No. The ex-wife can't get the money from the trust. The court explained that Philip's right to take the money is like having a key to a treasure chest that isn't his. This 'key' is called a 'power of appointment.' It gives him the power to make some of the treasure his, but until he actually uses the key, the treasure doesn't belong to him. Because the money isn't technically his property yet, his ex-wife's claim can't touch it. The court cannot force Philip to use his key just so his ex-wife can get paid.

No, the trial court made a mistake letting Victoria take the 4%. Philip's ability to withdraw that 4% is like a special permission called a 'power of appointment.' Because Philip never used this permission, his creditors can't force him to use it and can't take the trust money. This is because when someone has permission to take money but doesn't use it, the money isn't considered theirs and can't be taken for their debts. Until Philip actually uses the permission, he doesn't control or own the trust money - the bank does, according to the trust rules. Creditors don't have a right to take money from a trust when the person hasn't used their permission to withdraw it. Giving someone this permission is like offering them money that they can accept or refuse, and it's not theirs until they accept it. A court can't make them take the money against their will, even to pay debts.

No. A trust beneficiary's unexercised right to withdraw a percentage of the trust principal is a general power of appointment, not a vested property interest, and is therefore not subject to execution by a judgment creditor. The court reasoned that the right to withdraw funds from a trust created by another person is not ownership of those funds but rather a mere power to acquire them. Citing the long-standing common law rule established in cases like *Gilman v. Bell*, the court held that no title or interest vests in the holder of the power (the donee) until the power is actually exercised. The power is simply an 'offer' of property that the donee can accept or reject. Consequently, an unexercised general power of appointment is not considered a property right that creditors can reach. The court rejected the appellee's attempt to classify the right as a 'power of augmentation,' finding that distinction unrecognized in case law and immaterial to the outcome. Finally, the court noted that Indiana has no statute altering this common law rule, which protects the trust assets from creditors as long as the beneficiary chooses not to exercise their power.

No, the trial court erred in allowing execution on the 4% of the trust corpus. Philip Long's right to withdraw 4% of the trust corpus is a general power of appointment. Since Philip has never exercised this power, his creditors cannot force the exercise of said power and cannot reach the trust corpus. I hold this because an unexercised power of appointment does not make the property subject to it liable for the donee's debts. Until the power is exercised, the donee has no control or ownership over the trust property. The trustee maintains control within the terms of the trust instrument. Creditors have no right to reach property covered by an unexercised power of appointment, as established by the great weight of authority. Creating a general power of appointment is virtually an offer to the donee of the estate or fund that he may receive or reject at will, and no title can vest until he accepts the offer. A court of equity cannot compel him to accept the property against his will, even for the benefit of creditors.

Irwin Union Bank & Trust Co. v. Long

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot