Trusts and the People Behind Them

First, let’s discuss the parties or positions in a trust. To form a trust, you need at fill at least three positions. Nowadays, you can have as many as two more:

One or more Settlors/Grantors/Trustors/Trust Makers. The person (or persons) who creates the trust, whether during his or her lifetime or at death. In Wyoming and Utah, Settlor or Grantor is the preferred term, though the other terms are used as well. The terms mean the same thing. Utah’s definition reads, “’Settlor’ means a person, including a testator, who creates . . . a trust.” In contrast, Wyoming’s definition reads, “’Settlor’ means a person, including a testator, grantor or trust maker, who creates . . . a trust.”

The perfect trustee?

One or more Trustees. A fiduciary (either an individual or an entity) named in the trust document who holds legal title to trust property for the benefit of the . . .

One or more Beneficiaries. Person or persons, entity or entities, charities or otherwise, for whose benefit the settlor created the trust in the first place. The beneficiary may have a present, future, vested, or contingent interest in trust property. Beneficiaries may be income or remainder beneficiaries. Settlors can be beneficiaries of their trust.

Trust Protector. Someone named in the trust other than trustee with powers granted by the trust document, often including a limited power to remove the trustee, appoint a replacement, add beneficiaries, and maybe modify the trust. In other words, a trust protector is someone a trustee should pay attention to. Modern trusts often have trust protectors (and advisors, see below) to add flexibility to the trust.

Trust Advisor. Though the term is sometimes used interchangeably with trust protector, a trust advisor is more of an advisor than an enforcer, guiding the trustee in the exercise of her powers. That said, the place to define these two terms is in the trust agreement.

First, here are three important definitions and four basic types of trusts, especially as to the taxation of trusts:

Complex trust. A trust that either retains all current income or distributes corpus or makes distributions to charitable organizations.

Simple trust. As described in tax law, a trust that must distribute all income at least annually and which doesn’t provide for charitable distributions.

Grantor trust. A trust over which the settlor (aka the grantor) retains power to revoke or to control trust property. Consequently, the settlor/grantor is taxed on trust income. Most living trusts are grantor trusts.

Living trust. Also known as an inter vivos trust, a living trust is one established and funded during the settlor’s lifetime as opposed to a testamentary trust (see below), which comes into being upon the settlor’s death. A living trust can be either revocable or irrevocable. The settlor of a revocable living trust is typically also the initial trustee of the trust.

Revocable trust. A living trust over which the settlor retains the power to revoke the trust.  

Irrevocable trust. A trust over which the settlor retains no right to revoke. Irrevocable trusts are generally used to remove assets out of the taxable estate of the settlor. Once a settlor dies, his or her revocable becomes irrevocable. Likewise, once the creator of a testamentary trust dies, his or her trust is irrevocable.

Testamentary trust. A trust created by will and which comes into being upon the death of the testator or maker of the will.

Now, in no particular order, here’s a brief summary of many of the trusts in use today:

Charitable trusts. A trust for the benefit of a charity (government, educational, religious, and similar institutions). There are a variety of charitable trusts, including a charitable lead trust (CLT)—defined as a trust for a fixed period, during which the charity receives the trust income and after which, the remainder goes to a non-charitable beneficiary—or a charitable remainder trust (CRT), which essentially reverses those roles.

Irrevocable life insurance trust (ILIT). An irrevocable trust designed to own life insurance, so the insurance remains outside the insured’s estate and free of estate tax.

Pet Trust. A trust established to take care of the settlor’s pets in the event of the settlor’s death or disability.

Firearms or NFA Trust. A trust to hold firearms generally and National Firearms Act firearms specifically. Such trusts allow for the sharing of NFA firearms without violating transfer rules governing NFA firearms.

Special Needs Trust (SNT).  A trust designed to hold assets for the benefit of a beneficiary whose disabilities may allow the beneficiary to receive public assistance for medical and other care expenses.

Standalone Retirement Trust (SRT).  A trust designed to receive “qualified retirement accounts” like IRAs, 401(k)s, etc. It can be either revocable or irrevocable, and it’s designed to allow trust beneficiaries to defer income tax on the account for as long as possible—i.e., stretch the IRA. SRTs can be either conduit trusts (distributions flow through them and out to the beneficiaries) or accumulation trusts (any trust that is not a conduit trust).

Grantor Retained Annuity Trust (GRAT). A special type of irrevocable trust. The settlor/grantor establishes the trust, puts property in, and takes back an annuity (calculated as a dollar amount) for a specific amount of time based on the value of the property in the trust.

Intentionally Defective Grantor Trust (IDGT). An irrevocable trust that removes the value of the trust assets out of the settlor’s estate but allows the grantor/settlor to continue to be treated as the owner for income tax purposes. A big advantage of IDGTs is that grantor/settlor can add value to the trust by paying the income tax due on trust income without those tax payments being treated as additional taxable gifts to the trust.

By-pass or Credit Shelter Trust. Also known as the B Trust that holds that part of the deceased spouse’s estate that is applied against the deceased’s applicable exclusion amount, thus protecting it from estate taxes.

Marital Trust. Also known as the A Trust, this trust holds the portion of the deceased spouse’s estate that qualifies for the unlimited marital deduction. That portion will later be included in the surviving spouse’s taxable estate. The Marital and Credit Shelter Trusts are generally created by the trustee of the settlor’s Revocable Living Trust or Testamentary Trust upon the settlor’s death.

Qualified Personal Residence Trust (QPRT). This trust works like a GRAT except that the property transferred into the trust is the Settlor’s personal residence. The Settlor retains the right to live in the home for a specified number of years. At the end of the term, the Settlor must move out or begin paying rent to the trust, which goes to beneficiaries entitled to the trust property after the initial term.

Qualified Domestic Trust (QDOT). A form of trust that allows a taxpayer whose surviving spouse is a non-citizen to claim the marital deduction. To qualify, 1. at least one U.S. citizen must be a trustee, 2. the trust can’t allow distributions of principal unless the U.S. trustee has the right to withhold estate tax on the distribution, and 3. sufficient trust assets must be held in the U.S., among other things.

QTIP Trust. A trust that can hold qualified terminable interest property, property the settlor sets aside for the surviving spouse and which qualifies for the marital deduction.

Domestic Asset Protection Trust (DAPT). An irrevocable trust that allows a settlor to set aside assets in trust and protect those assets from creditor claims. The DAPT is established under the laws of states with favorable asset protection laws—Nevada, Alaska, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Utah, for example.

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

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.

Estate Planning Seminar at Pleasant Grove Library

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.

How One Family’s Legacy is an Example to Your Family

So by now, you probably know that the Larry and Gail Miller family insured that the Utah Jazz would forever be the Utah Jazz--musical Mormon jokes aside (by the way ever heard of BYU’s Synthesis?). They did so via a so-called dynasty or legacy trust, a trust intended to live on and on and on, well beyond the lifetimes of the Millers and their children and even their grandchildren.

I intend to write more on this subject, but for now think about what financial legacy would you like to leave your family, your city, your school? A well-drafted trust will allow you to do that.

 

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.