Top Law Schools

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 about right. Property law is a bitch.

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

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?

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?

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

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.

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?

Sexist but hilarious!

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.

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.

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...

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.

mens rea.

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.

sprezzatura wrote:Donkey - I'm a woman
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.

bananasinpajamas wrote:mens rea.

Nope, causation .

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.

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....

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.

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).

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.

Thread Hijack -

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

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.

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.

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