MSTR Cat

Trust Law/Level VI · Protection/6.1 Spendthrift to self-settled/Lesson 3

Domestic asset protection trusts (DAPT)

What US domestic asset protection trust statutes allow, what they typically require, and the federal and conflict-of-laws limits courts have applied.

Education, not legal advice. Trust law changes from country to country and state to state, and the right structure depends on your situation. Anything you sign should be drafted or reviewed by a qualified lawyer where you live.

The lean path

The cheapest, lowest-tax, simplest and most private route the law allows, best first. Each step names the rule it rests on and the condition that keeps it lawful.

  1. Use free exemptions before paying for a DAPT; if one is used, Nevada bars later creditors 2 years after the transfer and existing creditors at 2 years or 6 months after discovery, whichever is later (NRS 166.170). Catch: §548(e) reaches back 10 years in bankruptcy.
  2. Fund while solvent and claim-free, and make the transfer a public record: Nevada treats recording as discovery (NRS 166.170(2)), starting the 6-month clock. Catch: a transfer made with actual intent to defraud remains voidable under UVTA and §548(e).
  3. Name a Nevada resident, in-state trust company or bank as trustee (NRS 166.015) and keep distributions truly discretionary. Catch: a settlor who directs the trustee or treats trust assets as their own invites a court to look past the trust.
  4. Live in the DAPT state or keep real ties there: In re Huber (2013) applied Washington law to a Washington resident’s Alaska trust. Catch: Toni 1 Trust v. Wacker (Alaska 2018) confirms home-state and federal courts can still hear a creditor’s claim.
  5. A DAPT is usually a grantor trust, so it neither saves nor costs federal income tax; income stays on the settlor’s return. Catch: with no tax benefit, weigh annual trustee and legal fees against your real liability exposure.

MaterialsOne state’s DAPT statute, for reading, such as Nevada Revised Statutes chapter 166, free on the state legislature websiteThe text of 11 U.S.C. §548, including subsection (e), free on law.cornell.eduLesson 6.1.2, on self-settled trusts, and lesson 6.1.7, on cases where shields held or failed

Wonder

  1. Why do some states allow a trust that most states reject?
  2. Can a court in another state, or a bankruptcy court, disregard a DAPT statute?
  3. Why does a DAPT usually need a trustee in the state whose law it chooses?

Explore

  1. A domestic asset protection trust (DAPT) is an irrevocable trust in which the settlor is also a discretionary beneficiary, created under a state statute that lets a spendthrift clause protect the settlor’s interest from the settlor’s own creditors. This reverses the general rule that a self-settled spendthrift trust does not protect its creator (UTC §505; lesson 6.1.2). Alaska and Delaware enacted the first such statutes in 1997, and Nevada followed in 1999; Missouri’s 1989 statute is sometimes cited as a forerunner. An August 2025 ACTEC comparison counted 21 states with DAPT statutes; most states have none.
  2. The statutes differ, but common features include an irrevocable trust; at least one trustee who lives in the state or is a trust company there, which ties the trust to that state’s law; a spendthrift clause; and distributions to the settlor only at a trustee’s discretion. Nevada, for example, requires a Nevada resident, trust company or bank as a trustee when the settlor is a beneficiary (NRS 166.015). Some states let the settlor keep limited powers, such as a veto over distributions, but generally not serve as sole trustee. Each statute has its own detailed conditions.
  3. Discretion is central. If the settlor could demand income or principal, creditors could generally reach that right. Under a DAPT statute, the settlor receives distributions only if the trustee chooses, and the trustee owes fiduciary duties to all the beneficiaries. The settlor therefore gives up control as well as ownership. Where a trustee simply follows the settlor’s instructions, or the settlor treats trust assets as their own, a court has reason to look past the trust. Courts look at how a trust is actually run, not only at its terms.
  4. Each statute limits who can challenge a transfer and when. In Nevada, a creditor whose claim existed at the transfer generally must sue within 2 years after it, or within 6 months after discovering it or when they reasonably should have, whichever is later; a creditor whose claim arises later must sue within 2 years (NRS 166.170). Other states set longer periods. Many statutes name ‘exception creditors’, such as a child or former spouse with a support claim, who can reach the trust anyway, though Nevada’s statute names none. Federal tax claims follow federal law (lesson 6.1.5).
  5. Federal bankruptcy law reaches further. Under 11 U.S.C. §548(e), added in 2005, a bankruptcy trustee can avoid a transfer to a self-settled trust or similar device, of which the debtor is a beneficiary, made within 10 years before the filing with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud a present or future creditor. A state’s shorter limitation period does not shorten this federal period. A bankruptcy trustee can also use state voidable transfer law (11 U.S.C. §544). Lesson 6.3.4 covers the 10-year reach in detail.
  6. A settlor who lives in a state without a DAPT statute faces conflict-of-laws risk. In In re Huber, 493 B.R. 798 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2013), a Washington resident moved assets into an Alaska trust as his debts mounted; the court applied Washington law, which does not protect self-settled trusts, and found the transfers voidable, including under §548(e). In Toni 1 Trust v. Wacker, 413 P.3d 1199 (Alaska 2018), the Alaska Supreme Court held that Alaska’s statute could not give Alaska courts exclusive jurisdiction over fraudulent transfer claims, so Montana and federal judgments against the trust stood. This lesson describes the law; it does not suggest using a DAPT.

Key facts

  • Alaska and Delaware enacted the first DAPT statutes in 1997 and Nevada followed in 1999; an August 2025 ACTEC comparison counted 21 DAPT states.
  • DAPT statutes commonly require an irrevocable trust, an in-state trustee, a spendthrift clause and distributions to the settlor only at the trustee’s discretion.
  • In Nevada, an existing creditor generally must sue within 2 years after the transfer or 6 months after discovering it, whichever is later; a later creditor within 2 years (NRS 166.170).
  • 11 U.S.C. §548(e) lets a bankruptcy trustee avoid transfers to a self-settled trust made within 10 years with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors.
  • In re Huber (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2013) applied the law of the settlor’s home state, Washington, to an Alaska trust and found the transfers voidable.
  • Toni 1 Trust v. Wacker (Alaska 2018): Alaska’s statute could not give Alaska courts exclusive jurisdiction over fraudulent transfer claims against its trusts.

Exercise nine, six, three, one

9CollectList up to 9 facts from a DAPT court case or article you are reading (some lists are shorter), such as where the settlor lived, which state’s law the trust chose, who was trustee, when assets were transferred, what debts existed then and what the court decided.
6ClusterSort them into 6 categories: the settlor’s home state, the trust’s chosen state, the trustee, the timing of transfers, the creditors, and the court’s reasoning.
3DistillReduce the 6 categories to 3 groups: facts about which state’s law applied, facts about timing and intent, and facts about how the trust was run.
1CrystallizeWrite 1 sentence explaining, in your own words, why a DAPT statute in one state may not protect a settlor who lives in another.

Fact check

Dates, figures and claims checked against the published sources listed below.

Open in the interactive academy →

PT ES ZH JA KO RU DE FR MS