Domestic Asset Protection Trust (DAPT) States
State-by-state matrix. Cite within scope, source dates, and limitations shown below.
| State | Self Settled Dapt Permitted | Key Requirements | Statute Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALchecked 2026-08-07 | Yes | Alabama Qualified Dispositions in Trust Act (Title 19, Ch.3E), enacted 2021 (Act 2021-238). Requires an AL-resident/AL-authorized trustee holding assets in-state (per other sections of this chapter). Creditor challenges limited to actual-intent-to-defraud claims, PREPONDERANCE-of-evidence standard (lower than NV/WY's clear-and-convincing). 2-year limitations period (1yr-from-discovery if fraudulently concealed). Divorce/marital-property exclusion. No creditor claim against trustee/advisor/preparer. | Ala. Code § 19-3E-5 (Alabama Qualified Dispositions in Trust Act) |
| AKchecked 2026-08-07 | Yes | AS 34.40.110 (Alaska Trust Act, 1997 -- the original/foundational DAPT statute). Settlor-beneficiary spendthrift restriction is valid unless: clear-and-convincing evidence of actual fraud on that specific creditor; the trust is revocable without adversely-affected-beneficiary consent; or mandatory income/principal distribution to settlor is required. Mandatory sworn affidavit before transfer: solvency, no fraud intent, no undisclosed litigation/administrative proceedings, not >30 days child-support-delinquent, no bankruptcy contemplated, assets not unlawfully derived. 4-year statute of limitations (or 1yr from discovery) for pre-existing creditors; 4 years for post-transfer creditors. Divorce/marital-property exclusion. | AS 34.40.110 |
| AZchecked 2026-08-08 | Yes | A.R.S. § 14-10505(A)(2) (Arizona Uniform Trust Code). Structurally distinct from the classic "qualified disposition to a qualified trustee" template used by most DAPT states this session: Arizona's general creditor's-claim-against-settlor rule contains a built-in carve-out -- the standard "creditor reaches the maximum distributable amount" rule does NOT apply to any trust from which a distribution to the settlor CAN BE MADE via a power of appointment held by a THIRD PARTY (not the settlor). Protection therefore depends on a specific drafting technique (a third-party-held power of appointment reaching the settlor) rather than a standalone qualified-disposition act with its own trustee-residency/limitations-period regime. No creditor reach via discretionary tax-reimbursement powers or against special-needs-trust beneficiaries. Separately, §§C-D provide anti-veil-piercing protection for entity-settled trusts (corporation/LLC/partnership), with an anti-abuse exception (§G) for trusts with no valid business purpose that principally exist to evade creditors, or that are IRC §671-679 grantor trusts. | A.R.S. § 14-10505 |
| ARchecked 2026-08-07 | Yes | Ark. Code §§ 28-72-701 to -714 (Spendthrift Trusts and Domestic Asset Protection Trusts subchapter), added by Act 2023, No. 291, eff. 8/1/2023 -- the "21st state" per secondary sources, enacted in close succession with Alabama (2021, "20th"). §28-72-701: DAPT defined as a self-settled, first-party spendthrift trust. §28-72-704: settlor has only the powers/rights stated in the trust instrument; side agreements granting more are void. §28-72-705: beneficiary must be named/clearly identified; provision is for that beneficiary alone. §28-72-706(c): trustee is REQUIRED to disregard and defeat any voluntary or involuntary assignment/act attempted contrary to the subchapter -- the operative creditor-defeating provision. | Ark. Code § 28-72-701 et seq. |
| CAchecked 2026-08-07 | No | not_applicable | Cal. Prob. Code Sec. 15304 (also Sec. 15301 general rule) |
| COchecked 2026-08-07 | No | not_applicable | C.R.S. § 38-10-111 |
| CTchecked 2026-08-07 | Yes | Connecticut Qualified Dispositions in Trust Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 45a-487j to 45a-487t, enacted 2019 (P.A. 19-137), eff. Jan 1, 2020. Requires a qualified trustee (CT resident or CT-authorized entity, §45a-487m) and irrevocability (§45a-487n). Creditor challenge requires CLEAR AND CONVINCING evidence (§45a-487p(a)); 4-year limitations period (or 1yr from reasonable discovery for pre-existing claims). No creditor claim against trustee/trust director/preparer (§45a-487p(d)). If a court declines to apply CT law, the trustee automatically ceases to serve. | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-487j et seq. |
| DEchecked 2026-08-08 | Yes | Delaware Qualified Dispositions in Trust Act, 12 Del. C. §§ 3570-3576, enacted 1997 (71 Del. Laws, c.159 -- the second state after Alaska, same year). Requires a qualified trustee (DE resident or DE-supervised institution), DE-law-governing clause, spendthrift provision, irrevocability. Post-disposition creditor claims require ACTUAL INTENT to defraud; CLEAR AND CONVINCING evidentiary burden. 4-year limitations for post-disposition claims (pre-existing claims use a cross-referenced 6 Del. C. §1309 limitations period). Court of Chancery has EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction -- a distinctive DE feature. No creditor claim against trustee/advisor/preparer. Automatic trustee removal if a court declines to apply DE law. | 12 Del. C. § 3570 et seq. |
| DCchecked 2026-08-08 | No | not_applicable | D.C. Code § 19-1305.05 |
| FLchecked 2026-08-07 | No | not_applicable | Fla. Stat. Sec. 736.0505 |
| GAchecked 2026-08-09 | No | not_applicable | Ga. Code § 53-12-80(f) |
| HIchecked 2026-08-08 | Yes | Hawaii Permitted Transfers in Trust Act, HRS Ch. 554G, enacted 2010. Creditor challenge requires ACTUAL INTENT to defraud/hinder/delay, CLEAR AND CONVINCING evidentiary burden. Limitations: 2 YEARS for claims arising concurrent with or after the transfer (notably shorter than the 4-year period common elsewhere), or the §651C-9 period (as of the later of the transfer date or 7/1/2010) for pre-existing claims. No claim against trustee/advisor/preparer. Statutory exceptions (§554G-9): family-court support/property-division obligees (if 30+ days delinquent), pre-existing tort victims, lenders relying on trust assets as loan security, HI tax authority (to the extent of resulting tax-liability shortfall), and a divorce-property-division carve-out tied to the timing of marriage/civil union. | HRS § 554G-1 et seq. |
| IDchecked 2026-08-08 | No | not_applicable | Idaho Code § 15-7-502(4) |
| ILchecked 2026-08-08 | No | not_applicable | 760 ILCS 3/505 |
| INchecked 2026-08-08 | Yes | Indiana Legacy Trusts, Ind. Code § 30-4-8-1 et seq., enacted 2019 (P.L.221-2019). Claims against a qualified disposition are barred UNLESS: (1) a Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act claim proven by CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE; (2) enforcement of the transferor's child support obligations; or (3) a divorce/legal-separation property-division judgment, gated by marriage timing relative to the disposition. Fraudulent-transfer claims: 2-year limitations (or 6 months from recording/discovery, if later, for pre-existing claims). The State of Indiana itself may sue under a different, lower evidentiary standard. | Ind. Code § 30-4-8-8 |
| IAchecked 2026-08-08 | No | not_applicable | Iowa Code § 633A.2303 |
| KSchecked 2026-08-08 | No | not_applicable | Kan. Stat. § 58a-505 |
| KYchecked 2026-08-08 | No | not_applicable | KRS § 386B.5-040 |
| LAchecked 2026-08-08 | No | not_applicable | La. R.S. § 9:2004 |
| MEchecked 2026-08-08 | No | not_applicable | 18-B M.R.S. § 505 |
| MDchecked 2026-08-09 | No | not_applicable | Md. Est. & Trusts § 14.5-511 (tenancy-by-the-entirety preservation, not a general DAPT; recodifies repealed § 14-113 without substantive change) |
| MAchecked 2026-08-08 | No | not_applicable | Mass. Gen. Laws ch.203E § 505 |
| MIchecked 2026-08-08 | Yes | Michigan Qualified Dispositions in Trust Act, MCL 700.1041-700.1050, enacted 2016 (Act 330), eff. March 8, 2017. Creditor challenge limited to Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act claims, ACTUAL INTENT required for post-disposition creditors, CLEAR AND CONVINCING evidentiary standard. 2-year limitations (or 1yr from discovery, if fraudulently concealed, for pre-existing claims). Divorce/marital-property carve-out gated by 30-day pre-marriage disclosure. §700.1049(2) is the operative override of MI's prior common-law rule barring self-settled trust protection -- beneficiary's interest not subject to attachment/execution; trustee must disregard and oppose contrary claims. No creditor claim against trustee/advisor/preparer. Automatic trustee removal if a court declines to apply MI law. | MCL § 700.1041 et seq. |
| MNchecked 2026-08-08 | No | not_applicable | Minn. Stat. § 501C.0505 |
| MSchecked 2026-08-08 | Yes | Mississippi Qualified Disposition in Trust Act, Miss. Code §§ 91-9-701 et seq. (Article 15), enacted 2014 (ch. 383, signed by Gov. Bryant April 23, 2014), eff. July 1, 2014. Creditor claims limited to Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act actions with ACTUAL INTENT to defraud, CLEAR AND CONVINCING evidentiary standard. Limitations: later of 2 years after disposition or 6 MONTHS after discovery (pre-existing creditors); 2 years flat (subsequent creditors) -- note the 6-month discovery window is shorter than the more common 1-year pattern seen elsewhere this session. Carve-outs: child/spousal support, pre-disposition tort claims, State of Mississippi, and a DISTINCTIVE mandatory-insurance mechanism -- transferor must maintain a $1,000,000 general/professional liability policy, or creditors may reach up to $1,500,000. No claim against trustee/advisor/preparer. Automatic trustee removal on adverse choice-of-law ruling. Foreign-country judgments not recognized against MS-law qualified disposition trusts. | Miss. Code § 91-9-701 et seq. (operative creditor provision: § 91-9-707) |
| MOchecked 2026-08-08 | Yes | RSMo § 456.5-505(3) (Missouri Uniform Trust Code), originally enacted 2004 (H.B. 1511), current version eff. 8/28/2022 (S.B. 886). STRUCTURALLY DISTINCT from the qualified-disposition-to-a-qualified-trustee template used elsewhere (AK/DE/NV/MI/MS this session): Missouri instead modifies the general spendthrift-provision rule itself. A spendthrift provision protects the settlor's own beneficial interest from the settlor's creditors EXCEPT for fraudulent conveyances (Ch.428/Missouri UFTA) or UNLESS, when the trust became irrevocable, the settlor was the sole beneficiary/retained a power to amend, OR was one of a class of beneficiaries with a determinable specific/fixed portion. Practical effect: settlor must be one of MULTIPLE beneficiaries with a purely DISCRETIONARY (non-fixed) interest for protection to apply. No separate qualified-trustee-residency requirement, no distinct statutory limitations period or clear-and-convincing standard beyond ordinary Ch.428 fraudulent-transfer law. | RSMo § 456.5-505 |
| MTchecked 2026-08-08 | No | not_applicable | Mont. Code Ann. § 72-38-505 |
| NEchecked 2026-08-08 | No | not_applicable | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-3850 |
| NVchecked 2026-08-07 | Yes | NRS Ch.166 Spendthrift Trust Act. Requires >=1 NV-resident/NV-office trustee (166.015(2)). Settlor-beneficiary trust must be irrevocable, no mandatory income/principal distribution to settlor, not intended to hinder/delay/defraud known creditors (166.040(1)(b)). Creditor must sue within 2yr of transfer (or 6mo of discovery, whichever later) and prove fraud by clear-and-convincing evidence (166.170). | NRS 166.015, 166.040, 166.120, 166.170 |
| NHchecked 2026-08-08 | Yes | RSA 564-B:5-505A (New Hampshire Trust Code, Article 5), originally enacted 2008 as the standalone Qualified Dispositions in Trust Act (RSA 564-D, S.B. 465, eff. for trusts created on/after Jan 1, 2009); REPEALED 2017 and recodified into the Trust Code (2017, 257:21, eff. Sept. 16, 2017) -- the old 564-D citation is dead law. Operative rule (d): a settlor's interest subject to a spendthrift provision is NOT reachable by creditors, nor is a distribution before the settlor receives it. Limitations: LATER of 4 years after transfer or 1 year after a pre-existing creditor's discovery (longer than the 2-year pattern common elsewhere this session). Broad coverage including charitable remainder trusts, marital-deduction trusts, and special-needs trusts. Trustee/advisor/preparer immunity. Divorce carve-out gated by 30-day pre-marriage disclosure. DISTINCTIVE narrow "exception creditor" provision: child support and "basic alimony" only (expressly defined as the portion covering the spouse's most basic food/shelter/medical needs, not full alimony) -- capped at the lesser of the judgment or the maximum distributable amount. | RSA 564-B:5-505A |
| NJchecked 2026-08-08 | No | not_applicable | N.J.S.A. § 3B:31-39 |
| NMchecked 2026-08-08 | No | not_applicable | NM Stat § 46A-5-505 |
| NYchecked 2026-08-08 | No | not_applicable | NY EPTL § 7-3.1 |
| NCchecked 2026-08-08 | No | not_applicable | N.C. Gen. Stat. § 36C-5-505 |
| NDchecked 2026-08-08 | No | not_applicable | N.D. Cent. Code § 59-13-05 |
| OHchecked 2026-08-08 | Yes | Ohio Legacy Trust Act, R.C. Chapter 5816, enacted 2013 (H.B. 479, eff. March 27, 2013). Requires an Ohio "qualified trustee" (resident individual or authorized institution), irrevocable, spendthrift provision. §5816.03: spendthrift restrains both voluntary/involuntary transfer; carve-outs for child/spousal support/alimony and marital property division; no forced-heirship/legitime claims. §5816.07 (operative creditor-limitations section): no creditor action except to avoid a qualified disposition on SPECIFIC INTENT to defraud that creditor; limitations = later of 18 MONTHS after disposition or 6 months after discovery (if a qualifying suit/demand was made within 3 years) for pre-existing creditors, flat 18 months for subsequent creditors -- notably SHORTER than the 2-4 year patterns common elsewhere this session. Clear-and-convincing evidentiary burden on the creditor, expressly substantive not procedural. No claim against trustee/advisor/preparer, extending to related entity-formation documents. | R.C. § 5816.01 et seq. (Ohio Legacy Trust Act) |
| OKchecked 2026-08-08 | Yes | Oklahoma Family Wealth Preservation Trust Act, 31 O.S. §§10-18, enacted 2004, amended 2005/2014. STRUCTURALLY DISTINCTIVE on two axes vs. the typical DAPT template used by most other states this session: (1) a preservation trust MAY BE REVOCABLE OR IRREVOCABLE (most DAPT statutes require irrevocability); if revoked, the exemption does not apply to property received back. (2) HARD DOLLAR CAP: protection limited to $1,000,000 in value plus incremental growth -- most other DAPT states impose no ceiling. Corpus/income exempt from attachment/execution/forced sale/liens, EXCEPT a child support judgment (narrower support carve-out than most peer states -- no explicit spousal-support/alimony exception in this section). Pre-existing mortgages/security interests on transferred assets unaffected. Contributions remain subject to the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. | 31 O.S. § 12 et seq. (Family Wealth Preservation Trust Act) |
| ORchecked 2026-08-08 | No | not_applicable | ORS 130.315 |
| PAchecked 2026-08-08 | No | not_applicable | 20 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7745 |
| RIchecked 2026-08-08 | Yes | Rhode Island Qualified Dispositions in Trust Act, R.I. Gen. Laws § 18-9.2-1 et seq., enacted 1999 (P.L. 1999, ch.402), amended 2007. Requires at least one RI "qualified trustee" (resident individual other than the transferor, or a regulated institution), irrevocable trust, RI-law governing-law clause, spendthrift provision. Creditor challenge limited to RI UFTA (§6-16-7) actions. Limitations: LATER of 4 years after disposition or 1 year after discovery (pre-existing creditors), flat 4 years (subsequent creditors) -- an older-vintage 4-year pattern matching this session's AK/DE/CT/HI findings, consistent with RI's 1999 enactment date. Clear-and-convincing evidentiary burden. Trustee/advisor/preparer immunity. Automatic trustee removal on adverse choice-of-law ruling. Exceptions grouped with Delaware's narrower set: child support, and alimony/property-division claims existing ON OR BEFORE the disposition date only. | R.I. Gen. Laws § 18-9.2-1 et seq. |
| SCchecked 2026-08-08 | No | not_applicable | S.C. Code § 62-7-505 |
| SDchecked 2026-08-08 | Yes | South Dakota Qualified Dispositions In Trust, SDCL Ch.55-16, enacted 2005 (SL 2005 ch.261), extensively amended through 2017. Widely regarded as one of the most protective DAPT statutes nationally. §55-16-9: creditor action barred unless the transfer was made with intent to defraud that specific creditor; this chapter controls over SD's general UFTA (ch.54-8A) in any conflict. §55-16-10 (operative limitations): LATER of 2 YEARS after transfer or 6 months after discovery (pre-existing creditors), flat 2 years (subsequent creditors) -- shorter than most peer states. Clear-and-convincing evidentiary burden. Explicit anti-choice-of-law-override clause ("inseparably interwoven with substantive rights"). Also permits a REVOCABLE trust to be used for asset protection (settlor may revoke/amend and reclaim assets; no court may compel revocation) -- an outlier feature shared with Oklahoma and Tennessee this session. | SDCL § 55-16-1 et seq. |
| TNchecked 2026-08-08 | Yes | Tennessee Investment Services Act of 2007, Tenn. Code § 35-16-101 et seq., enacted 2007 (ch.144), amended through 2021. §35-16-104 (operative creditor-limitations section): UFTA-only claims, actual intent to defraud required for post-disposition creditors; limitations = later of 18 MONTHS after disposition or 6 months after discovery (pre-existing creditors), flat 18 months (subsequent creditors) -- closely matching Ohio's pattern, both notably shorter than the 2-4yr pattern common elsewhere this session. Clear-and-convincing burden. Broader/more granular support carve-out than most peers: past-due child support, past-due alimony in solido, past-due alimony/support (a separate category), AND marital-property-division judgments. No forced-heirship/legitime/elective-share claims. Trustee/advisor/preparer immunity, automatic removal on adverse choice-of-law ruling. Also has a distinct "Revocability of trusts" provision (§35-16-111), paralleling SD/OK's revocable-trust-eligible structures. | Tenn. Code § 35-16-101 et seq. |
| TXchecked 2026-08-07 | No | not_applicable | Tex. Prop. Code Sec. 112.035(d) |
| UTchecked 2026-08-08 | Yes | Utah Code § 75B-1-302 (Asset Protection Trust, Title 75B Ch.1 Part 3), VERY RECENTLY recodified -- current version eff. 5/7/2025, amended twice in the 2025 General Session (ch.310, ch.338). Located via the cross-reference in the general Utah Uniform Trust Code creditor's-claim-against-settlor rule (§75-7-505(2)(a)), which explicitly excludes trusts meeting §75B-1-302's requirements from the standard anti-DAPT default. Core rule: creditor may not satisfy a claim from the settlor's transfer/beneficial interest, force a distribution, or intercept a distribution before the trustee delivers it -- but MAY reach a distribution once actually paid to the settlor. Pre-existing security interests on transferred property are preserved. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION: a Utah court has exclusive jurisdiction over any claim based on a transfer to the trust, overriding the general UVTA venue rule (§25-6-402(2)). Qualified-trustee/formation mechanics (likely in adjacent §§75B-1-301/303) not independently re-fetched this pass. | Utah Code § 75B-1-301 et seq. (Asset Protection Trust) |
| VTchecked 2026-08-08 | No | not_applicable | 14A V.S.A. § 505 |
| VAchecked 2026-08-08 | Yes | Va. Code § 64.2-745.1 (Self-settled spendthrift trusts), enacted 2012 (ch.555/614). Settlor retains a "qualified interest" in a "qualified self-settled spendthrift trust," exempting that interest from the general anti-self-settled rule (§64.2-747). DISTINCTIVE: explicit statutory clause that retaining a qualified interest, or lack of consideration, does NOT by itself constitute intent to defraud under VA's UFTA (§55.1-400) -- though other grounds (e.g., insolvency) can still void the transfer. LIMITATIONS: flat 5 YEARS after the transfer -- the longest single limitations figure confirmed this session (no separate shorter discovery-track). Trustee/advisor/preparer immunity. Multi-transfer stacking rules. Distinctive domestication rule: moving an existing trust's administration to Virginia is treated as a fresh transfer dated at the move. | Va. Code § 64.2-745.1 |
| WAchecked 2026-08-08 | No | not_applicable | RCW § 6.32.250 |
| WVchecked 2026-08-08 | Yes | West Virginia Uniform Trust Code, W. Va. Code § 44D-5-503a (Self-settled Spendthrift Trusts). Grantor retains a "qualified interest" in a "qualified self-settled spendthrift trust," exempted from the general creditor's-claim-against-grantor rule (§505). Explicit statutory clause: retaining a qualified interest or lack of consideration does NOT by itself constitute intent to defraud creditors (WV UVTA, ch.40 art.1-a) -- though other grounds (e.g., material misstatement in the required qualified affidavit) can still void the transfer; a successful trustee defense is chargeable first against any transfer that IS set aside. LIMITATIONS: flat 4 years after the transfer. Trustee/advisor/preparer immunity. Multi-transfer stacking rules. Domestication rule treats a trust's move to WV as a fresh transfer. | W. Va. Code § 44D-5-503a |
| WIchecked 2026-08-08 | No | not_applicable | Wis. Stat. § 701.0505 |
| WYchecked 2026-09-12 | Yes | Qualified Spendthrift Trust Act, Wyo Stat 4-10-510 to 523. Requires a qualified trustee (WY-resident natural person, or an institution performing trust-admin functions in WY -- Sec 4-10-103(a)(xxxv), Definitions). Trust must be irrevocable, state it is a qualified spendthrift trust, incorporate WY law, hold settlor interest subject to spendthrift provision (4-10-510(a)). Settlor affidavit of solvency/no-fraudulent-intent required at transfer (4-10-512(b), 4-10-523). Challenge confined to Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, clear-and-convincing burden (4-10-514, 4-10-517(a)); limitations period via Title 34-14-210(a): 2yr from transfer (or 6mo from discovery) for actual fraud -- but 34-14-210(a) is itself expressly "[e]xcept as provided in subsection (b)": for a qualified-spendthrift-trust transfer specifically, 34-14-210(b) instead extinguishes the claim 120 days after the settlor/trustee mails notice to a known creditor, or 120 days after publishing notice (newspaper of general circulation in the settlor's county) for an unknown creditor, provided the notice identifies the settlor/trustee and states the 120-day deadline (34-14-210(b)(i)-(ii)). Carve-out (34-14-210(b)(iii)): a creditor who proves by clear-and-convincing evidence it had already asserted a specific claim against the settlor before the transfer instead gets the full (a) period (later of 2yr/6mo), not the 120-day notice cutoff. Net effect: a settlor who proactively notices creditors can compress the exposure window to 120 days for claims not already asserted pre-transfer. | Wyo. Stat. Ann. Sec. 4-10-510 to 4-10-523; limitations Sec. 34-14-210(a)-(b) |
Hover column headers to see field definitions. Hover cell text to see source notes. Typed unknowns (e.g., “Portal not observable”) are methodological limits, not data gaps.
Research scope
All 51 US jurisdictions (50 states + DC). A general trust-code rule in most states lets a settlor-beneficiary's own creditors reach the trust interest despite a spendthrift clause — self-settled trusts are not protected by default. A minority of states enacted a DAPT statute specifically overriding that rule, subject to statutory conditions (funding limits, a resident trustee, fraudulent-transfer lookback periods, and similar guardrails that vary by state). This matrix records each state's own permissive law as written; it does not resolve the separate, fact-specific conflict-of-laws question of whether an out-of-state DAPT holds up against a creditor pursuing a settlor who lives in a non-DAPT state.
How to read this matrix
Each row is a U.S. state. self_settled_dapt_permitted reports whether a DAPT statute exists; key_requirements summarizes its statutory conditions where permitted, or reads "not_applicable" where the general trust-code rule stands unmodified. Typed unknowns mark states not yet primary-source-verified under the methodology at /about/methodology/.
Sources
Primary-source citations per row live in the matrix's sources.json companion — the DAPT-authorizing statute where one exists, or the controlling general trust-code provision where it does not. The full source taxonomy lives at /about/source-registry/.
Frequently asked questions
What is a self-settled asset protection trust?
A trust where the person funding it (the settlor) is also a permitted beneficiary, and — in states that allow it — the settlor's own future creditors cannot reach the trust assets despite that overlap. Most states' general trust codes bar this (a settlor-beneficiary's own creditors can still reach the interest); DAPT statutes are the specific carve-out.
Does using a Nevada or Wyoming trust protect assets no matter where I live?
This matrix records each state's own permissive law, not conflict-of-laws outcomes for a settlor living in a non-DAPT state who funds a trust elsewhere. Whether an out-of-state DAPT holds up against a home-state creditor is an unsettled, fact-specific question outside this matrix's scope.
If my state isn't a DAPT state, do I have no options?
Not necessarily — LLC charging order protection and the homestead exemption are separate tools tracked in their own matrices and may still apply. This matrix is scoped specifically to self-settled trust law.
Where do these citations come from?
Each row cites the state's DAPT-authorizing statute where one exists, or the general trust-code provision that controls (and bars self-settled protection) where one does not, with a source URL and on-disk snapshot.
Go deeper with source-backed research
Explore methodology, datasets, and related matrices cited on this page.