- 29 -
1. Formation of LKHP as a Premarital Asset Protection
Device
The estate contends that the creation of LKHP was motivated
by legitimate business concerns and for premarital asset
protection. The estate further contends that decedent and
Hillgren negotiated the terms of the partnership agreement at
arm’s length under “adverse economic interests”.
First, with respect to the claim that the partnership served
as a premarital asset protection device, respondent notes that
decedent and her boyfriend broke up before her initial suicide
attempt and that it was unclear from the record whether they were
intending to get married. Respondent also notes that the estate
made inconsistent representations during discovery and during
trial as to whether decedent’s boyfriend was even aware of the
partnership. Respondent further argues that, as a premarital
asset protection device, the partnership agreement would fail
because decedent had the right to transfer her interest to a
spouse and had the power to approve a transfer to her spouse.
There is nothing in the language of the LKHP agreement
stating the reasoning behind the formation of the partnership.
The estate’s claim that the partnership served to protect
decedent’s assets from an impending marriage to O’Brien is
unsupported by the record. Title to the properties remained
solely in decedent’s name, potentially within the reach of a
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011