The judge ascertains whose assets are whose based on state law. In pretty much all states premarital assets that have not been comingled are separate assets. The same applies to inheritances. Assets accrued during the marriage are marital assets in pretty much all states as well, and debts accrued during the marriage are mostly marital debts. Debts that go with assets stay with whoever gets the asset. Debts for things that benefit only one spouse (ie student loans if there is no alimony involved) often stay with that person. In community property states, community property law applies, in equitable division states judges have a little more leeway although things normally stay 50/50 on marital debts and assets barring any unusual circumstances.thanks - just wanted to try to see how judge ascertains which assets are whose. and what happens when assets are in trusts, versus when not in a trust
Again, if the trust is a revocable trust the assets are going to be treated as if they were not in a trust at all...just like they are treated for tax purposes. If he had most of the wealth before marriage and nothing was comingled, then the wealth is going to remain his sole property whether it's in a trust or not.yea, i knew they couldnt place into a trust to escape. but i was curious what occurred if the property was already in a trust. most of these properties are in trusts, labeled with just the husband as trustee. he probably had most of the wealth before marriage.
The entire divorce action is a lawsuit. The asset distribution is simply part of that lawsuit.if a divorce goes to trial to distribute the assets, is there ever a time when one spouse is considered to be suing the other spouse ?
Divorce courts are courts of equity, not of law. While the distinction between actions in equity and in law is not as significant today as it was a century ago, it still is important in certain types of actions. Divorce and bankruptcy being the two most common equitable actions. While a trust may only list one spouse as the beneficiary, a court may nevertheless reform or dissolve the trust or take other corrective action to achieve an equitable result in the divorce. This is true whether the trust is revocable or not, though there are more conditions that must be met and more hoops to jump through for the irrevocable trust. The judge is going to look at factors like when the trust was formed and funded, what the source of the funds were, who the beneficiaries and trustee are etc., in deciding how to proceed. Those beneficiaries who are not part of the divorce action may be allowed, in the case of an irrevocable trust, intervene to protect their beneficial interests in the trust.the irs treats them the same. but i am not sure that is true in states ? lets wait to see what tm says about that one.
With a revocable trust in particular, the outcome will be pretty much the same as it would be if the the assets had never been in a trust. In a divorce action, in general the property a spouse held prior to the marriage is not subject to division in the divorce, whether that asset was in a revocable trust or owned directly by the spouse.yea, i knew they couldnt place into a trust to escape. but i was curious what occurred if the property was already in a trust. most of these properties are in trusts, labeled with just the husband as trustee. he probably had most of the wealth before marriage.
You won't know the status until the court addressses the property division in the divorce. A lis pendens is not a lien in favor of either party. It is simply notice of a lawsuit in which the title and/or rights to the property are at issue. That's exactly why people avoid buying property (unless really cheap) that has a lis pendens on it. Your lien interest, if you have lien already filed before the lis pendens, should remain on the property but beyond that I can't guess what that lien interest would be worth as I don't have all the facts.the wife is the party who recorded the lis pendens. if the property is awarded to her, is our lien wiped off the books ? if the property is awarded to him, we could sue him (he is co-owner of the loan company)