Protecting Assets

5620SB

Hi
I'm thinking about putting my home into child's name (under 16) or into children's trust as I want to protect it from the possibility of being sued (i may be overthinking this situation as I have not been issued with anything)
I have car/house/small bit of land and would like to protect all incase the situation ever arise..
What is the best way to protect my assets .
I will meet with solicitor in few weeks ad they on holidays at moment.
Thank you

Mr. Incognito

If you only have a house and a car the costs of the trust and administering it would wipe out most of the value of your assets

Its not practical

5620SB

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

If you only have a house and a car the costs of the trust and administering it would wipe out most of the value of your assets

Its not practical

Thank you.
Do yoy kno what would be the best way to protect assets ?

Heres Johnny

If it's to do with being sued through business then consider both insurance and operating as a limited company.

But I don't know the ins and outs of your situation and what you're worried about and why so the devil is in the details.

Glass fused light

5620SB wrote: »

Thank you.
Do yoy kno what would be the best way to protect assets ?

Professional insurance if it's work related.
Professional advice on the implications of the decisions or actions which could lead to you being sued.
Formulate an over all guiding proceedure and break the decision/task into processes to reduce the possibility of a "bad" outcome.
Do not do whatever would result in you being sued.

Eggs For Dinner

If you're referring to Professional Indemnity insurance, any new policy will carry a Retroactive Date, which effectively excludes cover for acts which have already occurred, going back to a specific date, usually years

Glass fused light

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

If you're referring to Professional Indemnity insurance, any new policy will carry a Retroactive Date, which effectively excludes cover for acts which have already occurred, going back to a specific date, usually years

Yep, lazy reading. I missed the implication that the event has occurred, you wont be able to buy PI cover for an pre-existing situation, and as the defendant unlikely to find cover against the outcome of a case.

PS OP your under 16 year old cant enter into contracts which are not in the childs best interest so if you give them the house make sure you have alternative living accommodation in mind when they reach 18 and decide to sell it.

The J Stands for Jay

5620SB wrote: »

Hi
I'm thinking about putting my home into child's name (under 16) or into children's trust as I want to protect it from the possibility of being sued (i may be overthinking this situation as I have not been issued with anything)
I have car/house/small bit of land and would like to protect all incase the situation ever arise..
What is the best way to protect my assets .
I will meet with solicitor in few weeks ad they on holidays at moment.
Thank you

Isn't this one of the things that have gotten a certain Cavan/Fermanagh family many days out in court?

Glass fused light

McGaggs wrote: »

Isn't this one of the things that have gotten a certain Cavan/Fermanagh family many days out in court?

A company has a separate legal identity to its owners, so there was the issue of the company's debt and it's unlocatable assets (for which the directors have a legal obligation to protect), and the personal guarantees given by individuals involved in running the company.

So legally if the directors of a company (even if they are a shareholder) dispose of (hide) assets of the business by transferring them out at under the economic value they risking becoming personally liable for their actions. The court appointed a Receiver, Administrator or Liqudator becomes an insider and can access information, documentation and personnel which would prove mis-management.

In the OP's case if it was a company the potential case should be assessed on likelyhood of occurance, classed as a contingent liability and given an economic cost.

NUTLEY BOY

Could a court set aside the trust as being a veil if it can be established, on the evidence, that the primary objective of the exercise was to put assets beyond reach ?

I do not suggest any impropriety on the part of OP - just wondering about the issue and how that might be seen by an objective third party like a judge !

Peregrinus

Yes, transactions entered into in order to defeat creditors can be set aside. This is a technical and messy area, but it can be done.

But it only applies to transactions intended to defeat actual, existing creditors. If, e.g., I transfer assets to my spouse or another relative before I go into business, and then go into business, get on badly and end up insolvent, those transfers are not going to be set aside. The people who extended credit to me, or whatever, did so at a time when I already didn't own those assets, so they knew - if they cared to investigate it - what assets I had to meet claims.

Nobody has so far mentioned the tax consequences of transferring your home to a trust, which are generally horrendous. Plus, you have actually given your home away; you really don't control it after this. And while this may protect it in the event of your insolvency, if the new owners of the home become insolvent, or have a messy family breakup, or whatever . . . well, fryingpan, meet fire.

hullaballoo

It depends on what way the business is set up, how finance is arranged and when the assets are transferred, as well as the intention behind the transfer - this last part often being the most difficult aspect for creditors or anyone else trying to establish the impropriety of the transaction.