Spendthrift Trust

147 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Gilmore v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
  213 F.2d 520· 6th Cir.· 1954-06-02 ·cited 8×
  A gift in trust for minors, granting beneficiaries the right to demand principal and income, is a gift of a present interest for tax exclusion purposes, even with investment powers and spendthrift clauses.
• Spies v. United States
  180 F.2d 336· 8th Cir.· 1950-02-23 ·cited 8×
  Income of trusts available for distribution to beneficiaries is taxable to them, even if not actually distributed, under § 22(a).
• Allen v. Tr. Co. OF Ga.
  149 F.2d 120· 5th Cir.· 1945-05-03 ·cited 8×
  The relinquishment of a power to amend a trust, motivated solely by a desire to avoid estate taxes, does not constitute a transfer made 'in contemplation of death' under the Revenue Act of 1926, as amended, if the original gift was absolute and irrevocable and the settlor was not
• Sylvester v. Lou Emma Sylvester
  557 So. 2d 599· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-01-31 ·cited 7×
  A trial court cannot make a binding determination regarding a party's ability to pay alimony by relying on assets held in an irrevocable spendthrift trust without joining the trustee and contingent remainder beneficiaries as indispensable parties.
• Shumate v. Patterson
  943 F.2d 362· 4th Cir.· 1991-08-12 ·cited 6×
  An interest in an ERISA-qualified pension plan is not includible in a debtor's bankruptcy estate, even if the debtor controls the plan, because ERISA's non-alienation provision constitutes an enforceable restriction under applicable nonbankruptcy law.
• In re Swanson v. Sheridan J. Buckley
  873 F.2d 1121· 8th Cir.· 1989-05-02 ·cited 6×
  Monies held in a state-created teachers retirement plan are property of the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541, as the plan does not qualify as a traditional spendthrift trust enforceable under 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2).
• In re Jack G. Brooks, M.D. v. Interfirst Bank
  844 F.2d 258· 5th Cir.· 1988-05-10 ·cited 6×
  A doctor's interest in an ERISA pension plan established by his professional association is not a spendthrift trust protected from creditors if the doctor, along with other members, partially owns and controls the association and contributes to the plan.
• Se. Bank, N.A. v. Gilbert
  463 So. 2d 223· Fla.· 1985-01-31 ·cited 6×
  Disbursements from spendthrift trusts can be garnished for alimony and attorney's fees, and continuing garnishment writs may be appropriate.
• In re Buren v. The Soc. Sec. Admin.
  725 F.2d 1080· 6th Cir.· 1984-01-23 ·cited 6×
  The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 did not repeal by implication the anti-assignment provision of the Social Security Act of 1935, meaning social security benefits cannot be compelled to be paid to a bankruptcy trustee.
• In re Clark v. Thomas J. O'Neill. Robert H. Clark
  711 F.2d 21· 3d Cir.· 1983-06-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the debtor was not entitled to an exemption for his Keogh plan because the plan terminated upon his adjudication as a bankrupt, meaning he had no right to receive payments under the plan.
• Wohl v. Roslyn Wohlmuth Keene
  476 F.2d 171· 4th Cir.· 1973-04-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in abstaining from exercising diversity jurisdiction and in summarily dismissing the plaintiffs' claims, as abstention was inappropriate and the allegations of fraud were sufficient to warrant further proceedings.
• Am. Sec. & Tr. Co. v. Utley
  382 F.2d 451· D.C. Cir.· 1967-06-30 ·cited 6×
  A spendthrift trust beneficiary's income is subject to creditor claims for necessaries, even if the beneficiary elected against the will, as the purpose is protection, not absolute immunity.
• Phinney v. Tuboscope Co.
  268 F.2d 233· 5th Cir.· 1959-06-25 ·cited 6×
• Quigley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
  143 F.2d 27· 7th Cir.· 1944-06-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the $20,000 received in exchange for releasing future annuity payments was not necessarily taxable income, as its taxability depended on the 1917 value of the rights surrendered.
• Peck v. Peck
  133 So. 3d 587· Fla. 2d DCA· 2014-02-26 ·cited 5×
  Daniel Peck, as co-trustee, appealed the trial court's order terminating the irrevocable CLP Trust created by his sister Constance. The court affirmed, holding that under Florida common law, a settlor and all beneficiaries may terminate or modify an irrevocable trust by consent,
• In re Smith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  964 F.2d 636· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-15 ·cited 5×
  An appellate court, upon dismissing an appeal as moot, will vacate prior orders to prevent preclusive effect, but will not vacate them to eliminate adverse precedent.
• In re Harline v. Harline
  950 F.2d 669· 10th Cir.· 1991-12-05 ·cited 4×
  A tax-qualified ERISA pension or profit sharing plan is exempt from a debtor's bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2), as the phrase 'applicable nonbankruptcy law' includes federal law like ERISA.
• Morter v. Farm Credit Servs.
  937 F.2d 354· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that both the TIAA and CREF components of the debtor's retirement plan are excluded from the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2) because they function as spendthrift trusts under New York law.
• In re Laurence A. Neuton v. Danning
  922 F.2d 1379· 9th Cir.· 1990-12-28 ·cited 4×
  A debtor's contingent interest in a spendthrift trust is property of the bankruptcy estate, and California law permits creditors to reach up to 25% of trust payments, excluding amounts necessary for the debtor's support.
• In re Shearn Moody, Jr. v. Shearn Moody, Jr.
  837 F.2d 719· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to order a trustee to provide advance notice of spendthrift trust distributions to a bankruptcy trustee, even though the distributions themselves were not property of the bankruptcy estate.
• In re Gus H. Reagan and Wife v. Austin Mun. Fed. Credit Union
  741 F.2d 95· 5th Cir.· 1984-09-10 ·cited 4×
  A future right to a share in a public employee retirement fund, even if contingent on termination of employment, can create a valid secured claim in bankruptcy and is considered property of the estate.
• Robert E. Hamilton and Mary v. Hamilton
  553 F.2d 1216· 9th Cir.· 1977-05-13 ·cited 4×
  Gifts of interests in a trust where beneficiaries lack immediate possession or enjoyment, and alienation is restricted, are gifts of future interests and do not qualify for the annual gift tax exclusion.
• Hatch v. The Riggs Nat'l Bank
  361 F.2d 559· D.C. Cir.· 1966-05-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the doctrine of worthier title is not part of the law of trusts in the District of Columbia, and that a settlor's heirs can take as valid remaindermen.
• Commissioner OF Internal Revenue v. Est. of Elizabeth W. Vease
  314 F.2d 79· 9th Cir.· 1963-01-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the decedent made transfers of property to the trusts during her lifetime, and thus their value is includible in her gross estate, reversing the Tax Court's decision that the property was received by inheritance.
• Schalk Chem. Co. v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  304 F.2d 48· 9th Cir.· 1962-05-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the payments made by the corporation to acquire a shareholder's interest in a trust were not deductible business expenses but constituted a dividend to the other shareholders.
• Sarah B. Danning in Bankruptcy of the Estate of Kuth Lederer Joslin v. Lederer
  232 F.2d 610· 7th Cir.· 1956-04-11 ·cited 4×
  A trustee in bankruptcy cannot recover a bankrupt's interest in a spendthrift trust if state law prohibits the bankrupt from transferring that interest.
• Ashton v. Sentney. in re Sentney
  145 F.2d 719· 9th Cir.· 1944-12-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the discharge in bankruptcy should not be set aside because the bankrupt relied in good faith on his attorney's advice regarding the listing of a contingent trust interest, and the trustee and creditors have no interest in the trust property.
• Wisotzkey v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
  144 F.2d 632· 3d Cir.· 1944-08-10 ·cited 4×
  Gifts in trust where income is accumulated or corpus is to be distributed at a future date constitute future interests for gift tax purposes, and are thus not eligible for the annual exclusion.
• Morrison v. Morrison
  247 So. 3d 604· Fla. 2d DCA· 2018-05-11 ·cited 3×
  When a marital settlement agreement contains a latent ambiguity regarding the meaning of "inheritance funds received," the court must apply contract interpretation principles and consider parol evidence of the parties' intent, not statutory construction principles used to interpr
• Lawrence v. Chapter 7 Tr. (In Re Lawrence)
  251 B.R. 630· S.D. Fla.· 2000-07-31 ·cited 3×
  The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's turnover, contempt, and incarceration orders, finding the offshore trust was property of the estate and the debtor had the ability to comply with the turnover order.
• Fred Davidowitz, D.D.S. v. DELTA Dental Plan OF Cal., Inc.
  946 F.2d 1476· 9th Cir.· 1991-10-28 ·cited 3×
  ERISA does not affirmatively mandate assignability of welfare benefit plan payments when the plan expressly prohibits such assignments.
• Breault v. Feigenholtz
  358 F.2d 39· 7th Cir.· 1966-02-21 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the trial court correctly refused to approve a settlement agreement that would terminate a spendthrift trust and correctly declared the rights of the parties regarding the trust assets.
• Mason v. Mason
  798 So. 2d 895· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-11-09 ·cited 2×
  Discretionary distributions from a valid spendthrift trust cannot be ordered by a court to satisfy a judgment for child support unless the debtor-beneficiary shows that traditional enforcement methods would be futile. The spendthrift provisions protect trust assets from creditors
• Pitrat v. Garlikov
  992 F.2d 224· 9th Cir.· 1993-05-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that ERISA-qualified pension plans with anti-alienation provisions are excluded from a debtor's bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2) based on the Supreme Court's decision in Patterson v. Shumate.
• In re Abdul W. Kazi
  985 F.2d 318· 7th Cir.· 1993-02-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that under Bankruptcy Rule 4003(b) and the Supreme Court's decision in Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz, failure to file a timely objection to a claimed exemption is an absolute bar to consideration of the objection's merits, regardless of actual notice or the substantiv
• Est. OF Malcolm McALPINE, Jr. v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  968 F.2d 459· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-04 ·cited 2×
  An estate substantially complied with special use valuation regulations, allowing perfection of the election despite missing beneficiary signatures on the recapture agreement, because the requirement for those signatures was unclear and the estate acted in good faith.
• Currell v. Taylor
  963 F.2d 166· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-28 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court held that the district court's order remanding the case to the bankruptcy court was not a final order, and therefore dismissed the appeal.
• In re Walker v. Kenneth G.M. Mather
  959 F.2d 894· 10th Cir.· 1992-03-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Oklahoma's exemption statute for retirement annuities is constitutional and does not violate the Contracts Clause, and that the annuities are property of the bankruptcy estate.
• In re Eldon S. Reed v. Drummond
  951 F.2d 1046· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-11 ·cited 2×
  An ERISA-qualified pension plan is not exempt from a debtor's bankruptcy estate because the relevant state exemption statute is preempted by ERISA, ERISA itself is not 'other Federal law' for exemption purposes, and the plan does not qualify as a spendthrift trust under applicabl
• In re Jordan v. Jordan
  914 F.2d 197· 9th Cir.· 1990-09-19 ·cited 2×
  A trust created from a debtor's settlement of a personal injury claim is considered self-settled under Washington law and is therefore not an excludable spendthrift trust from the bankruptcy estate.
• In re Fitzsimmons v. Nolden
  896 F.2d 373· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-13 ·cited 2×
  A forfeiture-on-alienation clause in a trust is valid under Arizona law, and a beneficiary's bankruptcy filing constitutes an attempted alienation, triggering the forfeiture and removing the interest from the bankruptcy estate.
• Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers Nat'l Pension Fund
  856 F.2d 1457· 10th Cir.· 1988-08-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that ERISA's anti-alienation provision does not preclude a constructive trust on pension benefits to recover embezzled funds, and that the Consumer Credit Protection Act exemption was waived by failure to follow state procedural rules.
• In re Robbins v. Webster
  826 F.2d 293· 4th Cir.· 1987-08-20 ·cited 2×
  Settlors of a spendthrift trust for their own benefit cannot exempt trust assets from creditors' claims, especially when the trustee has discretion to invade the corpus for their support.
• Goldentrester v. Richard
  498 So. 2d 1303· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-11-18 ·cited 2×
  Primary beneficiaries under a will residing in the Soviet Union appealed an order that vacated their distribution and redirected assets to alternative beneficiaries on the ground that distribution was impossible or impractical. The court reversed, holding that the trustees abused
• First Nw. Tr. Co. OF S.D. v. Internal Revenue Serv.
  622 F.2d 387· 8th Cir.· 1980-06-03 ·cited 2×
  The income from a discretionary spendthrift trust does not pass to a bankruptcy trustee because the beneficiary has no transferable or leviable interest in the future income until it accrues and is distributed by the trustee.
• United States v. Ritter
  558 F.2d 1165· 4th Cir.· 1977-07-21 ·cited 2×
  A settlor cannot create a trust for their own benefit while shielding assets from creditors, as this violates public policy.
• United States v. RYE
  550 F.2d 682· 1st Cir.· 1977-03-02 ·cited 2×
  A federal tax lien can attach to a taxpayer's right to receive court-decreed support payments under state law, even if that right is not assignable or subject to modification.
• Magavern v. United States
  550 F.2d 797· 2d Cir.· 1977-02-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trustee is bound to distribute some trust income to each beneficiary, creating a property right to which a tax lien can attach.
• Ryan v. The First Pa. Banking & Tr. Co.
  519 F.2d 572· 3d Cir.· 1975-07-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the first two claims for lack of jurisdiction and that abstention was appropriate only for the third claim.
• Vose v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  284 F.2d 65· 1st Cir.· 1960-12-01 ·cited 2×