Sec. 2. (a) The settlor may provide in the terms of the
trust that the interest of a beneficiary may not be either voluntarily or
involuntarily transferred before payment or delivery of the interest to
the beneficiary by the trustee.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c), if the settlor is
also a beneficiary of the trust, a provision restraining the voluntary or
involuntary transfer of the settlor's beneficial interest will not prevent
the settlor's creditors from satisfying claims from the settlor's interest
in the trust estate.
(c) A protective provision similar to that authorized by subsection
(a) prevents a creditor of the settlor from satisfying a claim from the
settlor's interest in the trust estate when the settlor is also a beneficiary
of the trust if the trust is one (1) of the following:
(1) A trust that meets both of the following requirements:
(A) The trust is a qualified trust under 26 U.S.C. 401(a).
(B) The limitations on each beneficiary's control over the
beneficiary's interest in the trust complies with 29 U.S.C.
1056(d).
(2) A legacy trust established under IC 30-4-8.
(d) A trust containing terms authorized under subsection (a) may be
referred to wherever appropriate as a trust with protective provisions.
Formerly: Acts 1971, P.L.416, SEC.4. As amended by
P.L.287-1987, SEC.2; P.L.221-2019, SEC.2.
Notes of Decisions
Brown v. Boyn (In Re Brown), 86 B.R. 944 (N.D. Ind. 1988).
· cites it 5× “The law is clear that this provision was intended by Congress to specifically preserve “restrictions on transfer of a spendthrift trust.” In re Miller at 791 , quoting H.”
Matter of Gifford, 93 B.R. 636 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1988).
· cites it 3× “Indiana Code 30-4-3-2 now reads: (a) the settlor may provide in the terms of the trust that the interest of a beneficiary may not be either voluntarily or involuntarily transferred before payment or delivery of the interest to the beneficiary by the trustee.”
Emp. Benefits Comm. v. Tabor (In Re Cress), 127 B.R. 194 (S.D. Ind. 1991).
· cites it 8× “Code § 30-4-3-2. In general,' the statute requires three elements for an enforceable spendthrift trust: (1) the settlor may not be a beneficiary of the trust; (2) the terms of the trust must prohibit the transfer of the beneficiary’s interest; and (3) the debtor-beneficiary can…”
Kesling v. Kesling, 967 N.E.2d 66 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “(quoting Ind.Code § 30-4-3-2(b)), and that by "contrast, creditors of a trustee (instead of the grant- or) may mot recover the trustee's debt from the trust assets.”
Gouveia v. Pulley (In Re Pulley), 111 B.R. 715 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1989).
· cites it 4× “Indiana Code § 30-4-3-2, Power to retrain transfer of a beneficiary’s interest, now provides: Sec.”
Tabor v. Emp. Benefits Comm. (In Re Cress), 121 B.R. 1006 (Bankr. S.D. Ind. 1990).
· cites it 15× “Ind.Code § 30-4-3-2 (1989). Subsection (c) aside for a moment, the statute has generally been recognized to require three elements for an enforceable spendthrift trust: 1.”
Lester L. Sumrall v. LeSea, Inc. (Ind. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “2d at 84 (citing spendthrift provision, Ind. Code § 30-4-3-2 (b), and various cases outside Indiana).”
— Ind. Code § 30-4-3-2(a) — 1 case
Brown v. Boyn (In Re Brown), 86 B.R. 944 (N.D. Ind. 1988).
“The law is clear that this provision was intended by Congress to specifically preserve “restrictions on transfer of a spendthrift trust.” In re Miller at 791 , quoting H.”
— Ind. Code § 30-4-3-2(b) — 1 case
Kesling v. Kesling, 967 N.E.2d 66 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
“(quoting Ind.Code § 30-4-3-2(b)), and that by "contrast, creditors of a trustee (instead of the grant- or) may mot recover the trustee's debt from the trust assets.”
— Ind. Code § 30-4-3-2(c) — 5 cases
Emp. Benefits Comm. v. Tabor (In Re Cress), 127 B.R. 194 (S.D. Ind. 1991).
“Code § 30-4-3-2. In general,' the statute requires three elements for an enforceable spendthrift trust: (1) the settlor may not be a beneficiary of the trust; (2) the terms of the trust must prohibit the transfer of the beneficiary’s interest; and (3) the debtor-beneficiary can…”
Brown v. Boyn (In Re Brown), 86 B.R. 944 (N.D. Ind. 1988).
“The law is clear that this provision was intended by Congress to specifically preserve “restrictions on transfer of a spendthrift trust.” In re Miller at 791 , quoting H.”
Gouveia v. Pulley (In Re Pulley), 111 B.R. 715 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1989).
“Indiana Code § 30-4-3-2, Power to retrain transfer of a beneficiary’s interest, now provides: Sec.”
Tabor v. Emp. Benefits Comm. (In Re Cress), 121 B.R. 1006 (Bankr. S.D. Ind. 1990).
“Ind.Code § 30-4-3-2 (1989). Subsection (c) aside for a moment, the statute has generally been recognized to require three elements for an enforceable spendthrift trust: 1.”
— Ind. Code § 30-4-3-2(e) — 1 case
Tabor v. Emp. Benefits Comm. (In Re Cress), 121 B.R. 1006 (Bankr. S.D. Ind. 1990).
“Ind.Code § 30-4-3-2 (1989). Subsection (c) aside for a moment, the statute has generally been recognized to require three elements for an enforceable spendthrift trust: 1.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.