Overview
Spendthrift clauses, creditor exceptions, tort vs. duty. This module covers 5 of The Law of Trusts casebook, with real case holdings, key principles, and practical problems.
Educational content from the casebook "The Law of Trusts" — rebranded under AKASHIC INTELLIGENCE / LOVELOVINGLIFE. This is legal education, not legal advice. Trust law varies by state. Always consult a qualified estate-planning attorney.
Key Cases (3)
Morrison v. Doyle
582 N.W.2d 237 · Issue: Implied spendthrift trust
Holding: No particular form of words is needed to create a spendthrift trust. The settlor's intent can be inferred from the totality of circumstances, including ascertainable standards like 'education, support, health, and maintenance.'
Drevenik v. Nardone
862 A.2d 635 · Issue: Child support and spendthrift trusts
Holding: Child support is a duty, not a debt. A spendthrift trust can be invaded to satisfy child support arrears, even though it cannot be reached by ordinary creditors.
Duvall v. McGee
826 A.2d 416 · Issue: Tort claims and spendthrift trusts
Holding: The majority rule: tort judgment creditors CANNOT reach spendthrift trusts. Only duties (support, taxes) override spendthrift protection, not debts (including tort judgments).
Practice Problems (2)
Spendthrift — Child Support
Scenario: A beneficiary owes child support arrears. Can the spendthrift trust be invaded?
Analysis: Yes — child support is a duty, not a debt. Courts universally allow invasion of spendthrift trusts for child support and alimony, even though ordinary creditors cannot reach them.
Spendthrift — Tort Claims
Scenario: A beneficiary commits a tort. Can the victim reach the spendthrift trust?
Analysis: Majority rule: No — tort creditors are treated as ordinary creditors. Minority (Mississippi, Sligh): Yes — public policy disfavors allowing tortfeasors to enjoy property without paying tort victims.
Deep Dive
Read the full chapter in The Law of Trusts, Made Plain