LawFuel.com – 13 January 2013 – Asset Protection Law News – In the Illinois Supreme Court case of 2012, Rush University Medical Center vs. Sessions highlights the aspects of asset protection that consumers and professionals alike need to take note of, to protect their trusts, particularly those that are offshore. By looking at this case, you will be able to discern what could be done for you, ensuring that you are protected planning works like it is supposed to, preventing asset seizures. Donlevy-Rosen & Rosen, P.A. are proud to provide you with this information, to ensure that you preserve your wealth through asset protection.
In 1995, Sessions made a pledge to the Rush University Medical Center for $1.5 million. Sessions provided for this in his will, thus prompting the University to erect a building that it docilely dedicated to Mr. Sessions, in spite of never receiving any monetary funds. Ten years later, Sessions was diagnosed with cancer, and chose to revoke his will, pledging the $1.5 million to the University, because he claimed that the doctors there did not diagnose this cancer in enough time to take action and shortly after, he passed away.
Because of Sessions’ pledge to the University, they in turn sued the Sessions Family Trust in the Cook Islands. Despite the fact that the trust was governed by the law of the Cook Islands, Illinois law clearly stated that the trust was void, making every asset within that trust available in order to satisfy the claims of the University, in theorem. This was due to the principle of a simply creating a spendthrift trust in an attempt to circumnavigate creditors’ interests.
In spite of the fact that Cook Islands laws are required to protect those assets, it is important for everyone to understand how creditors may be able to reach those assets. There are two ways a creditor can do this, and that is that the creditor must bring the case to court, in the jurisdiction of the trustee or that the creditor will bring their case to court in the jurisdiction of the trust assets. In either case, the court may find that the creditor can avail of your assets.
In the case of Rush vs. Sessions, the trust assets were reachable, thus being able to be dispersed to creditors. However, when it comes to financial and asset planning, you can actually make your trust assets a less viable option and simply not economically attractive. The easiest and best way to do this is to encumber your asset value, by using it as collateral for a monetary loan from a lender that is unrelated.
Once this has been done, you simply take the proceeds of your loan and deposit them into an offshore trust fund. By doing this, you have moved your immovable assets offshore, and have moved the value of them as well. This is beyond the jurisdiction of the United States courts and is a legal and effective strategy that is called equity stripping. This is the only effective technique available in order to protect your movable assets, and the firm of Donlevy-Rosen & Rosen, P.A. can help you with this type of asset protection, offshore trusts and more.
For more information please visit us at http://www.protectyou.com/blog/new-article-on-rush-university-case/