781.708.4445

wmlevine@levinedisputeresolution.com

Divorce Mediation Blog

A Cautionary Concurrence on Decanting: Ferri v. Powell-Ferri

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

In an unusual context, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently answered questions put to it by the Connecticut Supreme Court about its view of whether the decanting of a divorce litigant’s trust assets to another trust, with spendthrift provisions, was permitted by Massachusetts law.

The SJC concluded that the trustee’s maneuver, which likely placed the trust assets outside the equitable division reach of the non-beneficiary’s divorcing wife, respected the probable intent of the settlor, making the asset transfer permissible, even though under the original trust’s terms, the beneficiary-husband had the unfettered right to withdraw 75% of the trust res at the time of decanting.

This seems a harsh result from the spouse’s perspective. We wonder how this situation really differs from the case of a self-settled revocable trust, the contents of which are uniformly treated as unfettered marital assets because the grantor can seize the trust assets at any time; therefore, for divorce purposes, the trust is a nullity. Mr. Ferri, too, could demand and receive 75% of the original trust corpus, too, so how is that different, at least regarding that portion? Yet, the Ferri ruling will presumably put those same assets out of reach for Ms. Powell-Ferri, and the divorce court.

Did the SJC elevate form over substance?

The SJC’s answer, at the bottom line, is “no”, because the beneficiary had not in fact, taken control of the trust principal, and the trust instrument established the settlor’s intent that, the trustee’s obligations of asset protection and control persist until distribution of the trust corpus, irrespective of the beneficiary’s prior withdrawal rights.

So, as the trust instrument compelled the trustee to shield the trust corpus from others, could decant (i.e., transfer the entire trust asset base to a new, more restrictive trust) to further the settlor’s wish.

Yet, Chief Justice Gants clearly recognized, the mischief that this decision might work in Massachusetts divorce world: encouraging divorce planning by spouses and fiduciaries, and resulting disruption to the commonwealth’s generally policies in favor of broad marital asset identification and against prejudgment manipulation.

Thus, in a rare concurrence, he (with Justices Lenk and Budd) “[wrote] separately” to emphasize what the SJC did not decide:

    … whether Massachusetts law will permit trustees in Massachusetts to create a new spendthrift trust where the sole purpose of the transfer is to remove the trust’s assets from the marital assets that might be distributed to the beneficiary’s spouse in a divorce action.

    Exactly what the Ferri trustee had done in Connecticut, now blessed by the SJC.

Justice Gants girded his caution on the Massachusetts Uniform Trust Code’s prohibition against trusts that violate public policy (M.G.L., ch. 203E, §404), and common law, suggesting strongly, while not explicitly stating, that decanting for the sole purpose of divorce planning just – might – well – be such a violation. While not cited by the him, procedural rules of the Probate and Family Court, common bench and bar understanding and perhaps an ethics-based view, all support Justice Gants’ caution.

In the end, what the Ferri family and trustee got away with in Connecticut, will likely not pass muster in future Massachusetts. The Ferri concurrence may be its most influential part: a bright, flashing yellow light, with a red light against trustee divorce planning likely to follow.



Get e-mail notifications of new blog posts! Enter email address below.:



Delivered by FeedBurner

other articles


recent posts


tags

divorce arbitration Levine Dispute Resolution Center LLC conciliation resolve disputes med/arb support orders Massachusetts alimony and child support pre-ARA alimony Boston mediators Baseball Players divorce mediators arbitrator family support General term alimony arbitrators divorce judgment rehabilitative alimony Child Support Guidelines Cohabitation divorce litigation Levine Dispute Resolution family law mediation family mediation Alimony Reform Act divorce and family law how baseball arbitration works Matrimonial Arbitration MLB labor agreement LDRC Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Divorce Divorce Agreements fraud mediation divorce process divorced Baseball divorce mediation traditional negotiations health insurance COLA Baseball Arbitration high-risk methodology divorce lawyers family and probate law disputes litigation lawyers special master Chouteau Levine DOMA Massachusetts IRC §2704 Self-adjusting alimony orders Act Reforming Alimony in the Commonwealth mediations mediator arbitration divorce mediations disputes alimony statute health coverage private dispute resolution Levine Dispute Resolution Center Massachusetts divorce mediators The Seven Sins of Alimony Major League Baseball Arbitration medical benefits Massachusetts divorce lawyers family law arbitrator Massachusetts lawyers Obamacare family law alimony Same Sex Marriage dispute resolution divorce and family law mediators child support family law arbitrators lawyer-attended mediation divorce arbitrators SJC lawyer self-adjusting alimony divorce agreement alimony law Family Law Arbitration annulment Massachusetts alimony Uniform Arbitration Act Defense of Marriage Act alimony orders Massachusetts Alimony Reform Act divorce arbitrator med-arb separation facilitated negotiations Levine Dispute Resolutions divorce mediator alimony reform legislation