Prisoner of the Court Appointed Guardian
Freedom is the great American Dream. Freedom to succeed and be who we want to be. We are normally free from direct control of the government, except when we have been convicted of a crime.
However, this story about a court appointed guardian demonstrates that the government can take away almost every significant right from ordinary citizens, including the right to manage and spend your assets and money. One way to prevent the government from taking such absolute control over our assets is to place them in a properly drafted trust.
Consider Norman Baker's situation:
Until he was placed in a nursing home against his will by the court-appointed attorney he is trying to reject, Norman Baker owned and managed two dozen rental properties, many of which he designed and built himself. He also owned a 33-acre farm, with four horses, an array of tractors and other heavy farm implements, a carefully preserved century-old barn, a restored farmhouse from which he drew steady rental income, and a 3,000-square-foot brick home, which he also designed and built.
All Norman Baker's properties were free of any liens or mortgages. ?Before he was confined against his will to a nursing home, Norman Baker also had some $250,000 in cash and liquid investments above and beyond his real estate holdings. He rented his properties and lived a quiet, private life.
Today, without writing a check or using a credit card or making a single bad investment, Norman Baker has less than $20,000 in cash. Most of his rental properties are vacant. Some have been flooded. In one, a broken pipe has resulted in a water bill in excess of $19,000. Nearly all his properties, which were once entirely rented, are now vacant. Some have been seriously vandalized. A rental property business, which yielded a steady cash flow, is now bleeding cash every month.
Read the whole story. Unfortunately, Norman Baker had his assets controlled by someone appointed by the court. Obviously, spending his cash and leaving the property distressed was contrary to what Norman would have done.
Norman could have protected himself from this situation. If Norman had put his assets in a trust, the court would not have controlled them. Instead of the court controlling the assets, the successor trustee would have controlled the assets.
