Stop the noise

Kevin wrote in news:ZPm8c.730$K91.2594@attbi_s02:

ET wrote:
Kevin wrote in news:K_f8c.81882$1p.1206019@attbi_s54:


Peter Clark wrote:

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:19:03 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote:



Cub Driver wrote:



Furthermore, AOPA has not been
injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a
countersuit (though they could certainly support the pilots
financially if they decide to do so).

According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial
contribution" to defense costs.

Yet the pilots still had to sell their aircraft?


They don't have the benefit of their lawyers doing everything for
free.


This is the very reason all of my assets are owned by a Revocable
Living Trust . Bullet proof protection of assets .




Your Revocable Living Trust protects you from NOTHING but the probate
lawyers....


Anyone who told you different LIED to you. There are lots of
potential good reasons for having that kind of trust, but protection
from lawsuits is NOT one of them.

You are correct IF the revocable living trust is used as the only
means
to protect assets. If the RLT is used in conjunction with a Family
Limited Partnership its a different matter.

Asset protection can be accomplished when property is held in a Family
limited partnership and those interests are owned by the trust.



Be very careful here as well. FLP's have been invalidated based on the
"reason" they were set up. To be "bulletproof" an FLP needs to have a
legit business purpose other than just asset protection. An FLP set up to
run a bunch of rental properties, obviously meets this... but if it only
owns your stock portfolio, you might have a problem.

Either way, the existance of a living trust is irrelevant to the ability of
the FLP to protect your assets. The FLP will work, or not, regardless of
the RLT.

--
ET


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams