Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Many thanks for all the comments. Looking into it a little more, I believe I may have confused the "defense of necessity" with the "privilege to intrude". With regard to the latter, B is "privileged to intrude" the private property of A, if B is in a dangerous situation and requests shelter from A. Because B has this privilege, then it seems that A is no longer entitled to prevent his property from being intruded by B. That is the heart of what I'm really getting at. Sorry to confuse everyone with the "defense of necessity" (I understand that to be a defense that perhaps B can make if he indeed forces himself into A's home, and then A sues him for the intrusion -- that's not what I was intending to ask about). So again, back to the "privilege" aspect, what is A's liability to B? Because A is no longer entitled to prevent B from entering (since B acquires the "privilege of intrusion" due to impending danger of gang members), it seems A will be liable injuries that B will suffer of A refuses to let B in. Right?
  2. Sorry if this caused any confusion, but my question is NOT a "homework" question. I'm not sure why one would make the assumption right off the bat... The scenario, I believe, is a practical one. In learning about defense of necessity while reviewing tort law, it's likely possible for one to invoke the defense of necessity when he is refused shelter while running away from any form of danger (e.g., gang members chasing him with guns). So returning to my question, would the defense of necessity likely be useful here for B against A to recover for personal injuries. Are you aware of any cases relating to this? I own a home. If someone comes knocking on my door telling me to open up because he's being chased by a bunch of people who will hurt or kill him, and I refused, what is my liability to him if he (or his family if he dies) invokes the defense of necessity?
  3. Hey all. So I've come to learn recently that one can invoke the privilege of necessity as a defense when it comes to torts. For example, if A is at sea, knows of an impending storm, and decides to come ashore and dock on B's property, then B can be liable for both A's personal injuries and damages to A's boat if B refuses to let A dock. B, here, can invoke the privilege of necessity because he has reason to believe that there is a dangerous situation upon him, and thus A is no longer entitled to prevent A from intruding on his property. So, my question is, how far can the defense of necessity extend? For example, what if B is running from gang members with guns and ends up at A's doorstep. If A refuses to open the door (to protect himself and his family), will A then be liable for B's injuries if he's shot by the gang members? Can anyone cite any cases (in any jurisdictions) for a scenario similar to this?
  4. Many thanks for Tax_Counsel, pg1067, and others who have replied. Very informative. Will do more homework outside of the forum on this topic.
  5. I appreciate the comments and warning regarding soliciting thoughts on a forum. I've been on the internet since the beginning so I am fully aware of how the quality of information may vary (and especially so in legal matters). I am a law student and will begin a course in trusts and wills. I ask this particular hypothetical to the extent that, as hopefully an attorney-to-be, creative and solid solutions for clients are a good thing. I do not find my hypothetical completely out of sync with what someone might think of or plan to do with his or her estate. I work at a law firm and thus am blessed with access to many folks who can give me pointers. I've sought assistance from them, but considering their billing rates and need to get back to work, I am reluctant to take too much of their time. The internet is great, as Fallen, for example, will attest to, as you've obviously been able to chime in and participate quite a bit to make this a thriving community. Thanks for writing. I believe that taking all advice and conversations online with a grain of salt and doing your homework (as Fallen graciously suggests), it's a wonderful way to learn, study ideas, think creatively, and tap into the many experiences each person can share. If none have anything to share, then so be it. But if you do, I'm all ears. Getting back to the hypo, what would you say is the danger of the husband's and wife's arrangement as being trustors as well as being owners of an LLC that is a trustee of an irrevocable trust? Any thoughts on this is much appreciated.
  6. Thanks for all the replies so far. Just to clarify a few things: 1. The choice of IRrevocable trust was not accidental. The purpose for making the trust IRrevocable is to protect the house from creditors. I assume that making the trust revocable would allow creditors to access the house. On the other hand, making the trust IRrevocable, as well as appointing someone else or some other entity to be the trustee, would make it well known to everyone that the husband and wife no longer have any control over the house whatsoever, and thus the house would not be accessible to creditors. The point also is to secure the house in the trust for the husband's and wife's children. 2. Regarding having an LLC be the trustee, my question really is this: Would it be a violation of any state law (particularly New York) if either the husband or the wife or both are actually part owners or members of the LLC. The trick here is that, given it's an IRrevocable trust, the trustors are really not supposed to have any control over the trust property any longer. However, by sneakily being or becoming part owners of the LLC trustee, the husband and wife would then have at least some control over the house again. Question then is: is this allowed? If this is or seems OK, how do you suppose a court would view this arrangement? If the husband and wife are sued and a creditor points out that they never truly relinquished control over the house (since they're part owners of the LLC trustee), would a court find for the creditors on the basis that the essence of the whole trust being IRrevocable is defeated by the husband's and wife's arrangement and thus should be void?
  7. Hi all, I'm trying to navigate the world of irrevocable trusts. Here is a scenario: If a husband and wife own a house in tenancy by the entirety, and place the house in an irrevocable trust with their children as the beneficiaries, what happens to the tenancy by the entirety status? Does it become severed and downgraded to tenancy in common? This seems reasonable because the irrevocable trust is not in itself a marriage and this should not qualify for tenancy by the entirety. If the answers to the questions above are both YES, then what happens if the husband dies before the wife? Does the irrevocable trust then become cancelled? Or can such a provision be put in the trust document and be enforceable (I'm more interested in New York)? Or how about if the husband and all of the named beneficiaries die before the wife. What then happens to the house and trust? Again, can provisions be put in the trust to allow the wife to then get back the title to the house? Finally, I've been searching for case and could not find anything regrading having an LLC as the trustee to an irrevocable trust. I'm assuming this is possible, since corporations in General can be trustees. However, what I'm more interested in is the possibility of having an LLC be the trustee in an irrevocable trust, while also having either the husband or the wife be a member or part owner of the LLC itself. The point of an irrevocable trust, I know, is to completely separate control of trust property from the trustors. However, in the scenario where the husband or wife is also an part-owner of the LLC trustee, would it be a violation of any state law (perhaps New York State law) to do this?
  • Create New...