Waldron v. Huber (In re Huber), 493 B.R. 798 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2013)

Reviewed by Elizabeth A. Tresp, JD, LL.M., trust & probate litigator · Updated August 2026

How it is commonly cited

“Alaska DAPTs do not work.” The holding is considerably narrower and considerably more useful.

What the court actually held, four independent grounds

1. Choice of law (Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 270). “The only relation to Alaska was that it was the location in which the Trust was to be administered and the location of one of the trustees.” The settlor, the assets, the beneficiaries, the creditors and the drafting attorney were all in Washington. Alaska had “only a minimal relation”; Washington had “a substantial relation” plus a strong public policy against self-settled trusts. Citing Portnoy, the court disregarded the settlor’s choice of Alaska law.
2. RCW 19.36.020 (enacted 1854): transfers “made in trust for the use of the person making the same, shall be void as against the existing or subsequent creditors of such person.” The transfers were void.
3. 11 U.S.C. § 548(e). Elements (A)–(C) were conceded; the court found actual intent under (D). The debtor “failed to present any plausible reason to create a self-settled asset protection trust other than to shield assets from creditors”, and, damningly, he had himself forbidden a debtor of his from putting assets into a spendthrift trust, saying “if he transferred them, I’d have nothing to secure me.”
4. 11 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1) with RCW 19.40.041(a). Independent state-law fraudulent-transfer avoidance on overlapping badges: threatened litigation at the time of transfer, transfer of substantially all assets, retained control, transfer to an insider, no consideration.

The court also addressed alter-ego and reverse-piercing theories against the trust.

The planning lesson

The most portable holding here is the § 270 nexus analysis, not the § 548(e) application. A governing-law clause is a claim about a relationship, and a court will test whether the relationship is real. Contacts that count are measured at the time of creation: a genuine resident trustee, actual administration in the chosen state, records and accounts there, and assets that are not all sitting in the home state. Home-state real property is the hardest problem, because it stays under home-state courts no matter what the trust says.

Note also the timing: the transfers were made when the debtor was already threatened with litigation. This is not a case about pre-claim planning, and it does not decide what happens when a genuinely Alaska-connected trust is created for an Alaska settlor in calm conditions.

Why this matters for your plan

Reading the cases is not an academic exercise. Every one of these decisions turned on something a planner controls: when the structure was created, how much control the settlor kept, whether the governing-law choice was backed by real contacts, and whether the client told the truth on the record. We build to the way these disputes are actually litigated, because Elizabeth litigates them. To discuss how your situation maps onto this body of law, call (858) 755-6672.