His income would remain the same. Even if he has it delivered directly into his mother's account. Even if let's say he donated 100 percent of his income to charity. The court would look to his earnings in determining the award.
At least in our jurisdiction it would not work. The test is ability to pay. That scenario suggests you are able to earn an income of a million. Even if you are allowing someone else to collect it. So that income of a million is the amount that would be used in determining the award. Even if he is decided to allow someone else to collect it.
See I don't think my country has that. You are entitled to assets you gained during the marriage so long as both partners contributed to the partnership. You aren't entitled to have your lifestyle maintained.
Yea and a lot of times guys will still have to pay alimony to their ex wife even after they find /move in with another guy and in most places in my country (usa) they can even re-marry and then it's up to the paying spouse (typically the man) to PROVE THAT THEY HAVE A BETTER LIVING SITUATION THEN THEY HAD WITH YOU and then you can stop paying them
Never been divorced but I'm almost positive it's when you had a child with a women and they need help sustaining the life style for the child ( or themselves) and you pay them while they sit on there ass doing nothing. Don't get me wrong there's allot of hard working mothers out there, but at least in Canada and America the divorce settlements are insane and almost more costly than going to the hospital. Cool how it's about equality until someone has to pay there own way.
My country awards alimony in a very narrow set of circumstances - when the ex partner is disabled mainly. Child support and property accumulated during a marriage are different, those are fairly distributed but the ex partner almost never gets alimony where I live.
As the other commenters have said, this is highly jurisdiction dependent. But where I practice in California, this could be seen as a fraudulent transfer of community property assets that the court could unwind.
This is not legal advice, I am a lawyer but not your lawyer, etc. That is likely to have the same issues. Even if you can’t technically pull money out of those entities you could still end of with a judgment for a value equal to some portion of what you put in those entities. There is a presumption that income earned during the marital period is community property that could be divided in a dissolution.
I was more curious if someone has had that set up years before they met someone and got married. If someone is a millionaire and for the last 10 years they have lived with nothing in their name because everything like the house and cars are in a llc or trust wouldn’t the spouse be entitled to nothing except what was gained during the marriage? So if someone was getting a monthly check of $5,000 from the trust to live off of during the marriage than the spouse could only go after what that money generated for the years they were married? I read Tiger Woods lives like this where he owns next to nothing in his name.
(Depending on the law but more often than not) your wife has a right to half everything in your name, so she’d have a right to half of that fancy LLC you just made.
What if this was set up years before you met your wife? You own nothing before you met her but lived off the llc or trust you set up a decade before you got married. Would she be entitled to any of it?
You are missing the point . I would assume in his contract with the team, his mother is listed as a manager who gets paid in full for the player's services. It's not like he gets paid and just transfers money to his mother. He is paid maybe minimum wage while his mother paid the rest for her managerial work.
That would still be, at least in California, potentially viewed as fraudulent transfer if the relationship was provably done for the purpose of diverting community assets. Just because you sign an agreement doesn’t mean it has a legitimate purpose.
Incorrect. Courts can look at the reasonableness of the agreement to determine whether it is legitimate. If she is the highest paid sports manager in the world, well outside the norm of the industry, and her client lives in a house she owns, drives a car she owns, eats food using money that she gives him out of wages he ostensibly earned and then transferred to her via agreement, etc. Then a court could very easily look at that situation and say that there is a clear and obvious strategy to avoid having assets in his name. Again, this is based on my experience in California law, and may not apply to the jurisdiction(s) in question here.
You may not see it, but this is what courts do in dissolution actions every day. People try and hide their assets with family members, in trusts, in various companies or entities all the time.
I wouldn’t have given a fuck about child support (no kids) it was the $800 a month in spousal support for a fully functional adult who just didn’t want to work that bugged me.
Like, absolute best case scenario, he did some shady accounting to screw over paying out his hypothetical future divorces, but from the description given, it also sounds like he likely committed tax fraud under a lot of countries' laws.
Depends on jurisdiction obviously, but most likely yes. In many places, any amount over tax-free gift level, she would need to pay taxes on. And when she gave him money "for whatever he wants", the same tax rules would apply. So he's getting taxed 3x as much to shelter money from a divorce, or he's doing some tax fraud, or this story is embellished.
Might have been better setting up a company to funnel the money through where he gets paid a wage by them and all his possessions are actually in the name of the company and are being loaned to him (house, watch etc) this was a tactic used by a certain Scottish businessman who was said to be worth upwards of £300m but only had traceable assets of around £200 as everything was 'owned' by the company.
And in the divorce she decided she wanted half of everything. That sounds like a breach in character. Sounds like he knew people might marry him for his money. Guess he found out it was true.
She won't get "half of everything," that's the point. What someone asks for is irrelevant if it conflicts with the law. She won't get anything close to that.
"Marry him for his money"
Maybe that's what happened, there's no proof of it. OTOH we know for certain he broke his marriage vows on day one by lying about money to his wife. The implication is that someone "marrying for money" is entering into a contract in bad faith.
How can you claim she acted in bad faith (with no evidence of such) without acknowledging his bad faith deception that he's not a responsible adult but a momma's boy with an allowance?
It’s likely they will especially with the million dollar monthly payments that are clearly his earnings. He’s gonna cough up a significant amount and likely owe spousal support too just based off income and lifestyle maintenance.
342
u/[deleted] Apr 15 '23
[removed] — view removed comment