I'm writing a novel in which a 14-year old is about to start earning
large sums as a songwriter/performer.

He is at odds with his father over how the money will eventually be
used. The boy wants access to at least enough to live on when he turns
18. The father opposes this and wants to exert maximum control.

Can someone tell me (in the state of Oregon, if state makes a
difference), how easy it would be for the father to keep the boy from
accessing any of the money at 18? Thanks for your help.

Seth

Seth wrote: I'm writing a novel in which a 14-year old is about to start earning large sums as a songwriter/performer. He is at odds with his father over how the money will eventually be used. The boy wants access to at least enough to live on when he turns 18. The father opposes this and wants to exert maximum control. Can someone tell me (in the state of Oregon, if state makes a difference), how easy it would be for the father to keep the boy from accessing any of the money at 18? Thanks for your help.

I don't know Oregon law and I don't do entertainment law. But I do
handle cases where large sums of money are awarded to minors, and the
following discussion is based on my understanding of the general law
applicable to property ownership and contractual liability of minors as
well as peripheral knowledge of showbiz gleaned from watching a lot of
movies about showbiz and reading lots of tabloids. <g>

If it's the son's own, earned money, AND if he never gave his father
any right of control over it e.g. by signing contracts making father
his manager, etc. AND if son's independent, not-a-relative financial
manager had set up someway for the money the kid earned as a minor to
remain out of father's control, ThEN son could legally do whatever he
wants with the money when he turns 18.

But that isn't what usually happens. Almost always, a minor kid can
only get involved in professional showbiz because a "stage parent" is
marketing him or her and, since the kid is a minor and the promoters
all want to make sure THEY get paid, the promoters (record company
owners, music publishing companies, movie, TV and radio moguls, etc.)
all want to make sure they sign contracts with the PARENT on behalf of
the kid or else no deal. The kid could be talented as hell but will
get ZERO exposure in the real world unless he gives parents a piece of
the action so that parents can sign binding contracts giving the
promoters THEIR piece of the action. In that case, the father COULD
assert control over the money for quite some time after his son turns
18, depending on exactly what kind of trust fund, etc. was set up
during the kid's minority.

In any event, once the kid turns 18, or even before that if he is
smart, he can hire his own attorney who will look out for his legal
interests and make sure the trust fund is drafted in such a way that
the kid's interests are protected against overreaching by father.
Attorneys who do that sort of stuff can petition the court to apply
their fee against the funds they are helping protect, so the kid is not
helpless and will not be left without representation if he walks into
the lawyer's office without a cash penny in his pocket but with
millions in trust funds under his father's control.

If it helps any, most states follow a uniform state law on Custodial
Accounts for gifts to minors. If the money is held in such an account,
title does automatically revert to the kid when he turns 18. But that
usually applies only where the money came from a gift e.g. from the
parent or other relative and is in lieu of setting up a more formal
trust.

Common law used to provide that any earnings by a minor child were in
fact legally titled to the parent and could be applied to family
expenses, etc. (or "stolen") at the parent's sole discretion. Given
the obvious injustice which often ensued, in virtually all
jurisdictions I believe this has now been abrogated by statute so that
a kid has legal title to his own earnings or other money so long as it
was not initially given to him (as beneficiary) in a trust controlled
by someone else. The only way he would lose that legal title is if
he in fact gave it to father or someone else to hold in trust for him
AFTER he received it, OR if the money never got to be "his" in the
first place because the promoters' contracts with the father provided
that they would only pay the father "in trust" for the kid's efforts
from the get-go in return for the _father_ being legally on the hook
for breach of contract, etc. if the kid failed to perform. Remember,
a minor child can't be sued on a contract except one for "necessities".

--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300

In article <pjp152t6vseudhd2v5e48oj2q3heosii2l@4ax.com>,
Seth <bizzvanwa@cox.com> wrote:I'm writing a novel in which a 14-year old is about to start earninglarge sums as a songwriter/performer.He is at odds with his father over how the money will eventually beused. The boy wants access to at least enough to live on when he turns18. The father opposes this and wants to exert maximum control.Can someone tell me (in the state of Oregon, if state makes adifference), how easy it would be for the father to keep the boy fromaccessing any of the money at 18? Thanks for your help.

Oh, what a can of worms. <grin>

Parent _is_ 'legal guardian' until the minor child reaches his
majority. Whatever the 'age of majority' is, in that jurisdiction.

Barring an 'emancipation' action, that is.

Now, contracts involving minors are funny. the 'minor' party cannot
be forced to fulfill their side of the contract, but the opposite
party (assuming they are of legal age) -can-.

Thus, for strictly 'songwriter' work, a contract structured such that no
payment is made until _after_ delivery of the work, "for work delivered",
there is no 'downside risk' to entering a contract directly with the minor.
Said contract could specify that payments are to be made 'in trust' to a
party that the minor _does_ trust. Where _that_ trust arrangement specifies
that future access to the money is in a time and manner acceptable to the
minor.

The 'performance' (and "publicity") side of things is a whole lot messier.
The opposite party on the contract *is* laying out non-trivial money 'in
advance' on the expectation that the minor _will_ fulfill the requirements.
And is entitled to recovery if he doesn't. This does involve the 'legal
guardian' of the minor, to have a contract that _is_ binding as regards
'performance', etc., performance.

A stand-off can develop. Guardian can refuse to sign contract, if he
objects to terms -- including anything that doesn't put money into a
long-term payout trust, for example. At the same time, minor can refuse
to perform, if a contract is signed with terms that _he_ finds un-acceptable.

Depending on who is being 'how unreasonable', this _is_ the kind of a
situation that can lead to an 'emancipation' suit.