2 ms·

Per the article, this isn't just about "credible accusations." It's also about actual legal obligations. > "Trident and a New Mexico firm acting as trust prot

by ethbr0 5y ago

Per the article, this isn't just about "credible accusations." It's also about actual legal obligations. > "Trident and a New Mexico firm acting as trust protector opted to end child-support payments, records show. In sealed court documents, obtained by The Post and the ICIJ, Trident argued that South Dakota law prevented the payments and that Pallanck was “not a good steward of his children’s finances.” The trust provides $1,500 a month for general expenses [vs the court-determined $8,500 for his two children with millionaire oil-heiress Cleopatra Cameron] , Pallanck said." Unilaterally curtailing court-awarded child support payments is a pretty concrete topic.

sokoloff 5y ago
Also from the article on that situation: > The Santa Barbara district attorney’s office last year filed criminal charges against Cameron for failing to provide support. She pleaded not guilty; prosecutors ultimately dropped the case. I have no idea the true facts of the case, but I do know the prosecutor elected to drop the case.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Yes. So we have court-ordered child support payments, that were not paid by a South Dakota trust, shielded by state laws. I'm not sure how a California DA choosing to prosecute or not is supposed to opine on those facts.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Per the article, the court-ordered support payments were ordered to be paid by California resident Cameron (meaning they were not ordered to be paid by the California, now South Dakota, trust). I would think that a California DA would be exactly the right person to decide to prosecute Cameron's failure to do so. > California court in 2010 had awarded Pallanck full custody of their young children and later ordered Cameron to pay $8,500 a month in support, according to court records and interviews.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      DAs choose or choose not to prosecute cases based on likelihood of winning, not justness of cause. Which is why I'm confused that you seem to be implying that a DA dropping the case is evidence of... lack of merit? As for the current state of the trust, that's the entire point of this article -- or do you believe financial court judgements should be avoidable by forming a trust in another state?
      - sokoloff 5y ago
        It only goes to “what obligations should a trustee in another state have in light of unproven allegations of poor behavior of a beneficiary in another state and absent any court judgment instructing them to give him the money?” To me, it sounds like “we have to follow our trust charter and state law” is by far the most reasonable outcome. Do I think that moving money into a trust in CA or SD should permanently prevent the ex-husband from getting the child support? No. Do I think the trustee needs some supporting documentation (likely an order from a court of competent jurisdiction) allowing them to disburse funds to other than the beneficiary and against the beneficiary’s wishes? Unfortunately, but unequivocally: Yes. Said another way: suppose you’re the trustee. Guy comes to you and says “you don’t know me, but your trust’s beneficiary owes me money; I want you to pay me.” What gives you the legal right/obligation to give this guy the money? If you do, do you risk having it come from your own pocket when the beneficiary establishes that you didn’t have the right/obligation to do that?
        ethbr0 5y ago
        > unproven allegations of poor behavior of a beneficiary in another state and absent any court judgment instructing them to give him the money Which is why I highlighted this particular instance, because neither of those are true. The allegations were proven to the satisfaction of the court, and there was a court judgement. In reality, what the South Dakota law seems designed to do is create enough uncertainty, delay, and paperwork that most people give up and go away. Which seems like what the California DA did. To me, this feels like a case of stated aims by South Dakota (protecting trusts' privacy) vs actual aims (shielding money from litigation, in order to attract more trust business to the state). It is absolutely possible to create a system so byzantine that it can simultaneously be technically legal (we pay all valid claims) but realistically illegal (our processes are so convoluted that it's effectively impossible to validate a claim).

by ethbr0 5y ago

sokoloff 5y ago

Also from the article on that situation: > The Santa Barbara district attorney’s office last year filed criminal charges against Cameron for failing to provide support. She pleaded not guilty; prosecutors ultimately dropped the case. I have no idea the true facts of the case, but I do know the prosecutor elected to drop the case.

ethbr0 5y ago
Yes. So we have court-ordered child support payments, that were not paid by a South Dakota trust, shielded by state laws. I'm not sure how a California DA choosing to prosecute or not is supposed to opine on those facts.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Per the article, the court-ordered support payments were ordered to be paid by California resident Cameron (meaning they were not ordered to be paid by the California, now South Dakota, trust). I would think that a California DA would be exactly the right person to decide to prosecute Cameron's failure to do so. > California court in 2010 had awarded Pallanck full custody of their young children and later ordered Cameron to pay $8,500 a month in support, according to court records and interviews.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    DAs choose or choose not to prosecute cases based on likelihood of winning, not justness of cause. Which is why I'm confused that you seem to be implying that a DA dropping the case is evidence of... lack of merit? As for the current state of the trust, that's the entire point of this article -- or do you believe financial court judgements should be avoidable by forming a trust in another state?
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      It only goes to “what obligations should a trustee in another state have in light of unproven allegations of poor behavior of a beneficiary in another state and absent any court judgment instructing them to give him the money?” To me, it sounds like “we have to follow our trust charter and state law” is by far the most reasonable outcome. Do I think that moving money into a trust in CA or SD should permanently prevent the ex-husband from getting the child support? No. Do I think the trustee needs some supporting documentation (likely an order from a court of competent jurisdiction) allowing them to disburse funds to other than the beneficiary and against the beneficiary’s wishes? Unfortunately, but unequivocally: Yes. Said another way: suppose you’re the trustee. Guy comes to you and says “you don’t know me, but your trust’s beneficiary owes me money; I want you to pay me.” What gives you the legal right/obligation to give this guy the money? If you do, do you risk having it come from your own pocket when the beneficiary establishes that you didn’t have the right/obligation to do that?
      - ethbr0 5y ago
        > unproven allegations of poor behavior of a beneficiary in another state and absent any court judgment instructing them to give him the money Which is why I highlighted this particular instance, because neither of those are true. The allegations were proven to the satisfaction of the court, and there was a court judgement. In reality, what the South Dakota law seems designed to do is create enough uncertainty, delay, and paperwork that most people give up and go away. Which seems like what the California DA did. To me, this feels like a case of stated aims by South Dakota (protecting trusts' privacy) vs actual aims (shielding money from litigation, in order to attract more trust business to the state). It is absolutely possible to create a system so byzantine that it can simultaneously be technically legal (we pay all valid claims) but realistically illegal (our processes are so convoluted that it's effectively impossible to validate a claim).