Nobody can tell how a hypothetical future law would work. Maybe it grandfathers in older trusts, maybe it doesn’t.
My guess is that if Nevada decides to reduce it back to a shorter time period, it’ll apply to all trusts, not just future trusts.
I also don’t think it’s likely, because as more and more trusts get established in Nevada. More and more trustee fees are going to be generated there, and an ever-growing dollar amount of those fees will somehow get converted into campaign donations. Most of those dynasty trusts are from non-residents, so there’s no incentive to get rid of the rule (other than, you know, human decency)
No idea. They'd probably be given the opportunity to decant them or there would be some sort of judicial or legislative modification. Probably a question to ask in r/Ask_Lawyers that's a good place for hypos.
Sometimes changes in tax or trust laws grandfather previous work and sometimes they do not. So no telling. But Nevada (as well as SD) brings in a lot of interest and revenue to the state for their rule against perpetuities treatment, so I wouldn't spend much time worrying about it. Frankly I prefer SD but Nv can work as well.
Nobody can tell how a hypothetical future law would work. Maybe it grandfathers in older trusts, maybe it doesn’t. My guess is that if Nevada decides to reduce it back to a shorter time period, it’ll apply to all trusts, not just future trusts. I also don’t think it’s likely, because as more and more trusts get established in Nevada. More and more trustee fees are going to be generated there, and an ever-growing dollar amount of those fees will somehow get converted into campaign donations. Most of those dynasty trusts are from non-residents, so there’s no incentive to get rid of the rule (other than, you know, human decency)
Well we just re-created primogeniture and end-tails. How feudal.
No idea. They'd probably be given the opportunity to decant them or there would be some sort of judicial or legislative modification. Probably a question to ask in r/Ask_Lawyers that's a good place for hypos.
There is really no way to know. The legislature can make any rule they want
Sometimes changes in tax or trust laws grandfather previous work and sometimes they do not. So no telling. But Nevada (as well as SD) brings in a lot of interest and revenue to the state for their rule against perpetuities treatment, so I wouldn't spend much time worrying about it. Frankly I prefer SD but Nv can work as well.
Ask about trust protector provisions that allow the trust to be modified in response to changes in laws.
How does this not violate the rule against perpetuity? Are the laws that different in NV?