I was told to a tenant sign an eviction notice with the rental agreement. Has anyone done this before and what are the contents of tthat would be included on form?
Why would that help you? If an attorney went through the trouble to see if you had mortgages. They could easily find out your net worth. Many property owners have solid equity in properties.
Maybe you could put one of those arbitrator clauses in your leases if you are that scared. Because i can think of a billion reasons to sue you for something, and im not even a lawyer. You will loose lots of sleep..
I asked a friend of mine, who is a trial lawyer similiar questions a few years ago. His comments were:
(1) It would take him about 3 hours to have a Land Trust opened to view assets.
(2) 5 minutes to see who are the members of an LLC and track their assets/liabilites.
His point was if the lawsuit was big enough no partition or obscuring would be enough to fend off a trial attorney. In fact, he said the more complicated the holding of the property, LLC in INCs, IN LAND TRUSTS.... made him suspicious that there were more assests there.
I hold all properties personally and just carry an umbrella insurance policy.
You said “The Trust cannot be partitioned if it is a valid Land Trust with two or more unrelated co-beneficiaries”.
You are partially correct. However, if the settlor/co-beneficiary retains the power to revoke the trust in whole or in part, the trust property is subject to the claims of his creditors. (Cal. Probate Code§ 18200)
Simply put, a judgment creditor could force a settlor/co-beneficiary to revoke the trust in order to satisfy said creditor’s claim, thereby eliminating the need for partition.
Next you said “However, to keep it simple, an individual or entity that holds a beneficiary interest in the trust can have a Charging Order placed against their interest in the trust”.
I agree.
Then you said “A creditor cannot partition the trust or force the sale of the property in the trust to satisfy a claim.
I agree that in some circumstances a creditor cannot partition the trust, however they can force the settlor/co-beneficiary to revoke it in order to force the sale of the trust property. (Cal. Probate Code§ 18200)
You also said “A Charging Order is not likely for several reasons”.
1) It takes lots of time and money to get.
2) If successful in receiving a Charging Order against the beneficiary, it may take years to collect.
3) During the time the Order is in place the Claimant is required to pay all the beneficiaries taxes.
From what I’ve shown you a Charging Order is not necessary.
And finally you said “I have searched and searched and have never found a Charging Order placed on a Beneficiary Interest in a Trust, let alone a valid co-beneficiary land trust for a couple of reasons. One; the creditor never discovered the beneficiary interest of the plaintiff. Two; they discovered it would cost more to collect than to receive. By placing a Charging Order against an individual or entity it is in effect making them that individual for tax purposes”.
The reason why you’ve never found a Charging Order placed on a Beneficiary Interest in a Trust, let alone a valid co-beneficiary land trust is because:
• It’s not necessary.
• Plaintiffs fail to name all persons known and unknown having any present or future power to call for legal and or equitable title to the trust property as defendants. Doing so will not only force all co-beneficiaries to defend or forfeit their respective interests, if the suit is successful it will make partition an available remedy.
Darryl-CA
[ Edited by Darryl-CA on Date 01/07/2007 ]
Why would that help you? If an attorney went through the trouble to see if you had mortgages. They could easily find out your net worth. Many property owners have solid equity in properties.
Maybe you could put one of those arbitrator clauses in your leases if you are that scared. Because i can think of a billion reasons to sue you for something, and im not even a lawyer. You will loose lots of sleep..
I asked a friend of mine, who is a trial lawyer similiar questions a few years ago. His comments were:
(1) It would take him about 3 hours to have a Land Trust opened to view assets.
(2) 5 minutes to see who are the members of an LLC and track their assets/liabilites.
His point was if the lawsuit was big enough no partition or obscuring would be enough to fend off a trial attorney. In fact, he said the more complicated the holding of the property, LLC in INCs, IN LAND TRUSTS.... made him suspicious that there were more assests there.
I hold all properties personally and just carry an umbrella insurance policy.
Each LLC stands on its own. Only the LLC involved in the business activity in question could be sued.
[addsig]
The guy is talking about attorneys going after assets. If each LLC has assets, then guess what?
Mtnwizard,
You said “The Trust cannot be partitioned if it is a valid Land Trust with two or more unrelated co-beneficiaries”.
You are partially correct. However, if the settlor/co-beneficiary retains the power to revoke the trust in whole or in part, the trust property is subject to the claims of his creditors. (Cal. Probate Code§ 18200)
Simply put, a judgment creditor could force a settlor/co-beneficiary to revoke the trust in order to satisfy said creditor’s claim, thereby eliminating the need for partition.
Next you said “However, to keep it simple, an individual or entity that holds a beneficiary interest in the trust can have a Charging Order placed against their interest in the trust”.
I agree.
Then you said “A creditor cannot partition the trust or force the sale of the property in the trust to satisfy a claim.
I agree that in some circumstances a creditor cannot partition the trust, however they can force the settlor/co-beneficiary to revoke it in order to force the sale of the trust property. (Cal. Probate Code§ 18200)
You also said “A Charging Order is not likely for several reasons”.
1) It takes lots of time and money to get.
2) If successful in receiving a Charging Order against the beneficiary, it may take years to collect.
3) During the time the Order is in place the Claimant is required to pay all the beneficiaries taxes.
From what I’ve shown you a Charging Order is not necessary.
And finally you said “I have searched and searched and have never found a Charging Order placed on a Beneficiary Interest in a Trust, let alone a valid co-beneficiary land trust for a couple of reasons. One; the creditor never discovered the beneficiary interest of the plaintiff. Two; they discovered it would cost more to collect than to receive. By placing a Charging Order against an individual or entity it is in effect making them that individual for tax purposes”.
The reason why you’ve never found a Charging Order placed on a Beneficiary Interest in a Trust, let alone a valid co-beneficiary land trust is because:
• It’s not necessary.
• Plaintiffs fail to name all persons known and unknown having any present or future power to call for legal and or equitable title to the trust property as defendants. Doing so will not only force all co-beneficiaries to defend or forfeit their respective interests, if the suit is successful it will make partition an available remedy.
Darryl-CA
[ Edited by Darryl-CA on Date 01/07/2007 ]