I don't believe this guy, but want your take

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
sprezzatura
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:51 am

I don't believe this guy, but want your take

Postby sprezzatura » Sun Feb 28, 2010 12:58 am

Friend of a friend is telling us a pretty crazy story: apparently his wife stole his three-month-old Audi (not paid off) and a bunch of his expensive camera gear and drove off to a different state. She promptly totaled the car and insurance won't pay for it because she rear-ended another car that stopped for an emergency vehicle. So here he's got a wife in Denver with a totaled car demanding that he pay off the rest of it so she can have it, or else she'll leave it on the side of the road so that it gets impounded and he gets stuck with the impound fees because the car is registered to him.
I call shenanigans because it just plain sounds ridiculous, but he insists that he couldn't report his car stolen because he married his wife before he bought the car, thus meaning that despite the fact that she hasn't put a dollar toward it and it's not in her name, she's entitled to it just as much as he is. Same with the camera gear and all the other stuff - since he bought it after he married her, she's entitled to it as well. That can't possibly be the law! Amirite?

User avatar
dextermorgan
Posts: 1138
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:37 am

Re: I don't believe this guy, but want your take

Postby dextermorgan » Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:00 am

Sounds about right. Property law is a bitch.

User avatar
Helmholtz
Posts: 4394
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: I don't believe this guy, but want your take

Postby Helmholtz » Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:02 am

Women are crazy, this is why you get a prenup.

sprezzatura
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:51 am

Re: I don't believe this guy, but want your take

Postby sprezzatura » Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:09 am

So a woman cannot actually steal any property of her husband's that was bought after the marriage? That makes no sense to me. Who in the world thought that was a good idea?

User avatar
holydonkey
Posts: 1184
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:40 pm

Re: I don't believe this guy, but want your take

Postby holydonkey » Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:12 am

sprezzatura wrote:So a woman cannot actually steal any property of her husband's that was bought after the marriage? Who in the world thought that was a good idea?


All women?

sprezzatura
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:51 am

Re: I don't believe this guy, but want your take

Postby sprezzatura » Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:18 am

Donkey - I'm a woman :P
Actually wanted to know WTF was the legal reasoning behind the principle. Anyone?

User avatar
A'nold
Posts: 3622
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: I don't believe this guy, but want your take

Postby A'nold » Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:19 am

If he bought it after they married, it's both of theirs, duh. Community property ft...w/l?

To any C&F officials out there, this was not legal advice. :wink:
Last edited by A'nold on Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mac.empress
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:45 pm

Re: I don't believe this guy, but want your take

Postby mac.empress » Sun Feb 28, 2010 2:06 am

holydonkey wrote:
sprezzatura wrote:So a woman cannot actually steal any property of her husband's that was bought after the marriage? Who in the world thought that was a good idea?


All women?


:lol: Sexist but hilarious!

User avatar
SwollenMonkey
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:28 am

Re: I don't believe this guy, but want your take

Postby SwollenMonkey » Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:37 pm

sprezzatura wrote:Friend of a friend is telling us a pretty crazy story: apparently his wife stole his three-month-old Audi (not paid off) and a bunch of his expensive camera gear and drove off to a different state. She promptly totaled the car and insurance won't pay for it because she rear-ended another car that stopped for an emergency vehicle. So here he's got a wife in Denver with a totaled car demanding that he pay off the rest of it so she can have it, or else she'll leave it on the side of the road so that it gets impounded and he gets stuck with the impound fees because the car is registered to him.
I call shenanigans because it just plain sounds ridiculous, but he insists that he couldn't report his car stolen because he married his wife before he bought the car, thus meaning that despite the fact that she hasn't put a dollar toward it and it's not in her name, she's entitled to it just as much as he is. Same with the camera gear and all the other stuff - since he bought it after he married her, she's entitled to it as well. That can't possibly be the law! Amirite?


Sounds like a movie produced by Guy Ritchie.
Image

imchuckbass58
Posts: 1245
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:24 pm

Re: I don't believe this guy, but want your take

Postby imchuckbass58 » Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:48 pm

Property acquired during the marriage is usually community property (even property acquired before the marriage can be in some caess).

The only big exception is personal trusts, or if it was a gift/inheritance given specifically to one partner.

Usual disclaimers apply that I'm not a lawyer and not qualified to give legal advice.

mhernton
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: I don't believe this guy, but want your take

Postby mhernton » Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:59 pm

In some states its still legal to beat your wife as long as you don't use a stick and thicker than your thumb...So there are trade offs I guess...

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: I don't believe this guy, but want your take

Postby Renzo » Sun Feb 28, 2010 2:03 pm

mhernton wrote:In some states its still legal to beat your wife as long as you don't use a stick and thicker than your thumb...So there are trade offs I guess...

There may possibly be a statute on the books in some state that allows such acts, but I'll guarantee you it isn't legal anywhere.

bananasinpajamas
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:37 pm

Re: I don't believe this guy, but want your take

Postby bananasinpajamas » Sun Feb 28, 2010 2:11 pm

mens rea.
:wink:

nickwar
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:03 pm

Re: I don't believe this guy, but want your take

Postby nickwar » Sun Feb 28, 2010 2:14 pm

Let it get impounded, leave her hanging, get it out of impound when she gives up and eat the losses. That's what he gets for marrying/driving a crazy biatch.

In most states it's her car, too. Community property hurts.

Either that or sack up and steal it back. Community property swings both ways.

User avatar
Kohinoor
Posts: 2756
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: I don't believe this guy, but want your take

Postby Kohinoor » Sun Feb 28, 2010 2:31 pm

sprezzatura wrote:Donkey - I'm a woman :P
Actually wanted to know WTF was the legal reasoning behind the principle. Anyone?

If this wasn't true, no woman would give up her livelihood and contribute to raising a family and maintaining a household. It's weird that you as a female can't see that.

User avatar
mac.empress
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:45 pm

Re: I don't believe this guy, but want your take

Postby mac.empress » Sun Feb 28, 2010 3:41 pm

bananasinpajamas wrote:mens rea.
:wink:


Nope, causation 8) .

helfer snooterbagon
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:04 pm

Re: I don't believe this guy, but want your take

Postby helfer snooterbagon » Sun Feb 28, 2010 3:49 pm

While it may be true that certain states do have a community property doctrine, there are a number of states that still follow the common law doctrine that does not recognize community property. As an illustration, in a state that does not follow the community property doctrine, the widow or widower has a right to a forced share in the estate even if the deceased spouse did not leave anything to the widow or widower.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: I don't believe this guy, but want your take

Postby Renzo » Sun Feb 28, 2010 3:51 pm

helfer snooterbagon wrote:While it may be true that certain states do have a community property doctrine, there are a number of states that still follow the common law doctrine that does not recognize community property. As an illustration, in a state that does not follow the community property doctrine, the widow or widower has a right to a forced share in the estate even if the deceased spouse did not leave anything to the widow or widower.

Someone's been too busy reading a property treatise to pay attention in this thread. Both spouses are alive, so what a widower could do about said car is hardly germane. Unless you're suggesting he kill her....

helfer snooterbagon
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:04 pm

Re: I don't believe this guy, but want your take

Postby helfer snooterbagon » Sun Feb 28, 2010 3:54 pm

Renzo wrote:
helfer snooterbagon wrote:While it may be true that certain states do have a community property doctrine, there are a number of states that still follow the common law doctrine that does not recognize community property. As an illustration, in a state that does not follow the community property doctrine, the widow or widower has a right to a forced share in the estate even if the deceased spouse did not leave anything to the widow or widower.

Someone's been too busy reading a property treatise to pay attention in this thread. Both spouses are alive, so what a widower could do about said car is hardly germane. Unless you're suggesting he kill her....


Or perhaps, asshole, I was pointing out that the argument about community property might not be germane.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: I don't believe this guy, but want your take

Postby Renzo » Sun Feb 28, 2010 4:05 pm

helfer snooterbagon wrote:
Renzo wrote:
helfer snooterbagon wrote:While it may be true that certain states do have a community property doctrine, there are a number of states that still follow the common law doctrine that does not recognize community property. As an illustration, in a state that does not follow the community property doctrine, the widow or widower has a right to a forced share in the estate even if the deceased spouse did not leave anything to the widow or widower.

Someone's been too busy reading a property treatise to pay attention in this thread. Both spouses are alive, so what a widower could do about said car is hardly germane. Unless you're suggesting he kill her....


Or perhaps, asshole, I was pointing out that the argument about community property might not be germane.

Hey there, no need to resort to name-calling just yet. If you're trying to pick a pedantic fight, you should have called someone out on "community property" vs. "common property" or "joint property." But if you were just trying to show off how much you learned from the property E&E, at least try and make it look on-point (it's good practice for exams).

User avatar
A'nold
Posts: 3622
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: I don't believe this guy, but want your take

Postby A'nold » Sun Feb 28, 2010 5:16 pm

Renzo wrote:
helfer snooterbagon wrote:
Renzo wrote:
helfer snooterbagon wrote:While it may be true that certain states do have a community property doctrine, there are a number of states that still follow the common law doctrine that does not recognize community property. As an illustration, in a state that does not follow the community property doctrine, the widow or widower has a right to a forced share in the estate even if the deceased spouse did not leave anything to the widow or widower.

Someone's been too busy reading a property treatise to pay attention in this thread. Both spouses are alive, so what a widower could do about said car is hardly germane. Unless you're suggesting he kill her....


Or perhaps, asshole, I was pointing out that the argument about community property might not be germane.

Hey there, no need to resort to name-calling just yet. If you're trying to pick a pedantic fight, you should have called someone out on "community property" vs. "common property" or "joint property." But if you were just trying to show off how much you learned from the property E&E, at least try and make it look on-point (it's good practice for exams).


+1. helfer snooterbagon's attempt to sound intelligent was sad. When I first mentioned community property, I thought we were all adult/aware enough to understand that there are exceptions without my having to list 4 different ways a minority of states might do something. Also, even in non-community property states, I doubt a husband could buy a car and the wife not have any right to it.

eth3n
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:36 pm

Re: I don't believe this guy, but want your take

Postby eth3n » Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:29 pm

Thread Hijack -

How do you suggest a pre-nup without getting beaten horribly?

icydash
Posts: 417
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:53 pm

Re: I don't believe this guy, but want your take

Postby icydash » Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:50 pm

eth3n wrote:Thread Hijack -

How do you suggest a pre-nup without getting beaten horribly?


Hahaha I love this, and am definitely interested in the answer.

Pearalegal
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:50 am

Re: I don't believe this guy, but want your take

Postby Pearalegal » Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:54 pm

icydash wrote:
eth3n wrote:Thread Hijack -

How do you suggest a pre-nup without getting beaten horribly?


Hahaha I love this, and am definitely interested in the answer.


Marry someone with their own shit she or he values.

charlesjd
Posts: 362
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:28 am

Re: I don't believe this guy, but want your take

Postby charlesjd » Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:03 pm

Pearalegal wrote:
icydash wrote:
eth3n wrote:Thread Hijack -

How do you suggest a pre-nup without getting beaten horribly?


Hahaha I love this, and am definitely interested in the answer.


Marry someone with their own shit she or he values.


+infinity




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BigLawer, Kahlo, lizaregina, splitterfromhell, Stubbazubba, TheSpanishMain and 12 guests