Stop the noise

ET wrote:
Kevin wrote in news:K_f8c.81882$1p.1206019@attbi_s54:


Peter Clark wrote:

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:19:03 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote:



Cub Driver wrote:



Furthermore, AOPA has not been
injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a
countersuit (though they could certainly support the pilots
financially if they decide to do so).

According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial
contribution" to defense costs.

Yet the pilots still had to sell their aircraft?


They don't have the benefit of their lawyers doing everything for
free.


This is the very reason all of my assets are owned by a Revocable
Living Trust . Bullet proof protection of assets .




Your Revocable Living Trust protects you from NOTHING but the probate
lawyers....


Anyone who told you different LIED to you. There are lots of potential
good reasons for having that kind of trust, but protection from lawsuits
is NOT one of them.

If the revocable living trust is used alone you are correct. If used in
conjunction with a FLP it's a different matter.

Asset protection can be accomplished when property is held in the
Family limited partnership and those interests are owned by the trust.

Kevin wrote:

If the revocable living trust is used alone you are correct. If used in
conjunction with a FLP it's a different matter.

Asset protection can be accomplished when property is held in the
Family limited partnership and those interests are owned by the trust.


The only way to protect your assets is to spend your money on things no
one can take away. Couple years ago, I kinda felt I was about to be
laid off. So I took the family to Disney World. I coulda paid more
bills, but they'd eventually take it all back anyway so WTF. There's no
way they're going to get those memories of plastered on smiles from
riding the rockin' roller coaster. They mine, and always will be!

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber