swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,617
|
Post by swamp on Mar 7, 2014 8:44:27 GMT -5
We don't know if it's legally off the table. We have Zib's second hand account of the legal issues.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Mar 7, 2014 8:47:53 GMT -5
We don't know if it's legally off the table. We have Zib's second hand account of the legal issues. And we know Zib is not biased, but the judge definitely is. (?)
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Mar 7, 2014 8:56:42 GMT -5
Look, the judge didnt say it out loud of course. Just a coincidence that alimony, never mentioned by either party up to that point, ended up being almost the exact amount of the untouchable inheritance. Judges can do whatever they want pretty much. Or he could have awarded her 60 per cent. This was the judges way of saying "nice try" keeping that inheritance separate but giving DF a little carrot by giving him a deduction on his taxes.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Mar 7, 2014 8:59:08 GMT -5
Even in community property California inheritances are off the table if kept separate.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Mar 7, 2014 9:00:20 GMT -5
Anyway, like I said, she's lucky DF is a nice guy.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,617
|
Post by swamp on Mar 7, 2014 9:16:03 GMT -5
Even in community property California inheritances are off the table if kept separate. There are certain exceptions.
1. Inheritence is stocks. The person spends lots of time and energy monitoring them, trading them, researching them, or the spouse does. There can be some transformation to marital property.
2. Real Estate. Marital money spent paying taxes, upkeep, and renovations. Nontitled spouse does work on it.
Yes, it is the general rule that inheritences kept separate are separate property, but there are always some exceptions.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Mar 7, 2014 9:28:34 GMT -5
Well, he got to keep his inheritance!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 8, 2024 20:20:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2014 11:09:51 GMT -5
My California cousin was in the middle of a divorce when she got an inheritance from my grandmother. She was worried that she would have to share it with her soon to be ex, but in the end she was able to keep it all.
|
|
8 Bit WWBG
Administrator
Your Money admin
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 8:57:29 GMT -5
Posts: 9,322
Today's Mood: Mega
|
Post by 8 Bit WWBG on Mar 7, 2014 16:57:13 GMT -5
...:::"Seriously, why all the judicial hate?":::...
Because of precisely what you said: total immunity from reckless damaging decisions regardless of the consequences to anyone else. I want to have faith in the system, I really do. I'm sure there are excellent and devoted individuals out there who put a lot of thought into their judgments and who back them up with solid rational reason.
So lets say Zib's anecdote is solid, and not biased. Lets say the inheritance should have been kept separate. What now, the DH has to go through a lengthy appeal process? Because sure, even though the inheritance was "technically" left intact, the resulting judgment, from a material standpoint, resulted in a similar-enough outcome as if the inheritance was divided?
And how egregious does a violation have to be? Is anything less than a front-page mistake just one of those "slap on the wrist" type of cases where the judge would get told to "be careful next time", but nothing actually come from it? Are there precedents of counties being forced to compensate individuals as a result of those sorts of mistakes?
Scary stuff...
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Mar 7, 2014 17:52:07 GMT -5
Plus, not to mention it costs thousands of dollars and its very doubtful another judge would right any wrong that the first judge did. In the first judges eyes, he did no wrong. He wanted things "fair." That DF had some money left to him and not his EX wasnt "fair" to this judge. This is why I'm totally cool with a prenup. It isn't fair and DF got screwed once. Frankly he was screwed many times but he let her and her children do it to him so you want to be a doormat, then you are one.
|
|