Re: Keyser Soze LadynRed

Posted by Keyser Soze (152.163.189.170) on March 04, 2003 at 16:32:39:

In Reply to: Keyser Soze LadynRed posted by St. Pete FL on March 04, 2003 at 16:13:07:

I'm not a lawyer, Mr. Kobayashi is my attorney but he is 'away' in the far east momentarily. I know enough to prove myself a fool, yet here's what I know.
If you roll the proceeds into another home they are safe. If you are not purchasing another home in which you will declare domicile, then the assets are exposed.
how do you know you will be sued? The CA's do sue but they are better at copious threats to do so. If you have a lawyer handling your property sale you may wish to review this with him.
If you put the cash proceeds into a corporation they are still exposed under the Fraudulent Transfer statutes. This sounds ominous, what it really means is that any assets shifted or otherwise concealed albeit by legitimate means from creditors are fair game for judgement actions.
If you create a Limited Liability Partnership, filed with the Secretary of State's office in Florida, you avoid the Fraudulent Transfer exposure. Again, have a lawyer do this. These are expensive - 4 to 5 K to set up, and complex.
But when properly established, your hard won assets are protected not just from scruffy little collection gremlins but also from nuisance litigants. You mention you have a solid marine business. This is a big advantage, as the Partnership would be formed for benefit of the business, not merely to shield cash.
Your business would enjoy protection as well, and it's probably worth more than you think. The nitwit who sails off to sea in a hurricane, yanks the petcocks, sinks and tries to make it your fault can sue all he wants, the partnership protects all.
Again, speak with a good business lawyer asap. Don't be ashamed to mention the phrase 'asset protection'. After all, you are not just protecting your 56K, you are protecting your business as well.
Incorporating does not avoid the fraudulent transfer statute. It does sometimes add another layer of protection to incorporate the general partner in the partnership, lawyer knows best.
In addition to protecting what is yours, the poison pill feature serves to discourage doot-fly collection lawyer-thugs from getting any bright ideas about suing. Yes, they can get a judgement, yes, they can attach to the partnership. When they do, they become liable for their share of the income tax. IRS is unsympathetic to their whinings, operating on the assumption that if these maggots had the geedus to sue you in the first place, they can jolly well pay the tax.
What's the big deal about that? Well, you are allowed to declare 'phantom profits' - (again, lawyer and accountant know best), - no consequence to you but big tax liability to CA swine, and they must pay.
Apologize for being windy, this is complex matter and protecting what is yours is critical.

"I think a lot about these things, I do my
best thinking on the bus, that's how come I
don't drive, see? The more you drive, the
stupider you are."
- "Mr. Miller", 'Repo Man', 1984

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup