If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
TaxSrv wrote:
"Kevin" wrote: This is the very reason all of my assets are owned by a Revocable Living Trust . Bullet proof protection of assets . Are you sure that's going to work in your state? Here's sample advice for physicians that it won't: http://www.physiciansnews.com/finance/1101dv.html For the ultimate in asset protection and estate planning the offshore Asset Protection Trust is the way to go. When you combine domestic strategies with the the asset protection trust, you become 99.9% bullet proof. With an offshore trust controlling your asset, it becomes very difficult if not impossible for a creditor to gain control or get the assets sent back to the U.S. Just like a revocable living trust, the offshore asset protection trust allows you to avoid probate and distribute your assets to your heirs. Since it is governed by an offshore jurisdiction, the trust is not subject to U.S. claims or orders from U.S. courts. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
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. -- ET "A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."---- Douglas Adams |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
I rather doubt that AOPA;'s contribution was large enough for them to
want to buy back the airplanes. I don't know if Boston lawyers bill $400 an hour, but I am sure they earn more an hour than I do in a day. As always, only the lawyers win. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
"ET" wrote in message ... 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. Yes. That's what my attorney told me. A big reason for a living trust is to hide your estate distribution plans. Trusts are private documents, wills are public. A living trust can be sued. And if you go into a nursing home, a living trust can be raided to pay the bills. With an irrevocable trust and enough time, you might be able to avoid that. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Jay Honeck wrote:
I rather doubt that AOPA;'s contribution was large enough for them to want to buy back the airplanes. I don't know if Boston lawyers bill $400 an hour, but I am sure they earn more an hour than I do in a day. As always, only the lawyers win. I see AOPA making claims about contributions that aren't enough to help the pilots keep their planes. In other words, in a twisted way, AOPA is getting something (for very little) out of this too. So what does "a substantial contribution" mean if the pilots are having this much trouble with what is left of the bill? Why not simply provide the legal staff free of charge? AOPA does have lawyers on staff, no? - Andrew |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Jay Honeck wrote: As always, only the lawyers win. Yeah, there's a reason this group is headed by an attorney. He's probably getting a kickback somewhere. George Patterson Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would not yield to the tongue. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ... Jay Honeck wrote: As always, only the lawyers win. Yeah, there's a reason this group is headed by an attorney. He's probably getting a kickback somewhere. Lawyers write all the rules of engagement, they have a legal monopoly (ABA) and a virtual monopoly in the legislatures -- did you think they'd set it up any other way? -- "Flying an airplane is just like riding a bike -- it's just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes" -- Capt. Rex Cramer |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
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. You are correct IF the revocable living trust is used as the only means to protect assets. If the RLT is used in conjunction with a Family Limited Partnership its a different matter. Asset protection can be accomplished when property is held in a Family limited partnership and those interests are owned by the trust. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
... I've heard they've tried it twice. Don't know if the offered "fair market value, though), but the worst offenders are sports stadiums. In Phoenix, when they were getting ready to build BankOne Ballpark for the Diamondbacks it came close to a violent confrontation with the police but local protesters. Tom, While it's true that stadia developers are often the most egregious, the little guy does prevail from time to time. Even in AZ! Witness this case from Mesa, AZ... http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...Baileys02.html Regards, Jay Beckman Student Pilot - KCHD 7.4 Hrs ... Nowhere to go but up! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stop the noise | airads | Owning | 112 | July 6th 04 06:42 PM |
Stop the noise | airads | Aerobatics | 131 | July 2nd 04 01:28 PM |
Stop the noise | airads | General Aviation | 88 | July 2nd 04 01:28 PM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
Prop noise vs. engine noise | Morgans | Piloting | 8 | December 24th 03 03:24 AM |