You are here: Home / Archives for Decanting

More than Just the Tetons: A New Chancery Court Makes Wyoming Well Worth Discovering

April 16, 2020 by Leave a Comment
Geyser Basin, Yellowstone Park, Wyoming (like the title says, more than the Tetons)

But for the missing photo of the magnificent Tetons, volume 11, number 1 of the 2011 Wyoming Law Review might be mistaken for a sales piece published by the Wyoming Business Council—the state’s economic development agency. Two articles in the journal tout Wyoming’s business and trust friendly laws. “The Undiscovered Country: Wyoming’s Emergence as a Leading Trust Situs Jurisdiction,”[1] Christopher Reimer argues that the state’s laws on directed trusts, trust protectors, self-settled trusts, and private trust companies, among other tools justify that claim. A few pages earlier, Dale Cottam and four others make similar claims with regard to limited liability companies. Not only did the new 2010 Limited Liability Company Act (“LLC Act”) replace Wyoming’s original—and first-in-the-nation—act, they point out, it included some “home cooking” that makes the Cowboy State the place to be . . . organized.[2] Come for the Tetons; stay for the business and trust friendly laws and the lack of a state income tax.

Seven years later, Amy Staehr revisited that theme in her piece “The Discovered Country: Wyoming’s Primacy as a Trust Situs Jurisdiction.”[3] In it, she updates what Wyoming’s part-time legislature had been up to in the intervening years. Among other things, new legislation provided more privacy protection to trusts and better asset protection with a new Wyoming Qualified Spendthrift Trust. Likewise, limited liability companies could now have a more flexible management structure. The message was again clear: Yes, the vistas are expansive and the sunsets beautiful, but have you looked at our business and trust friendly laws lately? “I think it’s exciting what Wyoming’s trying to do with its laws,” says Michael Greear, a state representative and member of the state’s Chancery Court Committee. “Anything we do to get more business and still keep the population at 500,000 is all good.”

But there was a hitch: Wyoming’s court system. It had essentially two tiers: Nine District Courts of general jurisdiction and a Supreme Court, the state’s only appellate court. And only the Supreme Court reported its cases online. In 2019 it issued 151 opinions, just 3 of them involving trusts and businesses, down from the 159 it heard in 2018, again, only 3 of them dealing with trusts and businesses. In short, Wyoming had great new business and trust laws, but too few court opinions published online to help interested observers discern how Wyoming courts might interpret those laws, an essential ingredient to a stable climate for business entities and trusts.

It didn’t help that recently—and unfortunately—the Court’s 2014 GreenHunter Energy case put the fear of creditors into the hearts of businessmen and women. The case’s result was certainly just, but the rule of the case appeared to ignore new veil piercing provisions in the LLC Act. It’s worth noting that the Wyoming legislature did its part to provide stability. Almost immediately after the Court issued its opinion, the legislature amended the LLC Act to essentially reset the law clearly and unequivocally to pre-GreenHunter days.[4]

In its 2019 session, the Wyoming Legislature acted again, this time to increase the size and density of the paper trail created by Wyoming courts in hopes of becoming the Delaware of the West. Delaware has a Chancery court, its docket devoted to trusts and business; so should Wyoming. And voila! After a concerted effort by some forward-thinking legislators and a stroke of the Governor’s pen, Wyoming has a Chancery Court dedicated to hearing nothing but trust and business cases.  Senate File 0104, the bill that started it all, now sits ensconced as Chapter 13 of Title 5 of the Wyoming Code. Where the court will sit and when it will open is another matter. “Two things will dictate when the factory is up and running: the adoption of court rules and making sure we’ve got the IT—the caseload management system and e-filing—in place,” says Senate President Drew Perkins, sponsor of the bill.

The Act mandates $1,500,000.00 of initial funding for the court and contains a broad outline for how the court should operate, among other things. In April 2019, the Supreme Court issued an order establishing the Chancery Court Committee to fill in the details of that outline. Justice Kate Fox was appointed its chairperson. “She gets two thumbs up,” Greear says. “She put together a great committee.”

The Committee did its job, particularly in developing court rules. Finally on January 7, 2020, an email went out to the Wyoming Bar, asking for comments on the proposed rules. The comment period ends on May 15, 2020, and final rules will go into effect six months later on November 15, 2020. That date makes sense because there is still a lot to work through, according to Justice Fox. That includes the rules, but also who the judges will be and where their court will sit. “The plan is to appoint judges with expertise in the statutory areas, much like in Delaware. Wyoming Chancery Court judges must be experienced or knowledgeable in the subject matter jurisdiction of the court,” she explains.

The court’s jurisdiction includes everything from breach of contract to fraud and misrepresentation, from statutory violations of laws governing asset sales and protecting trade secrets to transactions involving the Uniform Commercial Code and the Uniform Trust Code. Disputes concerning employment agreements, insurance coverage, and dissolution of corporations, LLCs, and other entities can all be heard by the Chancery Court. The statute says the Court “shall employ “alternative nonjury trials, dispute resolution methods and limited motion practice and shall have broad authority to shape and expedite discovery,” [5] a good idea, given that the new law requires “effective and expeditious resolution of disputes,” a term of art that means a majority of the actions filed in the court must be resolved with 150 days of filing. “The sponsors of the bill view the Chancery Court as kind of a business draw,” Fox says. “A speedier court with more particular [business and trust] expertise should be attractive to businesses who are considering incorporating in or coming to Wyoming.”

As for where the court will sit, “it will likely be in Casper or Cheyenne, just because they are bigger,” she continues. “But it’s also possible, depending on the case and where the parties are, that the judges could be mobile and hear cases in places like Jackson.”

The smart money is on Casper. It’s centrally located, new money was recently appropriated for a new state office building there, and it has good air service. “Last week I had meetings in New York with our investment bankers,” says Greear, who lives in Worland, Wyoming, where he’s the CEO of Wyoming Sugar Company. “I flew out of Casper, had a nice dinner in New York, met with my bankers and was home the next day. United and Delta service Casper really well.”

Perkins, who lives and works in Casper, hopes there will eventually be one or more courts outside of his hometown, maybe one in Cody or Sheridan and one in Cheyenne, for example. “That’s my vision for it, anyway. The idea is not about having the court in Casper; it’s about having the court available for quick resolution.”

As they say, time will tell. The job now is to get the first court up and running with a judge knowledgeable about business and trust law expeditiously issuing opinions. The hope is that, when published, those opinions will consistently and clearly demonstrate how things are done in the Wyoming. And done right, it’s all good—for the Equality State and the businesses that locate there.

[UPDATE] After this story went to press at the ABA, the Wyoming legislature failed to fund a variety of construction projects during the recent legislative session, including the construction of the Chancery Court in Casper. With the COVID-19 pandemic and the drop in oil prices, even Drew Perkins, a sponsor of the Chancery Court, thought it good to wait and watch.

[1] Pg. 165 (2011).

[2] “The 2010 Wyoming Limited Liability Company Act: A Uniform Recipe with Wyoming ‘Home Cooking,” pg. 49 (2011).

[3] Wyoming Law Review, Volume 18, Number 2, pg. 283.

[4] See “Wyoming Supreme Court Upholds Decision to Pierce the Veil of Single-Member LLC,” Rutledge, Thomas; November 13, 2014, https://kentuckybusinessentitylaw.blogspot.com/2014/11/wyoming-supreme-court-upholds-decision.html (accessed 2/26/2020); and “Wyoming Cleans up Veil Piercing in LLC Act,” Fershee, Joshua; March 29, 2016, https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/business_law/2016/03/wyoming-cleans-up-veil-piercing-in-llc-act.html (accessed 2/26/2020).

[5] Wyo. Stat. § 5-13-111

I wrote the piece above for the April, 2020 issue of The LLC & Partnership Reporter, a publication of the ABA.

Filed Under: Business Entities, Chancery Court, DAPT, Decanting, Dynasty Trust, Estate Planning, Limited Liability Company, LLCs, Series LLC, Taxes, Wyoming Tagged With: , , , , ,

Estate Planning Seminar at Pleasant Grove Library

February 13, 2017 by Leave a Comment

I’ll be presenting a seminar on DIY — Do It Yourself — Estate Planning at the Pleasant Grove Library on Wednesday, March 8, 2017 at 7 PM. Come an enjoy the discussion. The address is 30 E Center St, Pleasant Grove.

If you have a question about wills, trusts, and other aspects of estate planning, maybe I can answer it.

Filed Under: Advance Health Care Directive, Ancillary Probate, Basis, Blended Families, Charitable Giving, DAPT, Decanting, Dynasty Trust, Estate Planning, Estate Tax, Guardians, Health Care Power of Attorney, Insurance, IRA, Life Insurance, Living Will, Power of Attorney, Probate, Stepfamilies, Succession Planning, Tax Court, Trust Protectors, Trusts, Wealth Transfer, Wills

Some Things I Learned Answering Questions on a Forum for Asking Legal Questions

March 19, 2016 by Leave a Comment

Yikes_2016-03-07_0843So I sometimes forget that everybody’s smart, just on different subjects. For example, I don’t know much about physics. My teachers tried, but my head could only hold so much gravity and speed of light and such. Well, today I was online in an online forum where non-lawyers posed legal questions to attorneys. These were real life people experiencing real life problems that involved the law in some way or the other.

Now let me be crystal clear: I don’t think these people are dumb. To repeat: we are all “smart,” just on different things. I happen to know a lot about the law, but boy am I at a loss about some other subjects (heck, even about some legal subjects). With that, here are a few things I learned while answering questions:

  1. Many, if not most people, don’t realize that estate taxes are no longer a concern for most of us. Did you know that you and your spouse must be worth almost $11 million before the tax man comes knocking? Yes, you may need to do some planning to make sure you take full advantage of that $11 million threshold, but still.
  2. Many people don’t realize that the First Amendment doesn’t protect them from employers, friends, parents, and the like from infringing on their free speech rights. No, the First Amendment protects us from the government infringing on our rights. And even then the right is not absolute.
  3. More than a few people confuse a living will with a plain old will, also known as a last will and testament. A living will is a document that tells your family and doctor whether you want life support and such should you become incapacity and unable to speak for yourself. A will or last will and testament is what you use to appoint guardians for your children and to give your property away when you die. You can read more here.
  4. A lot of people–especially people down on their luck financially–aren’t aware of the legal resources available to them that are free or at a reduced cost, nor are they aware of the state agencies that might be of help to them–child protective or family services, for example. For the record, in Wyoming you can go to the Wyoming State Bar to find free or reduced-rate legal services. In Utah, you should go here.  In Wyoming, you can find child and family services here.  In Utah, you’ll find them here.
  5. Finally, too many people are way too quick to pull the trigger; that is, they get angry and immediately shout “Medic!!!” I mean, “Lawyer!!!” To those I say, try to work out your problems by yourself and amicably first, especially if it’s family, then resort to the law. But the corollary to that is, if the proper response is legal, then hire an attorney. Trust me on that one.

Now where do I go to find out how fast the speed of light was back in the days of horse and buggy?

Filed Under: Advance Health Care Directive, Asset Protection, Bill of Rights, Business Planning, Contracts, Decanting, Estate Planning, Estate Tax, Family Business, Firearms, Health Care Power of Attorney, Living Will, LLCs, Power of Attorney, Probate, Stepfamilies, Taxes, Trusts, Utah, Wills, Wyoming

Quote for the Day

March 9, 2016 by Leave a Comment

What is decanting and how does it relate to trusts?

The term “decanting” sounds mysterious, but in reality, decanting is simply a form of trust modification initiated by a trustee. The trustee accomplishes the modification by moving assets from one trust to a new trust with different terms. Estate planning attorneys draft trusts designed to last for generations based on assumptions about the beneficiaries that may bear no semblance to reality. Decanting then stems from the desire to make changes to an otherwise irrevocable trust.

Gerry W. Beyer and Melissa J. Willms, “Decanting is not just for sommeliers,” Estate Planning Studies, July 2014

Filed Under: Administration, Decanting, Estate Planning, Quote for the Day, Trusts

Quote for the Day

February 27, 2016 by Leave a Comment

“Decanting is the act of distributing the assets of an old trust to a new one with more desirable terms. It provides an easy method for correcting errors or ambiguities, adapting a trust to changes in a settlor’s objectives or changes in a beneficiary’s circumstances, taking advantage of new planning opportunities or adding flexibility to a trust.”

Peter J. Melcher, Robert S. Keebler & Steven J. Oshins, “A Guide to Trust Decanting,” Estate Planing & Taxation, (2015)

Filed Under: Decanting, Estate Planning, Quote for the Day, Trusts

Trust Protectors: They Can Come In Handy When Your (Trust) Intentions are in a Pinch

February 15, 2016 by Leave a Comment

What do I mean by “pinch”? Well, let’s say that you’ve created a trust, with yourself as the initial trustee. You know what you want to do with your trust, who you want to benefit, what you what to happen and what you don’t want to happen–that drug addled nephew, for example doesn’t get anything until he shapes up.

You’ve got big plans, and you think you’ve made your intentions clear, both in the trust and to the person or persons who will succeed you as trustee should you die or become incapacitated.

And then you die. And your successor trustee takes over. And as time moves on and one, your trustee begins to deviate from the path you clearly explained to him years ago. And he does this some more and some more, until he’s way off the path that leads to the fulfillment of your dreams for your beneficiaries. What do do?

Well, you could come back as a ghost and scare him straight, but that’s a long shot, right? Or your beneficiaries could all get together and petition the court to remove the trustee, but that can be a long, drawn-out, expensive, and often futile process. Though more receptive to the idea of modifying a trust or removing a trustee, courts have been and still can be reluctant to do so.

IMG_1996Enter the trust protector–that is, if you named a trust protector in your trust document. What’s trust protector, you ask? According to Lawrence A. Frolick, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, trust protectors

are best conceived as a means for a settlor [or grantor or trust maker] to attempt to ensure that the intent behind the establishment of the trust remains fulfilled in the future. Settlors [grantors, trust makers] appoint a protector to create and alter-ego who can supervise the trust and act to ensure that the purpose of the trust, as envisioned by the settlor [grantor, trust maker] is carried out even if the trustee must be replaced or the terms of the trust must be modified. The settlor [grantor, trust maker] by appointing a protector, overcomes the judicial reluctance to modify trusts . . . (Trust Protectors: Why They Have Become “The Next Bit Thing,” Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Journal, pg. 268-269, 50:2, Fall 2015; see here for an abstract of the article)

Now, trust protectors aren’t necessary for every trust, especially those that will close their doors once the grantor’s children reach an age appropriate to receive their final distributions free of trust–if that’s the grantor’s plan. However, for those of you who want their trust and their trustee to carry out their intentions for years and years into the future, a trust protector makes all kinds of sense. Think of it: A trustee, even the best trustee, will probably do a better job if she knows someone with the power to remove her will continue to be looking over her shoulder for years to come.

Not a bad idea.

Filed Under: Decanting, Estate Planning, Trust Protectors, Trusts

Decanting is Not Just for Wine: “Revoking” an Irrevocable Trust

October 19, 2015 by 2 Comments

My how things have changed, or at least, how my understanding of things have changed. I graduated from law school in 1980 thinking that irrevocable meant just that. Once a trust became irrevocable–generally upon the death of the settlor–its terms turned to stone, fixed and barely movable. The only way to turn that stone back into something more malleable was a cumbersome process in which the trustee needed to secure the agreement of all the beneficiaries and then the court, before implementing any change to the trust. Again, that was my understanding at the time. I’m guessing it might be yours as well.

If trust law was ever that way in the past, it is certainly not that way today. The Uniform Trust Code (UTC) and various state “decanting” statutes have insured that. The UTC, implemented by a number of states, including both Wyoming and Utah, allows for judicial modification of trusts in a variety of circumstances, including “modification to achieve settlor’s tax objectives” and “modification or termination because of unanticipated circumstances.” But for our purposes here, I’m more interested in decanting, a process for modifying a trust somewhat analogous to decanting wine.

decanting

With wine, decanting involves pouring wine from one container to another in order to separate the wine from any sediment in the bottle, sediment that can ruin the taste. The process also infuses the wine with oxygen as the liquid passes from one container to another. Apparently–I don’t drink–pouring old wine into new bottles can improve the drinking experience.

With trusts, decanting involves “pouring” the old, irrevocable trust into a newer, more flexible trust, a trust better fitted to the needs of the parties to the trust at the time of the decanting. Maybe the decanting will result in the trustee having more flexible powers to better administer the trust. Maybe it will lead to better state and federal tax benefits. Maybe asset protection is the goal. For these reasons and more, trustees (often encouraged by beneficiaries) are looking to decanting as a way to deal with circumstances and issues unforeseen by the settlor of the original trust.

Decanting is not a new idea. Some argue that it has been allowed under the common law for a long time–at least since 1940–on the theory that if a trustee has discretionary authority to make distributions to a beneficiary from a trust, that trustee also has authority to make distributions in “further trust,” that is, into a new trust. But common law can be finicky and is subject to the whims of the local judiciary, so it’s with some relief that at least 22 states have enacted decanting statutes, codifying what was once only in the casebooks.

Wyoming’s decanting statute (Utah doesn’t have one), enacted in 2013, is short but illustrative:

§ 4-10-816. Specific powers of trustee 

(a) Without limiting the authority conferred by W.S. 4-10-815, [a statute that essentially frees the trustee from court supervision] a trustee may:

. . .

(xxviii) On distribution of trust income or principal pursuant to authority in the trust instrument to make discretionary distributions to a trust beneficiary, whether or not the discretionary distributions are pursuant to an ascertainable standard, make distributions of all or any portion of trust income or principal in further trust. (emphasis supplied)

Notice that there’s no mention of court supervision. No, this is a specific power granted trustees by statute, so the trustee can act on his or her own. That’s not to say that the court should never be involved. In fact, if the new trust contains provisions that might raise the hackles of one or more beneficiaries, the trustee would be wise to seek the court’s  blessing.

Now there are limitations to decanting, and it’s not something to do willy nilly. That said, if you’re a trustee or beneficiary of an irrevocable trust and if the old trust creaks and sways under the weight of today’s needs and demands, maybe it’s worth looking at decanting as a way to resolve those issues.

Filed Under: Decanting, Estate Planning, Trusts Tagged With: ,
The Wyoming State Bar does not certify any lawyer as a specialist or expert. Anyone considering a lawyer should independently investigate the lawyer’s credentials and ability, and not rely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. This website is an advertisement.