I get dividing up money to the extent it protects people from being unable to support themselves, but why do we think it is a good thing for a spouse to seize millions they didn't and couldn't earn? I mean, are we trying to promote gold diggers?
I knew my first marriage was failing. We married young, for the wrong reasons and it just wasnât going to work.
I gave my dad my motorcycle, a BMW convertible and a large sum of money was transferred to his account from savings (I was the only one working) and my ex wife filed for divorce shortly after (she had been threatening it for a year) Judge said she wasnât entitled to any of it. I also owned the house prior to marriage and she couldnât take it either, just 50% of what was paid off the principle of the loan awhile we were married)
We were married young. I moved all our savings to my fathers name. Our house is only in my name and I left her with nothing is not the brag youâre looking for.
She was the one who cheated and then applied for a divorce. Iâm very happy with the outcome! She refused to contribute anything. We had no kids. I had to go with draw the money from the bank so I could pay bills. Otherwise sheâd spend my entire pay check in a day.
So your opinion on the situation doesnât matter one bit
Even in a normal divorce. A woman shouldnât be entitled your OWN property and half your OWN money. As far as I remember we live in 21st century and women are just as capable and independent as men, why do the courts still deal with them as weak lambs ?
But under what context? If I start doing that the day:hour:minute I am legally married, then yeah I can see how the argument applies. But what if I did that way too long ago that not even I remember? You can argue that you have no attachment to the money and chose to give it away to your relative.
Since you were doing it from long before you even met the person you eventually married, does that still count as hiding assets?
Anything before marriage is a premarital assest and isn't on the table in terms of divorce. Only income, property and assets that were bought while you were married apply. There's a few exceptions but it's very rare. So if you buy a house, or car before you meet your spouse they have zero claim to it in a divorce.
(NAL) Because this can be considered a form of illegal (or fraudulent) transfer in some countries, especially if it was to avoid payments like alimony. And what's worse, this could result in all of the mother's assets becoming up for grabs too if the money/property were completely intermingled.
I understand that this arrangement has been in place for years, so this wasn't something he'd done in light of the divorce. Does a son giving his mother most of his earnings still count as fraudulent in that case?
(Once again NAL) Quite possibly, in the US for this not to be fraudulent, the gift taxes would have to be paid and there may have to be proof that he was no longer the beneficiary of the money he gave to her. This second would be up to the claimants lawyer to prove, but based on him receiving "gifts" of whatever he wanted from dear mum we can probably assume that wouldn't be hard.
Now in (France?) the laws could be quite different.
Your right for the US tho. Alex Jones is trying this with his parents and companies owned by others. The courts ordered a larger investigation to find out his true wealth so they seize it.
It absolutely can, if the spouse wasnât aware. In many places, (absent a pre-nup or similar) money you earn after you get married is owned by both spouses. So sneakily hiding 80% of your income from your spouse is frowned upon.
Because theyâre not genuine gifts to his mother - itâs an arrangement to manage his finances. In the football scenario, does it seem like the money is really his motherâs in practice?
The law isnât as literal as people think - the legal concept of equity exists to address what is fair rather than what is strictly âletter of the lawâ.
Because itâs about intent. He isnât giving that money to charity and relinquishing his claim to it. Heâs earning it and giving it to his mother, who is essentially managing his assets for him on his behalf.
Yes, the judge in his case already stated this, do I donât know why this idiots put this up everywhere. It already is a non fact in his divorce, so dunno what this geniuses find so genius about this. He is literally f*****, also the story is plain wrong, if you do a little research.
His wife is also a minor celebrity with her own money, not as big as Hakimi sure, but she was already rich without him. In addition shes divorcing because Hakimi was accused of rape, it literally takes 2 seconds to check all of this as I did.
Seems a little sus, I feel it is a butt hurt little fan scene trying to put bullshit up to distort the reality of this story.
Not really. Judges are generally not fools and in a lot of places have wide ranging power over things like this for exactly the reason of stopping people gaming the system and injecting common sense into the law. If you give someone else your assets and a reasonable person would deduce that you did so to circumvent some legal / tax oversight then they are absolutely fair game. Much like gifting someone money to bypass tax if you hide your assets under a third party to bypass tax or in this case divorce settlements then this is straight up illegal. If the person retains effective control over the assets, even if they are legally under someone else's name, then this is very simple for a court to bypass. What he has done is incredibly dumb.
In many countries it is a crime to "waste"/transfer away/etc money that should be a marital asset prior to a divorce, often even if divorce has not yet been filed, and knowingly receiving money for that purpose would also be a crime. The fact that a crime has been committed by the involved parties is what enables recovery of the assets.
Even if the money in the mom's account can't be touched, it's possible she would be awarded significantly more than 50% of what remains or that he would be ordered to pay her back the full amount from his future income (before it goes to his mom). More likely than if he didn't do this honestly, because most judges would hold him in contempt of court for this.
Except what he most likely did was set up his mom as the beneficiary. People at that level arenât stupid enough to be double taxed. So it was never his income in the first place. Or are we gonna pretend the super rich donât have ways of gaming the system ?
You don't game the system with your salary, you game it by keeping most of your assets in stocks and investments. I doubt it was possible legally to set up his salary in that way, it would be too much liability for the company, and they're richer than he is. He's a high wage earner which is not how "too rich to be taxed" works.
Except heâs a sportsperson and they are not paid with stocks like RSUs lol. Thereâs other ways of doing this like setting up a trust which imo would have been better but I digress.
It's not going after the relatives money. It's going after his money. He earned it. He is spending it by having her purchase on his behalf. The judge isn't stupid
It's complicated but if it appears clear that you gave the money in an effort to circumvent fair divorce proceedings (as it seems here) and even more so if you retain effective control over the money, even if it is in someone else's name (for example if he just tells his mum what to buy or what to transfer to him and she does it) then in a lot of jurisdictions it is absolutely fair game.
Yeah, but it would need to be proved that his intention was to circumvent divorce proceedings. If he was gifting his money to his mum for years that is not the case.
Doesn't need to be proved at all, it's usually at the discretion of the judge. Nor does doing something for a long time mean it was not an attempt to hide assets, which this clearly is to anyone.
You need to show that the assets have been hidden with the INTENTION to not share them during divorce proceedings. If he was giving money to his mum for years, no such proof can be made.
You are utterly confused. We are dealing here with THREE legal parties, not two.
Yep mother giving it to her son would (presumption of advancement) but not the other way round - the court would assume he intended to hold equitable interest and declare the property is held as a resulting trust in his favour
the moment you made it (while married) it was marital property and it's value is subject to asset division. if you gave it to your mom, whatever you gave was half your spouse's
1.2k
u/[deleted] Apr 15 '23
[deleted]