Forbes:  “In 2005, an Alaska resident, Mortensen, who was solvent and liquid at the time, settled a self-settled Alaska Domestic Asset Protection Trust (“DAPT” or “APT”) for his own benefit and the benefit of his heirs, and contributed a $60,000 piece of property to the trust, along with $80,000 in cash that was a gift from his mother. . . . the Mortensen opinion basically says that under Bankruptcy Code section 548(e), Asset Protection Trusts do not provide protection in bankruptcy for a period of at least 10 years from the date the Trust was settled, where a purpose of the trust was to protect the trust assets from creditors of the settlor/beneficiary.”

Nationally recognized Nevada domestic asset protection trust lawyer Steve Oshins says this about the Mortenson case:

” I have looked through the facts of the case carefully and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the judge would have been crazy to have ruled differently than he did.  Other than some subtle inner-issues regarding how the judge looked at the 10-year bankruptcy clawback, this case was really a non-issue for DAPTs.  We all knew since 2005 that there’s a bankruptcy clawback.  One of the reasons Bob and I are doing the teleseminar is to make sure the public doesn’t misinterpret the case as being meaningful.  With the viral effect of the Internet, those who don’t do DAPTs could easily misinterpret this case.  I think it is important for people to take note of what was done wrong in the case which is helpful because “what not to do” is a good training tool. “

Read “Trust Experts Say Judge Made “Bad Law” in Landmark Asset Protection Case,” which states:

“But trust companies that rely on asset protection as a selling point say the ruling is a fluke that won’t affect truly well-constructed vehicles of this type — and the estate planners who know most about the field agree.  . . .’If there was ever an illustration of how extreme facts contradict the law, this might be it,’ says Wisconsin estate planner Bob Keebler.  ‘The sky is not falling on domestic asset protection trusts,’ he says. ‘This is really not a surprise to anyone’.”

The case is Battley v. Mortensen, Adv. D.Alaska, No. A09-90036-DMD, May 26, 2011.