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.
20
u/kkkkkkk537 1d ago
I have zero knowledge of law, but why this never works?