The Legislature is offering South Dakota’s trust lawyers another prop to their participation in global feudalism. Senate Bill 65 is this year’s venture into amendments to the convoluted laws that help the world’s billionaires hide their wealth from taxes in perpetuity in South Dakota.
SB 65 has 26 Republican sponsors. I suspect that if you ask co-spsonors Senator Al Novstrup, Senator Jeff Monroe, and Representative Goodwin about SB 65 at the crackerbarrels this weekend, they won’t be able to explain SB 65 or trust law in general any better than you or I or the average Joe eating a Krusti Noem Burger at Tommy Jacks can. But I do notice down in the guts of Section 13 a few lines apparently intended to keep trust details under even tighter wraps, even from beneficiaries. Section 13 proposes, among other things, to allow the folks establishing trusts to “expand, restrict, eliminate, or otherwise vary the right of a beneficiary to be informed of the beneficiary’s interest in a trust….” That tells me that the trust settlor can prevent beneficiaries from getting any information about how much money they will receive or when they will receive it.
SB 65 says such blinds on beneficiaries’ knowledge of their interest in the trust must be tied to specific period of time, like when a beneficiary reaches a certain age, when the settlor or settlor’s spouse or both finally keel over, or a specific date or “a specific event that is certain to occur.” The latter means a trust can’t tie its secrecy toward beneficiaries to some hoped-for event, like the Vikings winning the Super Bowl or the beneficiaries getting degrees and making million-dollar salaries on their own… but I wonder: what events can we say are certain to occur that aren’t tied to a calendar or death or taxes? (Oh, wait: for South Dakota trusts, taxes are certain not to happen.)
SB 65 Section 13 puts another lock on trust information by adding a provision allowing the folks in charge of trusts to petition the court for a gag order on anyone trying to subpoena information about the trust. The super-rich want to keep using South Dakota as a palce to hide their wealth, and they are determined to keep us from finding out how much wealth they are hiding here.
SB 65 has been assigned to Senate Judiciary, where lawyer/chairman Lance Russell and lawyer/members Kennedy, Rusch, and Schoenbeck will gleefully hash out the arcane details while non-lawyer/members Novstrup, Blare, and Zikmund will homina-homina-hum the party line and blindly vote for more trust blinders.
An anecdote … Carl, who worked with and introduced me to my late wife when we were all 23, was making very good money in sales. His rich Grandmother in Boston died and he was informed (by law) that he’d inherit a few million when he turned 35. Carl lost all ambition, became a cocaine/crack addict and died well short of 35. Mrs. Lansing and I agreed that if he’d not been told, he’d no doubt have been rich himself by 35 and the inheritance wouldn’t have jaded him. His Grandmother would probably have preferred he not be told when she died but the law overruled her wishes. She knew he was immature and that’s why she had her estate withold the funds until he was middle age.
Very sorry about your friend, Porter.
It’s so nice of the SDGOP to look out for and take good care of the very wealthy.
Thanks, Debbo. Carl lived in Watertown for a couple years and I don’t think the town’s over him, yet … and that was 47 years ago. Four of us moved to Colorado and guess who’s the only one still upright. :) But seeing who’s promoting this, I’m convinced they’re not trying to help a beneficiary of a trust. They’re probably trying to make it nearly impossible for a beneficiary to break the trust and get their money early. The longer it’s “trusted” in SD the more the estate administrator (campaign donor) earns.
Do not sell Mr. Novstrup, the elder, short when it comes to shrewd lawyer-like skills.
Mr. Lansing, I bet Mrs. Lansing was indeed right about your late friend, and righter-than-right most of the time, eh?
Porter is addiction a family illness?
This wealth grab in SD irks me to no end. Remember how Lawyer david lust slammed Governor hopeful Wismer for hef warning about this cancerous industry? Not pretty, those grabbing power.
Surprised Erickson and Butina (and rep johnson) didn’t bring in russian trust babies along with russian sniper rifles designed to penetrate western body armor. Note trump did deny lethal aid to Ukraine in the form of western sniper rifles in its russian war. Impeach the bastard. I mean mthrfker.
Read today that the prez and co. are working on the “problem” of Russian birthright babies or “tourism babies” as we speak.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/06/how-marie-and-ed-bosarges-divorce-spotlights-south-dakotas-asset-trusts.html
This could get interesting as it sounds like the little lady is getting her ashes hauled because ofnthe trust laws.