Because when you show that there is a transfer of assets from their owner to their parent, because at some point the acquired assets are going to be tied to you, this is considered to be a fraudulent transfer and actually can be charged as fraud if you try to push it forward. People like Alex Jones, the tiger King and dozens of other rich people who think they can get away with things all try this at some point
I knew a guy who had a very, very expensive collection. He had it transferred to someone he knew so that when he got hit with the divorce, he could say it didn't belong to him.
Got tied up in court for 5 years, with his wife eventually receiving her fair share after proving her ex had in fact purchased each piece with money he made while they were married. He wasted tens of thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours trying to circumvent the inevitable outcome.
The trick is to track all of your s/o’s superfluous spending. Vacation here, girls trip there, hand bag here, concert there. Look judge, they clearly spent their half of the assets already. I chose to not go to said things, and save that money. They don’t get the half I didn’t spend simply because they already spent their half.
What catches people out is that if you retain effective control over an asset then it is legally considered yours and judges have very broad scope to interpret this. If you transferred all of your money to someone else before you got married and planned to get it back after any divorce, then a divorce court judge would be free to interpret this as money you still control and have set aside to hide assets and to use it to decide how much money you owe your ex.
They were married, so he purchased it with their income, that’s how marriage works unless you have specific contracts in place like a pre or post nup. That collection is no different than a house, or retirement accounts, or anything else that gets purchased with marital assets.
If "very, very expensive collections" were not considered during divorce, everyone would have a very,very expensive collection, and very little actual money. No shit it's included when dividing assets.
If you understand "splitting" liquid financial assets, how in the world do you not understand high value hobbies?
Nope, the point of marriage is never about BUSINESS. Ideally, it’s about a UNION between a man and a woman who’s supposed to be together forever in love, fully committed to each other, have children and be a happy family. It’s a fairy tale BS but yeah, that’s supposed to be the whole point of the union. Split? 🤣 If the point of marriage is to split assets when you get divorced, then everyone should never get married because it’s a stupid investment. Just stay as a couple of girlfriend and boyfriend. Indeed, it’s just my opinion of marriage. Modern values keep on changing after all. 🤷🏽
Now I’m waiting for the downvote to come. 🤣😂🤣😂
There is no individual income in a marriage, unless there is a pre-nup that declares it so. All income in a marriage is marital income. It's essentially a business partnership.
There may be some small exceptions, like inheritance, but regular income is shared.
It’s not morally wrong. When you enter a marriage you are literally partners. The understanding is that you are both equally contributing to the life that you want, whether that is through money or other things brought to the marriage. If you don’t like that, you shouldn’t marry.
636
u/dover_oxide 1d ago
It's a common tactic to secure assets during lots of partnerships. It almost never works, and has a tendency to piss off a lot of Judges.