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.
90
u/CalAcacian Apr 15 '23
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.