Legislature(1995 - 1996)
1996-10-21 House Journal
Full Journal pdf1996-10-21 House Journal Page 4737 HB 459 The following letter, dated May 23, 1996, was received: Dear Speaker Phillips: Under the authority of art. II, sec. 15 of the Alaska Constitution, I have vetoed the following bill: CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 459(JUD) am An Act relating to the jurisdiction governing a trust, to challenges to trusts or property transfers in trust, to the validity of trust interests, and to transfers of certain trust interests. While this Administration applauds innovation and imaginative efforts to attract business opportunities, I am concerned that the potential benefits of this bill are outweighed by its inadvertent consequences to the people of Alaska. Therefore, I find it necessary to veto this bill. This legislation would make a dramatic change in our trust laws and policy. In fact, these changes to Alaska law would make this the only state to espouse such public policy. The bill raises many questions and concerns which require a level of consideration and analysis that, frankly, was not received with just one hearing before each body of the Legislature. 1996-10-21 House Journal Page 4738 HB 459 Specifically, one of the chief concerns I have about this bill is that it would shift the burden of proving intent to defraud onto creditors, spouses, and children of the settlor. Currently, if one transfers assets into a trust of which the settlor is a beneficiary, the trust is void as to present or future creditors. Under the terms of this bill, the burden of proof is shifted so that a creditor or a spouse in a divorce setting would have to litigate to prove the settlors fraudulent intent before the trust assets could be invaded to meet those interests. Another important concern is the bills provision that a trust cannot be set aside on the grounds it defeats an interest conferred by a marital or similar relationship. Thus, a settlor could disinherit his or her spouse. Upon the settlors death, the spouse would be unable to obtain the normal elective share (usually one-third) of the estate. The same would be true for surviving children who would be unable to reach these assets in payment of child support arrears. This provision contradicts the legislatures action on another bill passed this year updating Alaskas probate code. I realize this trust law is meant to mirror laws common in some offshore jurisdictions, such as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. However, parts of this bill, particularly the provision to prevent the spousal elective share of a trust, go even further than the offshore trust laws. There may be aspects of this proposal that could benefit Alaskas economy by attracting financial investments without harming the public good. I would welcome further work in this area with the understanding that any future changes in our trust laws undergo thorough scrutiny and public hearings. Sincerely, /s/ Tony Knowles Governor