Spendthrift Protection, Principal Distributions, and Prudent Trustee Investment
Margaret creates an irrevocable inter vivos trust in Kentucky with $3 million, naming her daughter Ellen as income beneficiary for life and Ellen's two children as remainder beneficiaries. The trust instrument contains a spendthrift clause and directs the trustee to 'invest prudently.' The trustee is a bank. Ellen has a $400,000 judgment against her from a failed business; the judgment creditor serves a garnishment on the trustee. Ellen asks the trustee to distribute $600,000 so she can pay the judgment and to buy a $900,000 vacation condominium for her personal use. The trustee also proposes to invest 45% of the trust in a single biotech startup and to lend itself $100,000 from trust funds to cover 'unanticipated administrative costs.'
1. May the judgment creditor reach the trust through the garnishment?
Read the worked answer
No. Kentucky's Uniform Trust Code recognizes spendthrift protection. A spendthrift clause prevents both voluntary assignment and involuntary attachment by creditors before the trustee actually distributes trust property to the beneficiary. The creditor cannot compel the trustee to pay Ellen's judgment, and the garnishment should be quashed. The result is not altered because Ellen has a life income interest; the protection attaches to trust distributions until they are received. The creditor's remedy is to reach funds after distribution, not to stand in Ellen's shoes against the trust.
2. May the trustee distribute $600,000 to pay the judgment or buy the $900,000 condominium?
Read the worked answer
Only if the trust instrument authorizes principal distributions for Ellen's benefit, and even then the trustee must act impartially toward the remainder beneficiaries. An income beneficiary is presumptively entitled to income, not principal. Using principal to pay Ellen's personal business judgment or to buy her a personal vacation condominium is not a trust investment and benefits Ellen at the expense of the remainder beneficiaries. The trustee should refuse absent clear discretionary authority, and if the instrument is ambiguous, seek court instruction. A distribution that mainly benefits the income beneficiary can be a breach of the duty of impartiality.
3. What fiduciary problems arise from the proposed 45% biotech investment and the $100,000 self-loan?
Read the worked answer
Both are serious breaches. Under the prudent investor rule, the trustee must diversify unless special circumstances make concentration prudent; putting 45% of a $3 million trust into one startup is excessive concentration and ignores risk, return, and the beneficiaries' needs. The self-loan is worse: a trustee may not lend trust funds to itself because that creates a conflict of interest and violates the duty of loyalty. Even a fair rate does not cure self-dealing without court approval or informed consent. The bank could be surcharged for losses, required to disgorge the loan, and removed.