Spendthrift Trusts After Carmack and Blech; What Do We Do Now?
Spendthrift trusts provide that a beneficiary’s interest may not be alienated, assigned to creditors, or otherwise anticipated by the beneficiary. But, after Carmack v. Reynolds, spendthrift provisions no longer offer the same viability for those who wish to exercise the ’dead hand of control’ over their presumably improvident donees and beneficiaries to protect them from their own creditors. Further, because the interpretation of California’s spendthrift laws is a subject previously uncertain but clarified by this Court in its Carmack v. Reynolds decision, then the result of the Blech decision is that law is no longer clear, nor uniform—with a disparity between trusts with bankrupt beneficiaries with bankruptcy estates administered by Chapter 7 liquidation trustees versus those without. THE HARSH LESSON TO BE LEARNED is that, after Carmack v. Reynolds and Blech, the customary methods to protect improvident donees and beneficiaries using the traditional spendthrift trust rules can be ineffectual. The ‘Dead Hand Of Control’ is crippled – at least in the State of California. Presentation discusses Carmack v. Reynolds (2017) 2 Cal.5th 844 and Blech v. Blech (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 941,
Presenter; Author, Spendthrift Trusts After Carmack and Blech; What Do We Do Now?, San Fernando Valley Bar Association (SFVBA), 2020
Trustee Notice Pursuant to P.C. Section 16061.7; Don’t Overlook the Mundane
Tumultuous Terrain of the Trustee
GAL and CAC: The Intersection of Differing Methods to Effect Adequate Representation in the Courthouse
Ethical Guidelines for Los Angeles County Probate Court Appointed Counsel (CAC): Or, What Am I Supposed to Do Now That I Am Someone’s CAC?