Oregon Asset Protection Attorney

Who I work with

Clients typically have $1M or more in exposed assets that have not yet been structured correctly.

The legal consultation is a two-way evaluation. If the Bridge Trust® is not appropriate for your situation, I will tell you directly and point you toward the correct structure.

Why Oregon structures fail

Oregon has no Domestic Asset Protection Trust statute, a modest homestead exemption, and an LLC statute that never says the charging order is the only remedy.

The DAPT problem is the one most often sold around. In In re Huber, 493 B.R. 798 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2013), a Washington resident’s Alaska trust holding Washington assets was analyzed under Washington law, and the creditor won. In Toni 1 Trust v. Wacker, 413 P.3d 1199 (Alaska 2018), the Alaska Supreme Court held its own statute cannot divest other states’ courts of jurisdiction over fraudulent transfer claims. ORS 130.315 gives an Oregon creditor the same argument that prevailed in those cases. A Nevada DAPT for an Oregon resident is a bet that Oregon becomes the first state to break the pattern.

The full analysis is in How Do Oregon Residents Protect Assets From Lawsuits?

What works in Oregon

Protection in Oregon comes from layered separation built before any claim exists. No single tool does it, and insurance comes first: malpractice limits checked against your specialty, tail coverage on any claims-made policy, and an umbrella above auto and homeowners.

Charging-order exclusivity governs how a judgment creditor collects. Courts have carved exceptions — reverse veil piercing, receivership, alter ego, fraudulent transfer — and it does not survive bankruptcy. The domestic layers raise the cost of collection. See LLCs and the Asset Management Limited Partnership.

The Bridge Trust®

A structure that stays inside Oregon’s enforcement system — regardless of how it is labeled — remains reachable under ORS 130.315. The Bridge Trust® answers with jurisdiction rather than a sister-state statute.

It is classified as domestic for U.S. tax purposes under the court and control tests of Treas. Reg. §301.7701-7, with a licensed offshore trustee engaged from day one as Special Successor Trustee. In that posture there is no separate foreign reporting burden and no change to how your CPA files.

If a genuine creditor threat arises, the Trust Protector — an independent attorney exercising professional judgment — may declare an Event of Duress, and control shifts to the Special Successor Trustee under the pre-existing terms of the instrument. That shift is not automatic. Nothing fires on the filing of a complaint. It is deliberate, documented, and supervised by counsel and the Trust Protector. It is not a transfer of assets; what changes is who controls the trust, and where.

That is where collectibility changes. The Cook Islands framework does not recognize U.S. judgments, including Oregon judgments, requires the creditor to prove fraudulent intent beyond a reasonable doubt, imposes short limitation periods, and shifts costs against a losing claimant. Nevis, the other successor jurisdiction, also requires a creditor to post a statutory bond before suit.

No structure makes anyone judgment-proof, and no lawyer can promise a courtroom outcome. What a properly built and properly timed structure changes is what a creditor can reach and what it costs to try. The case law shows both sides:

• FTC v. Affordable Media, LLC, 179 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 1999). The Cook Islands trustee refused the repatriation order and the money never came back. When the FTC pursued the trust in the Cook Islands, the High Court rejected its attempt on every point on August 10, 1999 and awarded costs against it. The Andersons were still jailed for civil contempt, and the reason is the lesson: they served as co-trustees and as protectors of their own trust, holding the power to certify that no event of duress existed. Separation of roles is the point — not that offshore jurisdiction is magic, or that it is worthless.
• SEC v. Solow, 682 F. Supp. 2d 1312 (S.D. Fla. 2010). Contempt upheld based entirely on post-judgment transfers and continued personal use of trust assets. The case turned on bad timing and bad conduct — not on any defect in the offshore structure itself.
• Riechers v. Riechers, 178 Misc. 2d 170 (Sup. Ct. Westchester Cty. 1998), aff’d 267 A.D.2d 445. The court lacked jurisdiction over the Cook Islands trust corpus, but it had jurisdiction over the husband, and the wife was awarded $2,000,000 plus a $3,052,853.20 judgment. Asset protection does not defeat family obligations.

This is pre-litigation planning. If a lawsuit is already filed, the window has likely closed.

The Oregon estate tax underneath it

Oregon’s estate tax exemption is $1 million per individual — the lowest in the country — with graduated rates reaching 16 percent under ORS 118.010. The federal exemption is $15 million, so an Oregon family can owe substantial state estate tax while owing no federal estate tax at all.

Oregon’s exemption is not portable between spouses. Each spouse’s $1 million must be captured at the first death, typically through a bypass trust, or it is permanently lost. A standard family trust avoids probate. It does not stop the Oregon estate tax from applying again at your children’s deaths.

The Bridge Trust® carries dynasty provisions in the same instrument, and the Dynasty Bridge Trust® plan addresses the generational tax problem and the creditor problem together. See Oregon Family Trusts and the $1 Million Estate Tax Problem.

Track record

This is platform history, not a prediction of future results.

What clients and colleagues say

Frequently asked questions