Legal Opinion

Lundgren v. Hoglund

Montana Supreme Court

Decided December 31, 1985No. 85-159PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Sheehy

In this case we decide that spendthrift provisions in a trust are valid in Montana, and that judgment creditors of a beneficiary under a spendthrift trust may not execute upon the proceeds due from the spendthrift trust to the beneficiary before distribution by the trustee.

First Interstate Bank appeals from a judgment of the District Court, Eleventh Judicial District, Flathead County, which ordered the bank as trustee to pay to judgment creditors the income due to the beneficiary of a spendthrift trust. We reverse.

There are four issues on appeal. First, does the Bank have standing to appeal?…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Nichols v. EatonSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
  2. Wetmore v. . WetmoreNew York Court of Appeals · 1896
  3. Canfield v. Security-First National BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Erickson v. EricksonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1936
  5. Tisdale v. Wheeler Bros. Grain Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1979

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. In Re ConroyUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Montana · 1990
  2. Mahan v. MahanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1990
  3. Breidenbach v. WedumMontana Supreme Court · 1988
  4. In Re UllmanUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Montana · 1990

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API