You’re right that anonymity is not necessarily the biggest priority. It is an important strategy in discouraging opportunistic lawyers, but creating a legal “lock box” that shields the property is much more desirable. Control without ownership leaves the property safe. Trust documents that lay out the deal ahead of time (i.e. no executory contracts) ensures that if people go sour the deal won’t end up squabbling before a judge. There are other benefits.

However, Randy’s assertion about loss of control is incorrect. Only a fool would turn CONTROL over to a third party.

With a corporate trustee (whose only business is holding title, and knows the legal ins and outs) privacy is maximized. It will take time in court convincing a judge to issue an order to have the trustee reveal anything. A good trustee will make them burn a lot of time and money annoying a judge.

The plaintiff has to answer the question, “What’s your beef with the owner of the property?” which is a big hurdle. Their beef is with people who lease the property or who are beneficiaries.

Nowhere does it say to have the *title company* set up and administer the trust. It’s only involved to ensure that the transfer of property is 100% kosher.

Administering the trust yourself itself sets yourself up for trouble as you’ve created a trust that can easily be delared dry. Use a beneficiary-directed trust with a corporate trustee that holds title to keep everything 100% kosher.

In a beneficiary-directed trust, you’ve given up ZERO control to the trustee. In fact, the trustee has ZERO control. The corporate trustee only holds legal title, shielding the property from judgements, liens, etc. giving the beneficiaries personal property interest rather than real property; specifically the beneficiaries only have beneficial interest. A corporate trusteee doesn’t die, taking the property into probate. The corporate trustee isn’t available to be sued, with the property at risk of being an asset the courts can take.

John’s correct about land trusts blowing up because people thought they’d shortcut the process and go “on the cheap”. This opens oneself up to risk. Do it “exactly right” and remove the risk.

Randy Hughes