Anyway:
In a long legal battle between the two women that ended Tuesday, Shelly Sterling argued the money and gifts her husband generously lavished on Stiviano, weren’t his to lavish. It was joint property. In California, assets earned in marriage belong to both parties and cannot be given away without consent. And Shelly Sterling most definitely did not do that.The old joint property move!
पोस्ट्स
२५ टिप्पण्या:
Kudos to the wife. That was a brilliant revenge.
Somehow. You sound surprised that she won. But given the law, should you be?
I'm pleased for the wife in this case. Gold-diggers beware! Make sure your paramour divorces his wife before you accept any gift. Or at the very least get a notarized statement from the wife that she agrees to the gift-showering that you are enjoying.
Note that gifts of titled assets are targeted. They are still findable and attachable. Cash or jewelry are gone with the wind.
Nice to see a golddigger have her scheme backfire. But what a frightening legal concept--if someone in California gives you a gift, you now have to be certain that they are not married or if they are, that their spouse agrees to give you the gift before you can accept it? Does this rule have a sort of "bona fide purchaser" equivalent for a donee of gifts?
I see traditionalguy answered my question.
Thanks traditionalguy for the clarification!
Message to spouses being two-timed: Keep a close rein on the checkbook!
Good, I despise that "woman" and if she can't be devoured by real sharks, legal ones will do.
Of course in law, I suppose you're not supposed to root for the result but for the process, so I wouldn't be able to speak to that. I certainly thinks that anytime some harpy gets her claws into some old fool, there should be some sort of justice by which I mean stripping her of IGG. as Obama wants to do to the coal industry, I think gold diggers should be driven out of business. Let them learn to type.
She was one of the most unappealing characters thrust into my focus in ages. It is hard to have any feelings about this than happiness.
At first I thought this was a Mad Men post.
In California, assets earned in marriage belong to both parties and cannot be given away without consent.
But they are earned without consent...
And Shelly Sterling most definitely did not do that.
"we felt compelled to talk about them constantly"
I know what you're saying, but still -- "we" did not feel so compelled. In fact, seeing through the manipulation inevitably involved in all racial politics these days, to turn sordid episodes into convenient morality tales, some of "us" resisted the compulsion.
The question isn't consent, if California's community property law is like other community property states (including Texas, where I'm licensed). Maybe it's not; California has screwed up plenty of laws on its own. But in Texas and, I believe, in most other community property states, the question is whether a disposition of community property constituted a "fraud on the community." And that's much harder to show than mere lack of consent. I suspect these facts might have met that standard.
I also suspect that the WaPo has misstated California law, but I'm insufficiently concerned to bother doing any research about it. There aren't enough hours in the day to catch and correct all of the WaPo's mistakes.
Cash or jewelry are gone with the wind.
Did Sterling give her $1.2m in cash or by check?
If given by Sterling to her by check, with evidence of the cashed check receipt and if she has bank accounts and or other assets, why couldn't these be liquidated for repayment?
It just goes to show that for such women, it's about the money, not love.
Good. It's good to see marriage taken seriously.
Marriage and property are so weird.
I haven't had it explained to my satisfaction *why* a spouse has a right to assets he/she did not earn.
I have a friend going through a divorce right now. Comfortable but not rich; no kids; wife sat at home and quilted and gardened and smoked pot for 25 years while he worked hard and amassed some degree of wealth. Why should she be entitled to half of what she did not earn?
I do not think Donald Sterling was an "old fool." From the reporting, I think he knew quite well what he was paying for, and there were no misunderstandings between him and Stiviano.
Also, they did not make any secret of their relationship, neither to Mrs. Sterling nor the rest of the world.
It may have been a dirty bargain in your opinion, but it was Donald Sterling's money, and the bargain should have been honored.
Fuck her.
How do you make a hormone?
Don't pay her.
Did you see that cunt? I wouldn't fuck her with your dick. PS, you are welcome.
There's no accounting for taste, but for betraying him, she should have been brutally murdered. If that was an available remedy under law, I would consent to have her estate distribute her ill gotten gains.
I haven't had it explained to my satisfaction *why* a spouse has a right to assets he/she did not earn.
Because in marriage you are no longer individuals but a unit. Anything either person earns goes into the unit. You're a team. If you didn't do it that way, marriage wouldn't mean anything financially. It would also mean that both people, if each wanted any financial security, would have to work. You'd have no legal protection for spouses without careers outside the home, even if both spouses had agreed that one would focus on making the money while the other focused on something else (homemaking, child rearing, volunteering, whatever.) And if you were going to look at it purely in terms of earnings, you'd have to account for all of the unpaid work provided by the stay-at-home spouse under the assumption that the earnings of the breadwinner would be shared.
Apparently Sterling wasn't all that senile when it came to buying the cars. Two Bentley's, a Ferrari and a Land Rover for $400k, the old boy must have bought them used. As for the wife, she wanted revenge and she got it. At her level of wealth, a couple of mil is pocket change.
traditionalguy said...
Note that gifts of titled assets are targeted. They are still findable and attachable. Cash or jewelry are gone with the wind.
Hence the attraction between women and jewelry.
Cash on deposit in a bank account in Viv's name is garnishable only because it is no longer cash. It is a chose in action against the bank with a clear title owner.
$100 bills are cash. Good luck finding them.
Wife takes back the sums that the other woman earned on her back.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा