Stupid question

[SKMMAN]

Let's say I was married for 10 years and my wife decides to divorce me and she takes me to court to take ownership of everything I owned and I was rich, but later she finds out that ownership of everything I had was put under another person's name. Would she be able to still take those things or will I have to give her money or something?

There's a lawyer in this forum. I am wondering if he can answear this.

 

[davidjr74]

Let's say I was married for 10 years and my wife decides to divorce me and she takes me to court to take ownership of everything I owned and I was rich, but later she finds out that ownership of everything I had was put under another person's name. Would she be able to still take those things or will I have to give her money or something?

There's a lawyer in this forum. I am wondering if he can answear this.

Ask Michael Strahan

 

[Tanizaki]

Let's say I was married for 10 years and my wife decides to divorce me and she takes me to court to take ownership of everything I owned and I was rich, but later she finds out that ownership of everything I had was put under another person's name. Would she be able to still take those things or will I have to give her money or something?

There's a lawyer in this forum. I am wondering if he can answear this.

I am a lawyer. More importantly, I am not your lawyer.

That having been said, what you just described is outlandish. What state is this hypothetical taking place in? Is this even in the US?

 

[calcium]

It's not really that outlandish. I don't think she would be able to take your things in that example...

 

[Typhon]

It's not really that outlandish. I don't think she would be able to take your things in that example...

In the UK she would, the court will need to see your financial records going back 2 years (It's 2 years with bankrupcy and I think it's the same with divorce). If the court can see you transfering money to clear your accounts then they'll count it as your possesion and consider it in the divorce settlement. If you claim you can't get the money back then I'm not sure what happens but I imagine they'll be able to take everything you have in future until the debt to your former partner is paid off.

If you are rich and worried this might happen to you then get lots of money in off-shore accounts that your wife doesn't know about

I'm sure Tanisaki has a good idea of how it works in the US though

 

[SkianS40]

I am a lawyer. More importantly, I am not your lawyer.

That having been said, what you just described is outlandish. What state is this hypothetical taking place in? Is this even in the US?

So why did you even reply to the thread? Just to brag about your status as someone who spent a lot of money on school and passed a reasonably easy test? Your title doesn't hold any weight if you can't see that his hypothetical situation isn't very outlandish by any stretch.

I, on the other hand, am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure that simply transferring your assets once a divorce is imminent will not get you out of this situation. The amount of property/money your hypothetical ex is entitled to will be based on the negotiations that take place for the divorce settlement. If you have any questions on the tax implications of this, I might be able to provide more insight on THAT, but not so much on the legal issues.

 

[flyinfree]

good example of why your health is so important. Nobody can take that, you have to give it away.

 

[Tanizaki]

So why did you even reply to the thread?

Because he asked for the opinion of a lawyer. Reading is fundamental, sir.

Just to brag about your status as someone who spent a lot of money on school and passed a reasonably easy test?

I don't see how it was bragging to state a fact. I am sorry if it has inflamed your own insecurities.

Your title doesn't hold any weight if you can't see that his hypothetical situation isn't very outlandish by any stretch.

Actually, it is. Specifically, the part about "take ownership of everything I own". That is because in the United States, the two methods of dividing property pursuant to dissolution of marriage are community property and equitable distribution. The state where I practice, Florida, is equitable distribution, so that is the system I will comment regarding. In neither system is there a right to "take ownership of everything".

Equitable distribution, which is the law in most US states, says that distribution will be equitable and just regardless of title ownership. In practice, this leads to a default 50/50 distribution of the marital property, unless there are grounds for special equity to give a different distribution. For example, if one spouse made a contribution of funds, property, or services over and above the performance of normal marital duties.

I, on the other hand, am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure that simply transferring your assets once a divorce is imminent will not get you out of this situation.

I don't understand what "get out the situation" is supposed to mean. However, Florida, and I assume most other states, have rules for dissipation of marital property. In Florida, "intentional dissipation, waste, depletion, or destruction of marital assets after the filing of the petition or within 2 years prior to the filing of the petition." may be considered by the court when dividing property to enact a special equity distribution.

The amount of property/money your hypothetical ex is entitled to will be based on the negotiations that take place for the divorce settlement.

What? No. The entitlement arises from common law.

If you have any questions on the tax implications of this, I might be able to provide more insight on THAT, but not so much on the legal issues.

So it would seem.

 

[Tanizaki]

It's not really that outlandish. I don't think she would be able to take your things in that example...

See my reply to Skian to learn why you are incorrect.

 

[SkianS40]

Because he asked for the opinion of a lawyer. Reading is fundamental, sir.

I read his question, and I read your response. You didn't provide any insight to his situation, other than it was "outlandish".

I don't see how it was bragging to state a fact. I am sorry if it has inflamed your own insecurities.

Excuse me, you're the one flaunting the fact that you're a lawyer, but "not his lawyer".

The rest of your response was reasonable and actually provided some answers to the OP's question. Apparently all it takes is someone to take a shot at you and you become a fountain of legal information.

 

[Tanizaki]

I read his question, and I read your response. You didn't provide any insight to his situation, other than it was "outlandish".

Why should I provide insight into an outlandish hypothetical?

Excuse me, you're the one flaunting the fact that you're a lawyer, but "not his lawyer".

It is flaunting nothing of the sort. It is a disclaimer so he knows that I am not giving him legal advice, simply information. Surely you have seen the abbreviation, IAALBIANYL? Would you accuse someone of "flaunting" if they said, "I am a personal trainer, but not your personal trainer"? If not, why?

You must have pretty deep-seated issues about your station in life.

The rest of your response was reasonable and actually provided some answers to the OP's question. Apparently all it takes is someone to take a shot at you and you become a fountain of legal information.

I socked it to you pretty good, huh?

 

[SkianS40]

I socked it to you pretty good, huh?

Haha, not at all! You answered the OP's question, even though you're "not his lawyer". You probably would have never provided ANY useful information if it hadn't been to defend your e-honor!

You must have pretty deep-seated issues about your station in life.

Any deep-seated issues I may have are miniscule compared to your need to have a pissing contest with anyone who owns a keyboard.

Thank you for answering the question at hand, as I obviously was not able to. Anything else you feel the need to say will only further prove my point that you get your jollies off by vomiting your thoughts onto any forum that will accept your garbage.

/hijack

 

[calcium]

I was assuming everything was in someone else's name to begin with. Not that the husband signed it over at the last minute.

 

[Karky]

if it was in someone elses name to begin with. Doesnt that mean that its not the husbands, he doesnt own it, and thus its not a part of the marriage?

 

[deschain]

I would've thought so. But then, who would you trust enough for your assets to be in their name if you don't trust your spouse enough?

I've heard that here in TX it is "community property" - as I understand it, that means that whatever you had before the marriage is yours, but whatever you acquire during the marriage will be community property, and therefore fought over/split up.

I that anywhere near accurate Tan - or do I have it all mixed up?

 

[Tanizaki]

Haha, not at all! You answered the OP's question, even though you're "not his lawyer". You probably would have never provided ANY useful information if it hadn't been to defend your e-honor!

I love it when I burn some chump's butter!

Any deep-seated issues I may have are miniscule compared to your need to have a pissing contest with anyone who owns a keyboard.

I don't do it because I need to. I do it because I like it.

Thank you for answering the question at hand, as I obviously was not able to. Anything else you feel the need to say will only further prove my point that you get your jollies off by vomiting your thoughts onto any forum that will accept your garbage.

/hijack

Nice ham-fisted strategy. If I do not respond, you win because you get the last word. If I respond, you claim victory by saying, "Ha! I made you respond!"

Better luck next time, chump!

 

[Tanizaki]

I would've thought so. But then, who would you trust enough for your assets to be in their name if you don't trust your spouse enough?

I've heard that here in TX it is "community property" - as I understand it, that means that whatever you had before the marriage is yours, but whatever you acquire during the marriage will be community property, and therefore fought over/split up.

I that anywhere near accurate Tan - or do I have it all mixed up?

That is essentially right. However, there are circumstances under which property owned prior to the marriage can become community property. The community property is split 50/50 when the marriage is dissolved. However, I understand that some community property states will engage in a process similar to equitable distribution.

 

[Moonbeam3]

Wow. I don't see how any of you guys don't think this situation (real or not) ISN'T outlandish!!

Outlandish: Strinkingly out of the ordinary, exceeding proper or reasonable limits or standards

I don't know about you guys but when I think of the standards of marriage I think of a partnership, togetherness, common bounds. How is putting all your property in someone else's name as a married person proper, reasonable or ordinary?

I absolutely think it is outlandish! California is a community property state which like Deschain described, distributes the assets gained/obtained after the marriage 50/50.

(last time I checked the Bar was not an easy test to take)

 

[Moonbeam3]

Not to mention if this person is "rich" spousal support could be mandated for half of the duration of the life of the marriage (in this case 5 years) so that she lives in the same manner to which she is accustomed. I believe in California spousal support is the norm after 10 years of marriage...

 

[SkianS40]

Better luck next time, chump!

You're right, I was foolish to step up to someone who can be wikipedia'd for being a total douche bag. I'll let you tell yourself you "won", just so you bask in the glory of your computer monitor.

and Moonbeam... let's not be foolish. If it were so easy to determine what a 50/50 split was in a divorce, there would be a lot of lawyers with no business.

... and i just puked a little when i read that you think the less wealthy spouse is "entitled" to live the lifestyle they're accustomed to. Child support: yes, Alimony: to an extent, but no one is entitled to ANYTHING that they didn't contribute anything to!

P.S.:
you assume that the less rich spouse is a "she", that's not the California/P.C. way to think of it!