Asset Protection Trust Jurisdictions
Side-by-Side Comparison
Asset protection trust laws vary significantly by jurisdiction. This comparison highlights key differences among Utah, Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming, including limitation periods, creditor rules, trust administration features, and other factors that can affect planning.
| Planning Consideration | Utah | Nevada | South Dakota | Wyoming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year APT Adopted 2003 1999 2005 2007 | 2003 | 1999 | 2005 | 2007 |
| Limitations Period | ||||
| Known Creditor — Notice 120 days 6 months 6 months 2 years | 120 days | 6 months | 6 months | 2 years |
| Creditor — No Notice / Discovery 2 years / 1 year 2 years / 6 mos. 2 years / 6 mos. 4 years / 1 year | 2 years / 1 year | 2 years / 6 mos. | 2 years / 6 mos. | 4 years / 1 year |
| Unknown — Publication 120 days N/A N/A N/A | 120 days | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Unknown — No Publication 2 years N/A N/A N/A | 2 years | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Post-transfer / Future Creditors 0 months Same as others Same as others Same as others | 0 months | Same as others | Same as others | Same as others |
| Defraud, Hinder, or Delay | D / H / D1 | D / — / — | D / — / — | D / — / — |
| DHD Intent Standard General Specific Specific Specific | General | Specific | Specific | Specific |
| Burden of Proof Clear & Convincing Clear & Convincing Clear & Convincing Clear & Convincing | Clear & Convincing | Clear & Convincing | Clear & Convincing | Clear & Convincing |
| Exception Creditors | DSO in default2 | None | DSO in default3 | Child Support & Loan App Property |
| Voidable Transfer Law | UVTA4 | UFTA | UFTA | UFTA |
| Force Transfer Challenge to State Yes Yes Yes Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Choice of Law to APT State Yes Yes Yes Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Solvency Affidavit Optional Optional Optional Mandatory | Optional | Optional | Optional | Mandatory |
| Participant Liability | None5 | Knowing/Bad Faith | Potentially None | Silent |
| LIFO Distributions Yes Yes Yes No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Disregarded Collateral Transactions Yes Real Estate only No No | Yes | Real Estate only | No | No |
| Rule Against Perpetuities 1,000 years 365 years Perpetual 1,000 years | 1,000 years | 365 years | Perpetual | 1,000 years |
| Directed Trusts Yes Yes Yes Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Decanting Statute Best in class Best in class Best in class Good | Best in class | Best in class | Best in class | Good |
The most favorable jurisdiction depends on the assets involved, the settlor's circumstances, the anticipated risks, and how the trust will be structured and administered. Choosing a jurisdiction is only one part of designing an asset protection trust; ownership, trustee authority, distributions, timing, and the specific risks the plan is intended to address also matter. This comparison is a planning reference, not a substitute for evaluating the facts of a specific situation.
Download the Comparison PDF
Keep a copy of this side-by-side asset protection trust jurisdiction comparison for reference.
Plan Smart. Live Well.
Cardon Law Resources
Helpful Guidance for Planning Ahead
Subscribe for occasional insights on estate planning, trust administration, asset protection, and business planning. Our goal is to help you stay informed before important decisions arise.