Paterno sold family home to wife for $1

christiefan915

christiefan915

Catalyst
Suspicious to me.

"The New York Times is reporting that ex-Penn State football coach Joe Paterno, 84, in July transferred ownership of his State College home to his wife, Sue, for $1. But without more information from the Paternos, it's impossible to say why.

Their lawyer told the newspaper that the move was just part of estate planning and unrelated to the Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal, which led to Paterno's firing a week ago. Sandusky was arrested earlier this month, but The Patriot-News first reported about a grand-jury investigation of Sandusky in March.

A lawyer not connected to the case is cited as saying the move could protect assets if Paterno is sued over the scandal.

The house is valued at more than a half million dollars."

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/joe_paterno_sold_family_home_t.html
 
M'eh. People do these quit claims all the time for several reasons. The most likely reason people do it, and if you do it before it is filed, is to avoid losing the home in a lawsuit.

However, that would not be the case here as in most states your wife's assets are considered shared assets and would be open to the lawsuit regardless.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
could be any number of reasons for this move other than the sandusky scandal. anyone know what the communal property laws are in penn?
Click to expand...

Equitable distribution.

"Marital assets include property and income acquired during the marriage. A home, business owned by the parties, furniture, retirement accounts, other investments and cars purchased during the marriage are examples of marital assets. In these examples, the thing may be a marital asset even if it was acquired in only one spouse's name as long as it was acquired during the marriage. Some assets may have both a marital and non-marital component. In that case, the non-marital value of the asset is excluded from the equitable distribution process."

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_equitable_distribution
 
It will likely be deemed a fraudlent transfer if it can be proven he knew of the likelyhood of a claim prior to the transfer.
 
Jarod said:
It will likely be deemed a fraudlent transfer if it can be proven he knew of the likelyhood of a claim prior to the transfer.
Click to expand...

Seriously? You are a fucking lawyer and that is what you 'think'?

On what grounds would it be fraudulent Jarod? Please, reference the legal precedence that would make this fraud.
 
Superfreak said:
Seriously? You are a fucking lawyer and that is what you 'think'?

On what grounds would it be fraudulent Jarod? Please, reference the legal precedence that would make this fraud.
Click to expand...


There is this thing called the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. Perhaps you should look it up.
 
Jarod said:
It will likely be deemed a fraudlent transfer if it can be proven he knew of the likelyhood of a claim prior to the transfer.
Click to expand...

the transfer itself would not be considered fraudulent, the intent in transferring it could be and thus likely overturned if it violates laws....for example BK laws on transfers right before you file BK.
 
Jarod said:
It will likely be deemed a fraudlent transfer if it can be proven he knew of the likelyhood of a claim prior to the transfer.
Click to expand...

I doubt that. Again. I've yet to see a state where the spouses holdings obtained during the marriage are not up for grabs as well as those of the dude. It isn't very likely the quit claim was due to a lawsuit.
 
Damocles said:
I doubt that. Again. I've yet to see a state where the spouses holdings obtained during the marriage are not up for grabs as well as those of the dude. It isn't very likely the quit claim was due to a lawsuit.
Click to expand...

It depends on how title in the property is held. For example, Massachusetts has tenancy by the entirety among a husband a wife such that property held in that form is not available to satisfy the obligations of just one of the spouses.
 
Damocles said:
I doubt that. Again. I've yet to see a state where the spouses holdings obtained during the marriage are not up for grabs as well as those of the dude. It isn't very likely the quit claim was due to a lawsuit.
Click to expand...

you can turn CP into SP. and this is what it appears he is trying to do.
 
Cornholio said:
There is this thing called the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. Perhaps you should look it up.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should. There are no lawsuits pending against Paterno. He is not bankrupt. He is transferring his home into his wifes name. This is common for estate planning and occurs for many his age. It is a prudent move on his part financially speaking. If suits come up in the future, whether or not the asset can be attached will depend on state law, but the more time that goes by between now and the suit, the less likely it can be attached. Given that what Joe did was a moral issue, there aren't any legal violations.... ethical absolutely, but legal? None that have been presented thus far.

But please, do go on and explain how THIS transfer falls under THAT act.
 
Superfreak said:
Perhaps you should. There are no lawsuits pending against Paterno. He is not bankrupt. He is transferring his home into his wifes name. This is common for estate planning and occurs for many his age. It is a prudent move on his part financially speaking. If suits come up in the future, whether or not the asset can be attached will depend on state law, but the more time that goes by between now and the suit, the less likely it can be attached. Given that what Joe did was a moral issue, there aren't any legal violations.... ethical absolutely, but legal? None that have been presented thus far.

But please, do go on and explain how THIS transfer falls under THAT act.
Click to expand...


You disputed that it could be deemed a fraudulent transfer. Well, it could.
 
Superfreak said:
Seriously? You are a fucking lawyer and that is what you 'think'?

On what grounds would it be fraudulent Jarod? Please, reference the legal precedence that would make this fraud.
Click to expand...

People try to do it all the time to try and protect assets. Sounds like Paternoster needs a new lawyer.
 
Superfreak said:
No. It could not. Read the act again.
Click to expand...

I have. Here is the relevant language:

(a) A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor, whether the creditor's claim arose before or after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation:

(1) with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor; or

(2) without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation, and the debtor:

(i) was engaged or was about to engage in a business or a transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction; or

(ii) intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he [or she] would incur, debts beyond his [or her] ability to pay as they became due.
Click to expand...


If Joe transferred title to his home to his wife for $1 and believed or reasonably should have believed that he would incur debts beyond his ability to pay as a result of a civil lawsuit, it could be deemed a fraudulent transfer.
 
Superfreak said:
Perhaps you should. There are no lawsuits pending against Paterno. He is not bankrupt. He is transferring his home into his wifes name. This is common for estate planning and occurs for many his age. It is a prudent move on his part financially speaking. If suits come up in the future, whether or not the asset can be attached will depend on state law, but the more time that goes by between now and the suit, the less likely it can be attached. Given that what Joe did was a moral issue, there aren't any legal violations.... ethical absolutely, but legal? None that have been presented thus far.

But please, do go on and explain how THIS transfer falls under THAT act.
Click to expand...

Civil suits, and I would bring one against all party's if I was a victim.
 
Yurt said:
the transfer itself would not be considered fraudulent, the intent in transferring it could be and thus likely overturned if it violates laws....for example BK laws on transfers right before you file BK.
Click to expand...

You have explained it better, but for our reasons here today what I said is the same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top