Spendthrift Trust

You be the Judge

A petition for bankruptcy was filed for the Trust, due only to expensive litigation brought about by the filing of a suit in haste, prior to any investigation. This trust was not insolvent – in fact the trust was over capitalized without any debts. The trust had an ongoing farm operation and days prior to the filing of a suit in haste, I was in the process of implementing a proforma business plan for crawfish farming and duck hunting that would generate substantial new revenue.

New revenue, equal to what the beneficiaries previously received from the distributions I made and the trust had paid its debt owed me for my six years of contingency professional services – via the dation my attorney executed.

I was essentially the trusts only creditor.

It is my understanding that a trustee in a bankruptcy has an obligation of recovery for the creditors. Our trust petition filed in 2002 and today June 2011 is still ongoing if one can believe the duration of this case. For all intent purposes the trust had no creditors except me. All debts of the trust were paid as incurred and/or prior to the bankruptcy petition filing. The trustee and his attorneys filed expensive – drawn out litigation against me in pursuit of recovery on behalf of the beneficiaries who were “not” creditors of the estate. What do you  believe per their own documented record of malicious fraud misrepresentation did these attorneys pursue destruction as a vendetta? Do you believe this litigation that was also in behalf and representing my 1/6th beneficiary trust interest, perhaps a conflict?

The outcome of the litigation whether obtained illegally or not, prospered the beneficiaries; the trustee and his attorneys. The trustee’s attorneys have, to date, petitioned the court multiple times for compensation that is believed to have exceeded $300,000.

Note: My compensation for dealing with criminal matters, a  father devoid of moral ethics, FBI and federal prosecutors, managing a farm, and defending a revocatory action that would have caused all distributions to be returned to the trust was $220,000. My invoice was supported by a six year – 9,000 hour invoice and eleven legal boxes of supporting documentation that was carried into the court trial.

The trustee’s attorneys’ post trial brief could only point to 72 hours of clerical over billing errors in my entire six year invoice, yet they argued my invoice totally lacked any credibility. What do you believe given the history of their intentional malicious misrepresentations had they found other invoice discrepancies would they have not shouted it from the roof top?

How can one in good conscious make such a statement when there was a balance of 9,000 hours with which they found no issue? You be the Judge…… clicking on link after link in this web site to view established material facts that indicates known fraud misrepresentations now established in the record.

Escrow funds

From the date of the bankruptcy petition filing in 2002 to March of 2011 oil and gas revenue in excess of $400,000 was deposited in the bankruptcy escrow held for the trust.

Important note: The Post Trial Reasons issued by the Court did not order me to pay any of the trust’s legal fees. My siblings agreed to have these attorneys represent their trust beneficiary interest.

I did not agree to their representation of my 1/6th trust beneficiary interest and I did not agree that they should file suit against me prior to any investigation. Nor did I agree that their pursuit of me should repay any vendetta, or unduly burden the trust with unreasonable legal expenses in any pursuit to do so.

Especially when the actions of the trustees’ attorneys are now subject to litigation against the trust and the beneficiaries personally.

Petition for my 1/6 beneficiary interest of escrow funds

Recently, I forwarded correspondence to the trustee W. Simmons Sandoz as final effort to redress the injustice providing him with copies of the material facts that prove wrongful acts. Also alleging that since the court did not award recovery of any litigation costs from me, that 1/6 of the escrow funds that were deposited into escrow were due and payable to me prior to the those funds being withdrawn for payment of the trustee’s attorneys or any other distributions to no avail. Does the trustee have an obligation to avoid future litigation against the trust when presented with causes of action?

As recent as March of 2011, the trustee’s attorneys were still filing motions for further compensation.

As recent as June 2011 the Trustee filed a motion to make a distribution to each beneficiaries in the amount of $5,000 each, but withholding my 1/6th $5,000. In spite of spendthrift trust law prohibiting seizure of spendthrift interest, the trustee is seizing my 1/6th interest to offset a wrongful writ $162,214.96 as filed to satisfy a portion of a judgment of $162,214.96 which per their own established record was obtained by fraud misrepresentation!!!

The trustee took no action on my request.

Were trust laws violated for non payment of 1/6 interest?


The Bell Family Trust was an irrevocable spendthrift trust. A spendthrift provision in an irrevocable trust prevents creditors from attaching the interest of the beneficiary.

Most well drafted irrevocable trusts contain spendthrift provisions even though the beneficiaries are not known to be spendthrifts.

This is because such a provision protects the trust and the beneficiary in the event a  beneficiary is sued and a judgment creditor attempts to attach to the beneficiary interest in the trust.

Even though the trust provides the maximum spendthrift protection, the trustee has recently filed a motion to make a $5,000 distribution to each of the beneficiaries except me. An apparent offset for the writ against me. You be the judge if you have read the drop down theft by deception sufficient evidence exist the writ was executed to recovery a portion of the judgment per their own material record was obtained by fraud.

Still this bankruptcy appears never to close!

The trustees attorneys knowingly omitted “all” the material facts of the trust – a violation of Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Bell Family Trust granted me the broadest authority. I sought the advise of multiple attorneys who advised as to La. Trust Law which dictated my actions given the perils faced:


R.S. 9:2115 Control of Discretionary Powers

If discretion is conferred upon a trustee with respect to the exercise of power. Its exercise shall “not” be subject to control by the court, except to prevent an abuse of discretion.

R.S. 9:2090 Prudent Man Rule

A trustee is administering a trust shall exercise such skill and care as a man of ordinary prudence would exercise in dealing with his own property.

R.S. 9:2091 Control and Preservation of Trust Property

A trustee is under a duty to a beneficiary to take reasonable steps to take, keep control of, and preserve the trust property.

R.S. 9:2093 Defense of Actions

A trustee shall defend actions that may result in a loss to the trust estate, unless under all the circumstances it is reasonable not to make a defense.

R.S. 9:2087 Delegating Performance

A trustee shall “not” delegate to others the doing of acts that he can reasonably be required to personally perform.

BELL FAMILY TRUST 6.12 Agents and Employee

The trustee is authorized to employ or retain such employees, agents and advisors as trustee may deem necessary, to assist in performing any duties of trustee, including, but by way of illustration only, investment advise, management advise, and for any other purpose trustee considers advisable, and to determine reasonable charges for such services and to make payment therefor out of the trust property.

R.S. 9:2111 Extent of Powers

Except as stated in R.S. 9:2061 through 9:2066, a trustee shall exercise only those powers conferred on him by the provisions of the trust instrument or necessary or appropriate to carry out the purpose of the trust and or not forbidden by the provisions of the trust.

You be the Judge

Did attorneys see this family trust as a very lucrative path for them to be compensated for their  efforts?

Efforts believed now proven as malicious.

Do you believe their efforts meant to destroy me, as repayment for the prior OmniCraft Industries (see Evidence of Attorney Malice) issue, while being well compensated, even if it meant their providing fraudulent misrepresentations to the court?

A record that would remain documented in the public domain for eternity!


Leave a Comment