Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Estate Planning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Panel backs extending rule against perpetuities from 90 to 360 years in estate-law change

2798307 · March 27, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee voted to report House Bill 3432 favorably; the bill would extend the statutory rule governing when future property interests must vest from 90 years to 360 years, a change supporters said would encourage dynasty trusts and keep trust business in-state.

House Bill 3432, concerning the uniform statutory rule against perpetuities, received a favorable report from the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee after staff explanation and testimony from the probate bar's legislative committee.

Paula (staff member) described the bill as an amendment to the uniform statutory rule against perpetuities that would extend the period upon which a nonvested property interest must vest from 90 years to 360 years. She said a law clerk had provided members with a comparative list showing a national trend toward longer perpetuity periods.

Marshall Minton, chair of the legislative committee of the Probate, Estate Planning and Trust Section of the South Carolina Bar, testified that the change would make South Carolina more competitive for establishing long-term or "dynasty" trusts. "We have a lot of clients right now that are waiting to create these trusts. They're dynasty trusts," Minton said, and added that some clients delay creating trusts until the state law is changed. She also noted North Carolina has abolished the rule entirely and that other states have adopted longer terms; the committee discussed why 360 years was chosen as a multiple of 90 years and as a point of conformity with other jurisdictions.

Committee members asked about the policy rationale and whether prior trusts would be able to benefit from a change; Minton said the bill, as written and modeled on other jurisdictions' changes, would likely be useful for trusts created prior to the effective date. The subcommittee recorded a favorable report by voice vote and said it would forward the bill to the full Judiciary Committee; the transcript does not include a roll-call tally.