3 ms·

> ... a California court in 2010 had [...] later ordered Cameron to pay $8,500 a month in support, according to court records and interviews > The trust was or

by ethbr0 5y ago

> ... a California court in 2010 had [...] later ordered Cameron to pay $8,500 a month in support, according to court records and interviews > The trust was originally established in California, where creditors can place demands on trust assets. In 2012, Cameron moved the trust to South Dakota and, in 2016, to Trident. (During which, previous to 2016, the implication is that the trust was paying the ordered child support) > Trident and a New Mexico firm acting as trust protector opted to end child-support payments, records show. [Arguing that SD law prevented claims.] The trust provides $1,500 a month for general expenses, Pallanck said. > In 2019, after he went to court to enforce the California child-support order, the South Dakota Supreme Court sided with Trident. “Our Legislature has placed formidable barriers between creditor claims and trust funds,” the court wrote in a unanimous opinion. That's my read: that current SD trust law, backed by the SD Supreme Court, refuses to enforce claims against (specifically) trust assets. Which... doesn't seem great, and because of which it seems fair to label South Dakota as a legal haven for trusts. (The article not saying as much about whether the IRS faces similar hurdles) I'm not sure what recourse is left if a state supreme court tells one to pound sand, despite another state's court having a claim?

sokoloff 5y ago
I don’t think he could go up to one of her banks that holds a checking account of hers and demand they give him money out of her checking account, even if she previously paid him from that checking account. (Absent a court order.) IANAL, but it seems like, assuming she’s a CA resident, that he has to get a judgment against her (a civil judgment would be enough) that she is in arrears. If SD then tells him and the CA court to pound sand, it’s then a federal matter. I think whether SD law prevents direct child support claims is almost a red herring here. She is on the hook (as an individual) to make the payments. She is (presumably) able to draw funds from the trust to cover her obligations. The trust (being not her) is not on the hook as a standalone entity, but it seems like in the worst case the money could be attached the moment it becomes hers (when it moves out of the trust into any account that belongs to her). I’m guessing (and hoping) that he’s getting competent legal advice and, this probably doesn’t become a story if it was easy, but this seems like “though the wheels of justice turn slowly, they grind exceedingly fine” and the right thing will eventually happen (the kids’ dad gets the money).

by ethbr0 5y ago

sokoloff 5y ago

I don’t think he could go up to one of her banks that holds a checking account of hers and demand they give him money out of her checking account, even if she previously paid him from that checking account. (Absent a court order.) IANAL, but it seems like, assuming she’s a CA resident, that he has to get a judgment against her (a civil judgment would be enough) that she is in arrears. If SD then tells him and the CA court to pound sand, it’s then a federal matter. I think whether SD law prevents direct child support claims is almost a red herring here. She is on the hook (as an individual) to make the payments. She is (presumably) able to draw funds from the trust to cover her obligations. The trust (being not her) is not on the hook as a standalone entity, but it seems like in the worst case the money could be attached the moment it becomes hers (when it moves out of the trust into any account that belongs to her). I’m guessing (and hoping) that he’s getting competent legal advice and, this probably doesn’t become a story if it was easy, but this seems like “though the wheels of justice turn slowly, they grind exceedingly fine” and the right thing will eventually happen (the kids’ dad gets the money).