The Uncle-Trustee: Spendthrift Protection, Self-Dealing, and Discretionary Distributions
In 2019, Eleanor Vance created an irrevocable trust for her grandson, Toby, then 14, funded with $900,000. The trust directs the trustee to distribute 'so much of the income and principal as the trustee, in the trustee's sole and absolute discretion, deems advisable for Toby's health, education, and support' until Toby turns 35, and it contains a spendthrift clause barring voluntary and involuntary alienation. Eleanor named her son, Grant (Toby's uncle), as trustee. In 2022, Grant sold a rental house from the trust to himself for $310,000 when two appraisals put the value at $375,000. He recorded the deed, paid the trust, and disclosed the sale in the annual accounting. Toby, now 21, has run up $45,000 in credit-card debt and has purported to assign his 'right to future distributions' to a lender for $20,000. The credit-card issuer has served a garnishment on Grant. Toby asks whether he can force Grant to distribute principal so he can pay the debt.
1. Can the credit-card issuer reach trust distributions through garnishment, or does the spendthrift clause defeat the claim?
Read the worked answer
The issuer cannot reach the trust under these facts. Colorado recognizes spendthrift protection: where the trust restrains voluntary and involuntary alienation, a creditor cannot compel the trustee to distribute or reach the beneficiary's interest before it is paid. The rationale is that a discretionary beneficiary has no enforceable right to any particular distribution, so there is nothing to garnish.
Identify the exceptions, because they matter on an exam. A creditor may reach distributions where the trust is self-settled (Eleanor settled this one, so no); where the trustee has failed to pay for the beneficiary's support and the creditor supplied necessaries (credit-card debt for general consumer goods is not necessaries); where distributions are mandatory rather than discretionary (here they are discretionary); and where a statute overrides spendthrift protection, such as certain support and tax claims (not present here).
The assignment also fails. Toby's purported assignment of future distributions is a voluntary alienation barred by the spendthrift clause. The lender takes nothing, and the issuer cannot improve its position by standing in the lender's shoes.
Conclusion. Grant should move to quash the garnishment. Toby's creditors must look to property he actually owns, not to a discretionary interest.
2. What are Toby's remedies for Grant's purchase of the trust-owned house, and does the annual accounting or the two-year delay bar them?
Read the worked answer
The sale is voidable, not merely void, and the beneficiaries may elect to rescind. A trustee owes an undivided duty of loyalty and is subject to the no-further-inquiry rule: a trustee's sale of trust property to himself is voidable by the beneficiaries regardless of good faith or fairness, absent authorization in the trust instrument, court approval, or the informed consent of all beneficiaries. Eleanor's trust gives Grant discretion over distributions; it does not authorize him to buy trust assets.
Remedies. Rescission and reconveyance of the house, disgorgement of the $65,000 difference between the appraised value and the price, surcharge for any lost rental income, and removal of Grant as trustee. The beneficiaries may also seek an accounting and, if the sale is allowed to stand, a surcharge equal to the shortfall.
Disclosure is not consent. Listing the sale in an annual accounting may start the clock on a limitations defense, but it does not cure the conflict or constitute informed consent. Toby was a minor for most of the relevant period, which weakens laches. The two-year delay is short and has not prejudiced Grant in any way that would bar relief.
3. Can Toby compel Grant to distribute principal, and what effect does his purported assignment have?
Read the worked answer
Toby cannot compel a distribution as of right. A discretionary beneficiary has no enforceable interest in any particular amount. A court will not substitute its judgment for the trustee's; review is for abuse of discretion - bad faith, caprice, or a failure to act in accordance with the trust's purposes.
But the discretion is not unbounded. The trust's stated purpose is Toby's health, education, and support. If Grant refuses distributions while having enriched himself at the trust's expense, a court may find the refusal tainted by the conflict of interest, order an accounting, remove Grant, and direct a reasonable distribution for support. Toby's credit-card debt is not automatically 'support,' but the surrounding facts - his age, needs, and Grant's self-dealing - make the refusal vulnerable.
The assignment is ineffective. The spendthrift clause bars voluntary alienation, so the lender acquired no interest and cannot demand payment from the trust. Toby remains the only permissible beneficiary. The practical path is a petition for accounting, removal, and surcharge, coupled with a request that the successor trustee exercise discretion in light of the trust's support standard.