You could, but it is not recommended. The traditional cardinal rule among all wealthy people who use trusts is, have a different trust for each different asset. Have one for each house, one for each car, one for each business, one for each investment, etc. etc. In the early 1990s it was rumored that the Rockefellers had as many as 7000 of these trusts. The reason is, what if you were to put all your assets into one trust, and then some problem were to arise with it? All the assets might be at risk.

It is rare and unlikely that the trust would ever be successfully attacked, legally, or that it would be penetrated. In fact, we have NEVER ONCE heard of that happening with the trusts that my friend Randall sets up. But what if you had made the mistake of appointing co-trustees who later became disagreeable with you? If a conflict between trust officers were to arise, could they take your assets from it?

Again, these trusts are set up so ingeniously and so beautifully, that their very design minimizes the chances of problems. The design is fabulous, and so if the trust is operated according to the guidelines suggested, and if you are not using the trust in dangerous or questionable activities, then it is extremely unlikely that the assets in it would ever be at risk. But the whole point of asset protection is to maximize the security of the assets. Thus, the traditional cardinal principle is, “have a different trust for each different asset”.