Blog

FAMILY LAW 30: Discretionary trust assets cannot be reached to satisfy claims for child support and alimony.

This action arises out of petitioner’s attempts to obtain compensation for child support and alimony arrearages owed to her by her ex-husband. Ex-husband is a beneficiary of the trust at issue herein. Petitioner sought to compel respondents, who are the trust’s successor co-trustees, to make income distribution payments to Ex-husband, out of which petitioner could then seek payment of Ex-husband’s child support and alimony arrearages.

Petitioner argues that the probate court erred by denying her petition for distribution based on a finding that the trust is a purely discretionary trust, and that she is not entitled to compensation for Ex-husband’s outstanding child support and alimony arrearages out of income distributions made to Ex-husband from the trust.

Petitioner and respondents disagree regarding the type of trust that is at issue herein. Petitioner argues that the trust is a support or spendthrift trust, and respondents argue that the trust is a discretionary trust.

Under a discretionary trust, the trustee may pay to the beneficiary as much of the income or principal as the trustee in his discretion determines to be appropriate. Conversely, under a support trust, the trustee shall pay so much of the income and such amounts of principal as the trustee deems proper for support, maintenance, and welfare. Trusts with spendthrift provisions provide that the beneficiary’s interest shall not be transferable or subject to the claims of creditors, unless the spendthrift provision allows ordinary creditors to reach trust assets.

The key difference between discretionary trusts, support trusts, and spendthrift trusts, for petitioner’s purposes, is that creditors, including petitioner, cannot compel the trustee of a discretionary trust to pay any part of the income or principal in order that the creditors may be paid. The opposite is true of spendthrift and support trusts, which allow trust assets to be reached to satisfy creditors, including creditors seeking to satisfy claims for child support and alimony.

Petitioner argues that the use of the word “shall” in the terms of the trust indicates that the trust is a support or spendthrift trust, whereas respondents argue that the use of the words “sole and absolute discretion” indicate that the trust is a discretionary trust.

A court must ascertain and give effect to the settlor’s intent when resolving a dispute concerning the meaning of a trust.

At several intervals, the trust document states that respondents, as trustees, are permitted to use their sole and absolute discretion in applying any part of the trust income or principal for Ex-husband’s benefit, indicating that it is a discretionary trust, and not a spendthrift or support trust.

The trust provisions at issue in this case give respondents discretion to determine whether to distribute the income and principal of the trust to its beneficiaries, including Ex-husband, as contemplated in MCL 700.7103(d). Thus, this Court must conclude that the trust is discretionary. Because the trust is discretionary, creditors, including petitioner, cannot reach the trust assets.

At Aldrich Legal Services, our attorneys and staff understand the stress that can come with family law disputes. Our firm is committed to helping you find resolutions.

From our law firm in Plymouth, MI, we serve clients throughout Wayne, Washtenaw and Oakland counties who are dealing with family law matters.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

REAL ESTATE 36: Plaintiff argued that her claim was not time-barred because it did not accrue until the grandmother’s death.

Plaintiff’s interest in the subject property is best characterized as a remainder estate, because her right to possession of the property was postponed until the occurrence of a specific contingency, that being the deaths of the grandparents. Plaintiff pursued this action within the 15-year limitation period; accordingly, this action is not barred by MCL 600.5801(4).

LITIGATION 6: The terms of the agreement prevails over the course of performance.

The trial court determined that under the UCC, the express terms of the parties’ agreements prevailed over the course of their performance and course of dealing. Although a course of performance may show that parties have waived a specific contractual term under MCL 440.1303(6), the statute does not similarly provide that a course of dealing may demonstrate waiver.

PROBATE 27: Petitioner filed a petition for mental-health treatment.

In support of the allegations, petitioner attached clinical certificates from a physician and a psychiatrist who observed respondent at the hospital. Both doctors diagnosed respondent with bipolar disorder, determined that she displayed a likelihood of injuring herself and that she did not understand the need for treatment, and recommended a course of treatment that consisted of 60 days of hospitalization and 90 days of outpatient care.

5 Things Everyone Should Do Before Starting a Business

So, you have a great idea and the experience to back it up. You are in a great starting place, but you have some work to do before jumping into forming your own business. Consider the following steps before you begin the process of starting your...

FAMILY LAW 32: Trial court committed error in failing to address whether there was an established custodial environment.

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court failed to make any findings regarding (1) the child’s established custodial environment, (2) the child’s best interests regarding the grant of primary physical custody to defendant, (3) the child’s best interests with respect to parenting time, and (4) the child’s best interests pertaining to the parties’ dispute over daycare.

PROBATE 25: Daughter removed as personal representative of the estate.

the probate court determined that Daughter J had managed the estate in a manner that promoted her own interests as a beneficiary over the interests of the estate. The probate court found that such management demonstrated mismanagement of the estate and that removal of Daughter J was therefore in the best interests of the estate.

4 Last Minute Ways to Avoid Foreclosure

One tough break seems to lead to another. If you get behind on mortgage payments, you could be in danger of having your house foreclosed upon by the bank. Lenders foreclose on real estate to recoup their losses. But this means you won’t have a...

5 Necessary Sections Your Prenuptial Agreement Needs

Many big decisions come with getting engaged. Planning for marriage can be exciting and romantic, although the thought of adding a prenuptial agreement may not stoke your passion, they can help you now and in the future. Prenuptial agreements are...

REAL ESTATE 32: Plaintiffs and defendants executed a second easement.

Plaintiffs requested that the trial court, either through reformation of the First Easement or interpretation of the Second Easement, quiet title in favor of plaintiffs and declare them to be the owners of an easement to access Lake Superior through the ravine on defendants’ property, enjoin defendants from interfering with their use of the easement, and order compensation for damages to the stairs.

LITIGATION 4: Plaintiff claimed installation of hardwood flooring breached the condo bylaws.

Defendants completed the project. Plaintiff did not pay for any of the costs of the project. Defendants moved to compel plaintiff to pay one-half of the costs under the agreement. Plaintiff responded that defendants had materially breached the agreement in several ways, including by denying her the right to supervise the project, by refusing to give her an installation schedule, and by starting work before plaintiff approved of the start date.

An Easy Guide to Navigate the Probate Process

Families can help each other through life’s toughest moments. However, issues come up when the strain of losing a loved one combines with the stress of honoring their last wishes. Probate protects beneficiaries best interests. Though...

Top 3 Misconceptions on Power of Attorney

Considering leaving the country for a long time while maintaining a business or selling a home in the US? Were you recently diagnosed with a terminal or degenerative disease? For these and many other issues, it may become necessary for someone...

FAMILY LAW 29: Quitclaim deed signed after prenuptial agreement prevails.

The court ruled that title to the land prevails and that once the deed was signed, the property became the undivided whole interest for both the decedent and appellee and became appellee’s property upon the decedent’s death. Consequently, the court concluded that the prenuptial agreement did not have any impact on the property rights of appellee in this case.

Know the Differences between Annulment and Divorce

  Marriage can end through two ways: divorce and annulment. Though both of these options have the same result, each has different requirements. There are many similarities and differences between a divorce and an annulment, so many...

Understanding Vaping Laws for Minors

  Vaping is a fad that is quickly solidifying into a stable industry of products around the world. Vaping and electronic cigarette (or e-cigarette) use have dramatically increased from roughly “seven million [users] in 2011 to 35...

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
consultation
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000
734-237-6482