A Warning for Asset Protection Planners?
An excerpt from the article is below:
A recent case out of the Sunshine State should give pause to the way some attorneys engage in asset protection planning. In re Harwell, 414 B.R. 770 (m.D. Fla. 2009), involved a debtor who directed sums of money into his attorney’s trust account, despite the presence of a judgment. The debtor then instructed the attorney to make certain transfers from the trust account to various parties, excluding, of course, the creditor.
The bankruptcy trustee alleged that the attorney was the initial transferee and, without any defense, was therefore liable for the transfers. In addition, the trustee claimed that the attorney was secondarily liable under both aiding and abetting and conspiracy theories. Although the court did not find the attorney liable for his involvement with the fraudulent transfers, the court closed its opinion by stating that “a warning bell has sounded for parties involved in asset protection.”