What is a safe time to Quit Deed my paid home?

[AngelinaCatHub]

My first question was how much time BEFORE filing BK is safe to warranty deed my home to someone I trust to avoid the creditors in seizing it or whatever.

I feel for you 'wayout', but in my opinion, this is not worthy of discussion here on this forum. Without being looked at as rude, I wish to further abstain from further talk here, as it is plainly and honestly spoken that you wish us to aid you in fraudulently redeeming your property. I understand you lost your job. We all have or similarly had misfortunes to cause us to bk. Remember, we all ran our lives on credit. We all became slaves of another. I believe you to be in error, and I believe we are also, in aiding you. 'Hub

[despritfreya]

Ponzi scheme? Senario one: I lost my job. I go into a bank and rob it for 50,000...get caught, go to jail for 30 years or whatever.#2: I lost my job. Run up my CC cards up to 50,000 file BK...walk away. Who is more guilty?

No, no, no. . . not suggesting you are involved with a Ponzi scheme or anything illegal (yet). Was just a comment about the similarity in names and what led to the bk filings. But, Ms. Demoff will not be going to Club Fed because of the Ponzi scheme. She will most likely lose any right to a discharge and probably face criminal charges for bk fraud. . . not disclosing the transfers to the off shore accounts and then, when caught, asserting that the assets so transfered do not belong to the bk estate.

Des.

[justbroke]

Who is more guilty?

I think you misunderstood teh reference. Des was referencing a case with the name Demoff and I asked if it was any relation to Madoff. The reason that Des brought up the Demoff case was with respect to using offshore financial institutions to attempt to shield and/or hide money from the reach of US creditors and prosecutors.

Such is not your case!

[wayout]

I have to thank all of you that responded to my questions.

All of this is just futile dreaming on my part.

If it was doable then the whole system would collapse. I will just settle and go on my way..thanks again

[despritfreya]

My first question was how much time BEFORE filing BK is safe to warranty deed my home to someone I trust to avoid the creditors in seizing it or whatever.

Ok, so now I am going to answer your question. Under bk law you are REQUIRED to disclose any transfer that happens within two years prior to filing. A Trustee, however, has the right to use State law to recover transfers made more than 2 years prior to filing:

Giving away the home is a “fraudulent conveyance”. Your State has adopted the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act which can be found at:

http://search.cga.state.ct.us/dtsearch_pub_statutes.html

The time period in which to recover the conveyance is:

Sec. 52-522j. Extinguishment of cause of action. A cause of action with respect to a fraudulent transfer or obligation under sections 52-552a to 52-552l, inclusive, is extinguished unless action is brought: (1) Under subdivision (1) of subsection (a) of section 52-552e, within four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred or, if later, within one year after the transfer or obligation was or could reasonably have been discovered by the claimant; (2) under subdivision (2) of subsection (a) of section 52-552e or subsection (a) of section 52-552f, within four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred; or (3) under subsection (b) of section 52-552f, within one year after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred.

As a result, no matter how long you wait, the Trustee will have 1 year after the transfer could reasonably have been discovered by him/her (as the claimant)to bring suit to recover the conveyance.

Des.

[HHM]

Actually, the asset planning tool described wouldn't actually work in this case, because you still run a foul of fraudulent transfer statutes. That is more how you can "preemptively" protect your assets. But if claims exist at the time of setting up one these trusts, you still have problems.

But keep in mind, the goals are different. The question is whether you will "lose" the asset. If push comes to shove, would you rather lose $100,000,000, or serve 5 years in prison and walk out with $100,000,000.

It is difficult with real estate because you can never wholly remove real estate from U.S. Jurisdiction. But you can do it with cash, and cash equivalents. The issue is whether the government/trustee can actually get the assets. So if they get a court order demanding turnover, and you refuse, all you face is civil contempt. That will lead to some jail time, but civil contempt, constitutionally, can only be used to compel action, once it becomes evident the action will not result, the person must be released. Once civil contempt crosses the line into punitive, it is unconstitutional.

The courts in the Cook Islands have thrown the U.S. Attorney General out of court.

These advanced asset planning tools are only meaningfully valid if used prior to the rise of a claim...e.g. this is why Doctors in FL never pay malpractice judgments that exceed the insurance payout.

[wayout]

'These advanced asset planning tools are only meaningfully valid if used prior to the rise of a claim..'

So what you are saying or quoting is that there has to be NO claims PRIOR to any diversions of assets that I describe?

Action 1: I warranty deed my home to the trusted..only two years after that I can stop paying my CC's. Then the claims start and all the rest. OK to do?

Action 2: Sign off the deed to the trusted during a claim (not the filing of BK)...wrong risk of jail?

[justbroke]

What we are saying is that a claim arises as soon as you owe money. You can't borrow money and then try to shield your assets. Your planning must not be to actually hinder, delay or defraud a creditor. Pre-planning does not do any of those things.

What are you going to answer when the Trustee asks if anyone is holding property for you?

Perhaps everyone was having too much fun with this in the hypothetical, but you still want to try something. I think the answer is no... all the way around.

Ponzi scheme? Senario one: I lost my job. I go into a bank and rob it for 50,000...get caught, go to jail for 30 years or whatever.

#2: I lost my job. Run up my CC cards up to 50,000 file BK...walk away.

Who is more guilty?

To answer your earlier question... neither. Willfully running up debt on the eve of bankruptcy knowing that you had no intention to repay, while not criminal (in most instances), is still theft to me. Well, at least the bankruptcy court would call the latter a non-dischargeable debt and the former a crime.

[wayout]

Your right. How could it be otherwise. Anyone with this 'plan' of mine could bilk creditors without fear of any loss. Thanks

[HHM]

'These advanced asset planning tools are only meaningfully valid if used prior to the rise of a claim..'

So what you are saying or quoting is that there has to be NO claims PRIOR to any diversions of assets that I describe?

Action 1: I warranty deed my home to the trusted..only two years after that I can stop paying my CC's. Then the claims start and all the rest. OK to do?

Action 2: Sign off the deed to the trusted during a claim (not the filing of BK)...wrong risk of jail?

The answer is neither.

Face the fact, there is no way to have your cake and it too. Sell and settle. At least with settlement, you minimize the loss. That is really your only option. The rest, as JB has pointed out, is all fun and games in the hypothetical.

[wayout]

I will settle mostly cause I have no time left to do anything. Still all that asset protection, LLC trusts, offshore or heavily layered concoctions I see advertised on the web are null and void as long as you have any debt according to this forum.

[ValleYum]

Even if it wasn't null & void since it would be BK Fraud, your 150k wouldn't even get them to answer the phone. Sorry.

[justbroke]

I will settle mostly cause I have no time left to do anything. Still all that asset protection, LLC trusts, offshore or heavily layered concoctions I see advertised on the web are null and void as long as you have any debt according to this forum.

The problem isn't that the trusts aren't a viable way to protect assets. The key, always, is whether the debtor constructed the asset protection scheme after already having accumulated debt and is doing so for the sole purpose of hindering, delaying or defrauding a creditor.

I think that this thread has run its course and is now closed. Other than a theoretical discussion, it's beyond anything that we would really endorse.