorcing couple's assets are placed into a pot, known as the 'marital estate,' and the probate court judge then considers a variety of factors in dividing the marital estate between the two spouses. When dealing with trusts, or any asset for that matter, the primary goal is to keep it out of the marital estate. That said, even if an asset, such as a trust, is added to the marital estate, it does not necessarily mean that it will be divided between the spouses. There are a number of factors to keep in mind when creating or analyzing trusts so as to keep such trusts characterized as separate rather than marital property. Understanding these factors is important not only in the context of the spouses' own divorce, but also with respect to planning for the protection of certain assets long before divorce is an issue, both in the spouses' own estate plans as well as in the estate plans of their parents and other relatives. The following discussion is based on Massachusetts case law, and, while many of the principles are applicable in other jurisdictions, local law should always be consulted.
Keeping the Trust Out of the Marital Estate
Not Self-Settled
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?