Spend ten minutes on the internet and you’ll bump into headlines that promise a “bullet‑proof” trust—drop your name on a template, wire a retainer to Nevada, and poof your creditors vanish. If only it were that easy. After years of advising California families, we’ve found that most of what circulates about asset‑protection trusts falls somewhere between wishful thinking and outright fantasy. Still, good planning can and does protect wealth; you just have to understand where the law draws its lines.
Below is the straight story—no marketing haze—on what asset‑protection trusts really do for Californians, where the roadblocks appear, and how to build a plan that holds up under courtroom lighting rather than cocktail‑party chatter.
Get a Free Consultation Today
Why California Won’t Play by Nevada’s Rules
California marches to its own drummer when creditors come knocking. Unlike seventeen other states, we do not allow a self‑settled domestic asset‑protection trust (DAPT)—the kind where you create the trust, stick your own property in it, and remain an eligible beneficiary. Probate Code § 15304 says flatly that if you set up a trust for yourself, your creditors can reach anything the trustee could give you. Period.
That policy showed up clearly in Carmack v. Reynolds (2017) 2 Cal.5th 844, where the California Supreme Court confirmed that even a discretionary trust can be cracked open once a creditor proves need. Bottom line: a local judge won’t look kindly on a Californian hiding behind the same instrument that pays the gardener.
Because of this limitation, promoters point residents west of Reno. States like Nevada, South Dakota, and Delaware roll out red carpets for self‑settled trusts, promising short statutes of limitation and punitive hurdles for creditors. The hitch is that a California court presiding over a California debtor can refuse to apply foreign law when it violates our public policy. That means even if your trust sits on a server in Las Vegas, a Sacramento judge could still direct the trustee to satisfy a judgment—especially if you funded the trust after a lawsuit was filed.
Does that render an out‑of‑state DAPT worthless? No. Distance still buys leverage: a claimant must hire local counsel, post bonds, and fight uphill procedural battles. But it’s a speed bump, not a stone wall.
Myth No. 1: “A Trust Can Make Me Judgment‑Proof Overnight.”
If you are the settlor and a beneficiary, California says creditors step right into your shoes. The legend dies there. What can protect assets is a third‑party spendthrift trust—one you create for someone else (your kids, for instance). When the settlor and beneficiary are different people, Probate Code § 15306.5 limits a creditor’s reach to a fraction of any distribution stream, and only after a court hears equitable arguments. Properly drafted, that trust can outlive divorce, business failures, and medical bills.
Myth No. 2: “Moving the Trust to Nevada Keeps California Judges Away.”
Choice‑of‑law clauses and Nevada trustees help, but they don’t erase home‑state public policy. California courts invoke the “strong public policy exception” with gusto. Ask the parties in Blech v. Blech (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 941 how difficult it is to keep an in‑state judgment from following assets out of state. A plaintiff’s lawyer with a determined client can still secure a turnover order if the facts show you’re using the trust to duck legitimate debts.
Myth No. 3: “If I Fund the Trust Before the Lawsuit, I’m Safe.”
Timing matters, yet intent matters more. California’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act gives a creditor up to four years (sometimes longer) to claw back transfers made with “actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud.” Courts look at “badges of fraud”—secrecy, insider transfers, retaining control, litigation on the horizon—and happily unwind the trust. The best shield is early planning done in calm seas, paired with clean books and genuine change of control.
What Actually Works for Californians
Despite our debtor‑friendly statutes, several strategies remain effective when used thoughtfully:
- Third‑Party Discretionary Trusts
Parents often set these up for adult children. Proper spendthrift language keeps a child’s divorce plaintiff or business creditor from seizing the trust principal. The trustee decides when and if to make distributions, and creditors can’t force the trustee’s hand absent exceptional circumstances.
- Irrevocable Life‑Insurance Trusts (ILITs)
Once the policy is transferred to or purchased by an ILIT, you no longer own it. Creditors generally can’t touch the death benefit, and estate taxes shrink or disappear. The downside? You must surrender control—you can’t borrow against the policy or change beneficiaries later.
- Qualified Personal Residence Trusts (QPRTs)
You place the family home in this irrevocable trust, retain the right to live there for a set term, and after that the property transfers to heirs at a discounted gift‑tax value. Provided you survive the term and the transfer wasn’t a dodge around an existing claim, creditors have a tougher time grabbing the residence.
- Layering Entities
Pairing an LLC (often formed in a charging‑order‑friendly state) with a well‑written trust adds another ring around the castle. Even if a creditor reaches your membership interest, all they receive is the right to distributions the manager chooses to make. No distributions, no money—leverage for settlement.
A Word on Offshore Trusts
Cook Islands, Nevis, and Belize advertise draconian creditor hurdles—short limitation windows, mandatory bonds, and contempt‑proof trustees. For the person facing catastrophic risk (think surgeons, real‑estate developers, or entrepreneurs with personal guarantees), an offshore trust can be a lifesaver. Count the cost, though: five‑figure setup fees, annual trustee charges, foreign bank filings, and the unpleasant possibility of a U.S. judge jailing you for contempt if you “won’t” repatriate assets you legally control. Offshore works best when assets are already abroad (international brokerage accounts, for instance), the trust is created long before trouble brews, and the client can live with limited personal access to the funds.
Recent Trends to Keep on the Radar
- Retirement‑Plan Transparency. Assembly Bill 2837, effective January 1, 2025, forces trustees of certain retirement‑plan trusts to maintain detailed records for participants and regulators. It doesn’t kill planning, but sloppy record‑keepers could hand creditors a treasure map.
- Homestead Expansion. California’s 2021 overhaul raised the homestead exemption to a minimum of $300k (indexed for inflation). A larger exemption reduces the urgency of complex planning for some families—your primary residence might already sit behind a sizeable statutory wall.
- Prop 19 Reassessment Rules. Transferring real property into trusts can trigger reassessment unless you thread the needle on Proposition 19 exclusions. Asset protection and property‑tax strategy must now share the same drafting table.
Practical Playbook for Families and Small‑Business Owners
- Start Early. Protective moves made when life is calm rarely look suspicious later.
- Keep Roles Separate. If you crave iron‑clad spendthrift protection, don’t name yourself a beneficiary. Retain influence through a trust protector or advisory committee instead.
- Respect Formalities. Separate bank accounts, annual trustee minutes, and professional tax filings are not busywork—they are the audit trail that keeps your wall intact.
- Mix Tools. Umbrella insurance, retirement accounts, homestead exemptions, business entities, and trusts all play different positions on the same defensive team. Over‑reliance on one star player invites a bad day.
- Choose Trustees Wisely. A cousin who owed you twenty bucks in college won’t convince a judge you relinquished control. Independent corporate trustees lend credibility and professional bookkeeping.
- Document Solvency. A solvency affidavit and financial statement at the time of transfer discourages later fraudulent‑transfer claims.
- Stay Current on Taxes. Gift‑tax returns, property‑tax exemption claims, and foreign bank account reports (FBAR) are easy to overlook and expensive to ignore.
Friendly Warning About “One‑Size‑Fits‑All” Documents
Every few months a client forwards me a glossy flyer promising “lawsuit‑proof living trusts” for $3,995. The templates usually ignore California’s creditor statutes, fail to address Prop 19, and contain gaping tax holes. Worse, they give families false confidence—until a plaintiff’s attorney files a charging order and walks through the open door. Good asset protection demands custom drafting, honest risk assessment, and the discipline to live with the structure afterward.
Final Thoughts
Asset‑protection trusts are neither snake oil nor silver bullets. In California, the power lies in layered, early, and transparent planning—choosing structures that fit your risk profile, giving up just enough control to satisfy the statutes, and maintaining meticulous records. When those pieces click, a creditor may still bark, but collecting becomes a steep, expensive climb—often steep enough to push them toward settlement.
If you’re weighing a trust or wondering whether your current plan still passes muster after the latest legislative tweaks, sit down with counsel who handles both estate planning and estate litigation. A strategy session now can save years of sleepless nights later.
