From our private database of 37,500+ case briefs...
Menotte v. Brown (In re Brown)
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
303 F.3d 1261 (2002)
Facts
Jane Brown (defendant) established the Irrevocable Charitable Remainder Unitrust Agreement (ICRUA), funded with the $250,000 Brown inherited from her mother. ICRUA contained a spendthrift provision and provided Brown with a monthly income stream for her life, calculated to amount to 7 percent of the trust’s net worth each year. Brown used those payments to support herself. After Brown’s death, her daughter would receive those same payments for her life, and then the trust corpus would be distributed to four charities. Brown was the trustee of ICRUA, but her powers were limited, and she had no power to invade the trust corpus or alter the amount of the monthly payments. Brown ultimately filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and petitioned to have ICRUA exempted from the bankruptcy estate, arguing that (1) the spendthrift provision protected ICRUA from her creditors; or, alternatively, (2) ICRUA was exempt because it qualified as a support trust. Deborah Menotte (plaintiff), the Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee, challenged, arguing that spendthrift provisions in self-settled trusts like ICRUA were unenforceable against the settlor-beneficiary’s creditors. Both the bankruptcy court and the district court on appeal ruled that the spendthrift provision exempted ICRUA from the bankruptcy estate. Menotte appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Black, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 631,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,500 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.