14, 2000 VOLUME 8, NUMBER 7
"Common Law" Trust Provides No Shield Against Lawsuit
Nancy Bracken, an 82-year-old widow living in Tennessee, thought she had found an excellent investment for her life savings. Richard Earl, managing director of something called Financial Services Company, convinced her that she could make good money by helping to finance a treasure-hunting operation in Florida.
Between July and October of 1993, Ms. Bracken delivered a total of $110,000 to Mr. Earl for investment in FSCís treasure-hunting venture. She received promissory notes, and they carried a 10% interest rate. She even received payments during the first year, including seven payments of $400 and one payment of $13,200. When no further payments were forthcoming after October, 1994, she contacted a lawyer and, ultimately, brought a lawsuit.
In his defense, Mr. Earl claimed that he was not personally liable. He was only an employee of Financial Services Company, he insisted, and not its owner. He pointed to the documents indicating that Financial Services Company was actually an Arizona trust, established by John Michael Crim and Robert H. Kilgore in 1992. The trust named two other individuals, Dana T. Houtz and Steven E. Duke, as trustees, and Mr. Earl claimed he was hired by them to be the managing director.
The lawyer for Ms. Bracken disagreed. He introduced evidence that the trust was really Mr. Earlís alter ego, apparently constructed for the express purpose of insulating Mr. Earl from claims like Ms. Brackenís. In fact, Mr. Earl had absolute control over the trust, was its only employee, answered to no one else, and could not even name the "trustees".
The Tennessee trial judge found Mr. Earl personally responsible for repayment of the money to Nancy Bracken. On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals agreed. The appellate judges found "no substance to this so-called trust, beyond a means for defendant to attempt to protect himself from liability when investing other peopleís money in risky ventures." Bracken v. Earl, 8/7/2000.
Mr. Earl illustrates several things frequently seen in cases of exploitation of the elderly. First, of course, is the attempt to assure the elderly victim that the investment is reasonable, but that returns will be uncommonly high. Another common element is the use of multi-state entities; in this case, the "trust" was created in Arizona, the "investment" collected in Tennessee, and the "treasure hunting" alleged to be in Florida.
Another element involved in the Bracken case is the use of a so-called "common law trust." Unscrupulous individuals claim that the trusts are somehow protected by common law principles, and therefore immunize participants from civil liability and even federal income taxes. Ms. Brackenís case is proof that they are wrong.
"Common law" trusts are sometimes also known as
"Constitutional" or "Pure" trusts. They are heavily
promoted (including on the internet) as tax avoidance devices, and sometimes
also as a way of insulating assets from liability. They are not only
ineffective, but also high-priority targets by the Internal Revenue Service,
which views them (correctly) as abusive arrangements. The IRS has a perfect
record of defeating claims that such trusts are somehow insulated from tax
liability. For more on these sham trusts look at The Militia Watchdog.
Would you like to subscribe to Elder Law Issues? Simply provide your
e-mail address and name below, and click "Subscribe". At the same
time, you may choose to also subscribe to The Voice, the newsletter
of the Special
Privacy note: We do not ever use
your e-mail address or name for any purpose other than to send out our
subscription-based newsletter. You can rest assured that we will not sell,
trade or share this information with any other person or entity. We
have no ancillary or associated companies or entities to which we could
provide your e-mail address, either.
Privacy note: We do not ever use your e-mail address or name for any purpose other than to send out our subscription-based newsletter. You can rest assured that we will not sell, trade or share this information with any other person or entity. We have no ancillary or associated companies or entities to which we could provide your e-mail address, either.