Skip to main content

Trusting the Trust: the Pfannenstiehl Redux

By
Guest Post from Beth Aarons*

Massachusetts estate planners enjoyed a collective sigh of relief as the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) agreed to further appellate review of the Pfannenstiehl’s plight to determine whether the husband’s interest in his family’s trust should be divisible as a marital asset during divorce.  The SJC issued an opinion that such a trust should not be divided as part of the marital property.  [SJC-12031]

When the Pfannenstiehls appeared in case law three years ago, the MA Appeals Court had upheld the Probate and Family Court’s determination that the husband’s one-eleventh fractional beneficial interest in his family’s trust balance (there were 11 living beneficiaries at the time) was a marital asset, with 60% of his one-eleventh share to be paid to the wife as part of the property division in their divorce.  The class of trust beneficiaries was open to include any future descendants of the donor, but the lower court used the existing number of beneficiaries to calculate the value as the husband’s present interest.

The estate planning community was roiling in confusion, since the Pfannenstiehl family trust had elements that estate planners regularly rely upon for the protection of their clients’ assets: completely discretionary distributions, a spendthrift clause, and co-trustees, including one disinterested trustee.  Estate planners were scratching their heads and regrouping at the drawing board.  Wasn’t the point of establishing this type of trust to prevent exactly the scenario that occurred?  Shouldn’t the trust protect the family’s assets from creditors and transfers outside of the family blood line during a beneficiary’s divorce?  If not, what’s the point of creating a trust at all?  The bullet-proof language had suddenly been pierced and in that moment all similar trusts were potentially at risk.

So imagine the relief brought by the SJC’s opinion, restoring established expectations to the world of trust provisions.  It should be noted that the specific facts in Pfannenstiehl relating to the trust distributions and the particular terms of the trust factored into the SJC’s decision.  The conclusion is not that trusts are globally excluded from consideration as marital property during a divorce, but that with the right facts and circumstances, they still can be.


*Beth Aarons is a Mediator and Collaborative Law attorney who runs her own practice in Newton and is of counsel to Skylark Law & Mediation, P.C. Beth's practice includes family law mediation, collaborative divorce representation, and estate planning, trusts and probate practice. Click here to learn more about Beth or here to schedule an appointment with Beth.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the purpose of the Divorce Nisi waiting period?

By
In Massachusetts the statutory waiting period after a Judgment of Divorce and before the divorce becomes final (or absolute) is called the Nisi period. After a divorce case settles or goes to trial, a Judgment of Divorce Nisi will issue and it will become Absolute after a further ninety (90) days. This waiting period serves the purpose of allowing parties to change their mind before the divorce becomes final. If the Judgment of Divorce Nisi has issued but not become final yet, and you and your spouse decide you don't want to get divorced, then you can file a Motion to Dismiss and the Judgment will be undone. Although many of my clients who are getting divorced think the idea of getting back together with their ex sounds crazy, I have had cases where this happened. In addition to offering a grace period to change your mind, the Nisi period has three other legal effects: 1. The most obvious effect of the waiting period is that you cannot remarry during the Nisi period, be
74 comments
Read more

Does a Criminal Record affect Child Custody?

By
If one of the parents in a custody case has a criminal record, the types of crimes on their record could have an effect on their chances of obtaining custody. In custody cases the issue is always going to come down to whether or not the best interests of the child might be affected. In the most extreme case, in which one parent has been convicted of first degree murder of the other parent, the law specifically prohibits visitation with the children until they are of a suitable age to assent. Similarly, but to a less serious degree, in making custody and visitation determinations the court will consider crimes that would cause one to question the fitness of a parent. These types of crimes would obviously include any violent crime convictions which could call into question whether the children would be in danger around a parent who has shown themselves to resort to violence when faced with conflict. In addition, drug and alcohol abuse offenses would call into question a parent&#
65 comments
Read more

The Questions that Lawyers and Mediators aren't asking but should: Let's talk about Pronouns

By
I recently had the opportunity to train with two of the most prominent mediators in Massachusetts: John Fiske and Diane Neumann . Each time they run a training, John and Diane share what they think is the most important question for a client to answer to have an effective mediation. John says that he thought the most important question is "What do I want?" But then he will tell you, with a knowing smile, that Diane disagreed with him and she would say that the most important question for a client to answer is "Who am I?" I agree with Diane. The best lawyers and mediators ask their clients not just about what they want, but also deep questions about the clients' identity, goals, and values in order to help the clients resolve conflict in the most effective way possible. Despite knowing this, we often fail to ask clients the simplest questions when we first meet them or have them fill out an intake. We fail to give them an opportunity to answer the question “W
2 comments
Read more