When it comes to debts, spouses are granted too much protection in the courts

Laminations

Behind every good man there is a great woman and behind every bad man there is a brazen unashamed profiteering wife.

Why are spouses so protected against their partners debts? Why when they indulge in the lifestyle and share in the profits are they protected from the loses? Why are they allowed to be used as legal vessels into which assets can be siphoned?

The recent case of Fred Forsey got me thinking of this. While whistleblowers should receive protection (not that his wife was doing it for anything but revenge) they should be similarly punished if they benefitted from the scheme they make public. While Mrs Forsey was spending the bribes she kept schtum, knowing where the money was coming from, for almost a year.

In September they bought new furniture, new windows, new carpets, a new fireplace and a new three-piece suite for their house; spending she said in excess of €10,000 and she assumed it was part of the €30,000 her husband said he had got from the property developer.

source

But there are many cases -

Michael Lynn's loyal wife Brid Murphy

Brid Murphy was claiming that she was entitled to 50% of the proceeds of the sale of the house she bought with her husband and that ACC Bank did not have a prior entitlement to the money.

Brid Murphy also said she signed documents without reading them because she trusted her husband.

source

That old excuse of the silly doting wife, signing any old thing put in front of her and then when things go wrong trying to hang on regardless of how the purchases were funded or what they were leveraged against - which brings us on to Patricia Quinn (and children)

Senior Counsel Brian O'Moore outlined how in 2007 Sean Quinn senior began to invest in Contract for Difference positions in Anglo Irish Bank shares.
This built up until a company incorporated to conduct these investments - Bazzely Limited - had an interest of around a quarter of Anglo's entire issued share capital.
Mr O'Moore said Mrs Quinn and the five Quinn children were not aware that this was being done.

source

I'm sure they weren't aware of how he was making money but they sure enough were entitled to spend it.

But there is also Mrs Lorraine Drumm's settlement

While it is difficult at this stage to figure out how much Lorraine Drumm will end up with, the gross sums involved are well over €1m.
This will be viewed as her money and cannot now be touched by the bankruptcy court. Mr Drumm faces a full bankruptcy trial in Boston early next year.

Mrs Catriona Fitzpatrick claiming for half of her husband Seanie's pension but not liable for half his debts

Catriona FitzPatrick could be entitled to half of her husband's €3.4m pension pot.
Creditors will also be unable to touch her interest -- potentially worth as much as €2m -- in at least five properties co-owned with her husband.

And she seems to retain half the assets

Creditors who are chasing him for €150 million can only claim half the value of these properties as Catriona FitzPatrick owns 50 per
cent.

But sure Seanie was able to pay off all his family loans in a bizarre transaction

And it isn't restricted to corporate debts and scandal

John Gilligan's wife tied up the courts for 14 years claiming she was entitled to properties and she might have gotten away with it (see below from UK)- AFAIK it is not over, I think the decision has been appealed to the Supreme Court

Britain's law enforcement and prosecuting agencies, including Customs and the Serious Organised Crime Agency, are studying the implications of the ruling, which leaves them powerless to confiscate criminal proceeds from a spouse who has not been convicted of any offence where property is jointly owned.

So behind every disgraced banker, developer, solicitor, businessman and criminal is a wealthy wife and family.

4.legs.good

No offence but you are presuming guilt by association.
Its up to the courts to decide whether someone is guilty or not (and assume they are innocent until proven guilty!)

Now if there is "shady" carry on the question you should be asking are:
Why are the Gardai etc not investigating suspicious carry on?

Families of these guys might or might not be guilty of all sorts of stuff, but painting everyone with same brush and presuming guilt stinks of McCarthyism of sorts

Laminations

4.legs.good wrote: »

No offence but you are presuming guilt by association.
Its up to the courts to decide whether someone is guilty or not (and assume they are innocent until proven guilty!)

Now if there is "shady" carry on the question you should be asking are:
Why are the Gardai etc not investigating suspicious carry on?

Families of these guys might or might not be guilty of all sorts of stuff, but painting everyone with same brush and presuming guilt stinks of McCarthyism of sorts

I'm not assuming guilt - the wives shouldn't have the benefit of assets (or half of assets) purchased a) through bogus loans and fraud - Lynn b) through loans that have still to be (and cannot be) repaid - Quinn, Fitzpatrick, Drumm c) through corruption and bribery - Forsey d) the proceeds of crime - Gilligan.

The wives don't need to be guilty, complicit or even aware of how the assets were accrued, they shouldn't just get half of them and then none of the debt

Laminations

If your partner takes out a loan and buys you a house, when he cannot repay that loan, or when it emerges he loaned himself the money in a dodgy transaction, or that he got the loan through fraudulent means or he simply stole the money or earned it through drug sales, you shouldn't be allowed say 'well half of that house is mine, and I'm not a criminal so I should get to keep it'

4.legs.good

Laminations wrote: »

I'm not assuming guilt - the wives shouldn't have the benefit of assets (or half of assets) purchased a) through bogus loans and fraud - Lynn b) through loans that have still to be (and cannot be) repaid - Quinn, Fitzpatrick, Drumm c) through corruption and bribery - Forsey d) the proceeds of crime - Gilligan.

The wives don't need to be guilty, complicit or even aware of how the assets were accrued, they shouldn't just get half of them and then none of the debt

Once again that's for the Gardai to prosecute and courts to judge on, going on about it here in the manner you've done seems to me to be very petty.

Btw the politicians must be loving any news in the media which deflects attention about their corruptions and incompetence towards someone else.

You are basing your opinion on media reports which might or might not be true. The media in this country are incompetent, biased and have no issues with blowing stories out of all proportions in order to catch advertising eyeballs.

Laminations wrote: »

If your partner takes out a loan and buys you a house, when he cannot repay that loan, or when it emerges he loaned himself the money in a dodgy transaction, or that he got the loan through fraudulent means or he simply stole the money or earned it through drug sales, you shouldn't be allowed say 'well half of that house is mine, and I'm not a criminal so I should get to keep it'

Who writes the laws in this country? And why would the politicians who do write the laws, do anything about it when they themselves are corrupt??

Laminations

4.legs.good wrote: »

Once again that's for the Gardai to prosecute and courts to judge on, going on about it here in the manner you've done seems to me to be very petty.

The husbands in the cases I mention have either already been found guilty or are undeniably in debt - debt that far exceeds their assets

Who do you want put on trial and for what? I'm again not suggesting that the spouses are guilty of anything except benefitting from the assets that were 'acquired' by their husbands

Laminations

4.legs.good wrote: »

O
You are basing your opinion on media reports which might or might not be true. The media in this country are incompetent, biased and have no issues with blowing stories out of all proportions in order to catch advertising eyeballs.

Which of the media sources listed do you think is blown out of all proportion?

Laminations

4.legs.good wrote: »

Who writes the laws in this country? And why would the politicians who do write the laws, do anything about it when they themselves are corrupt??

Yes, undoubtedly there are politicians who shift assets to wives to protect them and use their wives accounts as havens for ill-gotten money - and I suppose once they don't have an affair, they'll get away with it.

4.legs.good

Laminations wrote: »

The husbands in the cases I mention have either already been found guilty or are undeniably in debt - debt that far exceeds their assets

Who allowed these guys to get into so much debt?

Laminations wrote: »

Who do you want put on trial and for what?

Thats not for me to decide, I am not a prosecutor.

Laminations wrote: »

I'm again not suggesting that the spouses are guilty of anything except benefitting from the assets that were 'acquired' by their husbands

Spouses are not the only one who benefited from assets "acquired" by their husbands:
1. Revenue benefit by collecting various taxes on transfer
2. Local economy benefits by the wives doing up these homes and buying things for it.
And thats just top of my head, should these be prosecuted too? Why draw the line a wives?
The previous government did quite well for itself for a long time out of the schemes coming out of Anglo and other banks. Should FF have to answer too?

Laminations wrote: »

Yes, undoubtedly there are politicians who shift assets to wives to protect them and use their wives accounts as havens for ill-gotten money - and I suppose once they don't have an affair, they'll get away with it.

"The wife" is just one of many loopholes in the system and the government keeps creating more all the time.


You have good intentions of wanting to close this hole, but I don't think it will be since it benefits quite a lot of people in power. And anyways what would you propose to close this loophole?
* make every wife out there pay for half the house?
* make any marriage where a partner is found to be a criminal null and void?** what about kids, why should kids suffer at mistakes of parent(s)?

Laminations

4.legs.good wrote: »

You have good intentions of wanting to close this hole, but I don't think it will be since it benefits quite a lot of people in power. And anyways what would you propose to close this loophole?
* make every wife out there pay for half the house?
* make any marriage where a partner is found to be a criminal null and void?** what about kids, why should kids suffer at mistakes of parent(s)?

Change the rules around transfer of assets, making it impossible if that asset has been used as leverage against something else, and making it easily recoverable if it was acquired through unsecured loans or by criminal means (this would involve broadening the definition of criminality to encompass far more white collar corporate negligence type stuff. Make a family home the house where the family is, not the house and lifestyle the family has become accustomed to, seeing as that can be an illusion, a house of cards, a complex web of financial hokey pokery. So the family homes, if valuable/liquidable, are seized and council housing used instead.

Kids always suffer for the mistakes of parents. Why should kids benefit from ill-gotten assets or from a loan that will never be repaid?

Laminations

4.legs.good wrote: »

Who allowed these guys to get into so much debt?

These guys aren't animals being led around on a leash. They made choices. When their choices were good, they enjoyed it with wives and kids, when their choices were bad....it is someone else's fault, no touching the wife's stuff

Markcheese

4.legs.good wrote: »

Laminations wrote: »

The husbands in the cases I mention have either already been found guilty or are undeniably in debt - debt that far exceeds their assets

Who allowed these guys to get into so much debt?

Laminations wrote: »

Who do you want put on trial and for what?

Thats not for me to decide, I am not a prosecutor.

Laminations wrote: »

I'm again not suggesting that the spouses are guilty of anything except benefitting from the assets that were 'acquired' by their husbands

Spouses are not the only one who benefited from assets "acquired" by their husbands:
1. Revenue benefit by collecting various taxes on transfer
2. Local economy benefits by the wives doing up these homes and buying things for it.
And thats just top of my head, should these be prosecuted too? Why draw the line a wives?
The previous government did quite well for itself for a long time out of the schemes coming out of Anglo and other banks. Should FF have to answer too?

Laminations wrote: »

Yes, undoubtedly there are politicians who shift assets to wives to protect them and use their wives accounts as havens for ill-gotten money - and I suppose once they don't have an affair, they'll get away with it.

"The wife" is just one of many loopholes in the system and the government keeps creating more all the time.


You have good intentions of wanting to close this hole, but I don't think it will be since it benefits quite a lot of people in power. And anyways what would you propose to close this loophole?
* make every wife out there pay for half the house?
* make any marriage where a partner is found to be a criminal null and void?** what about kids, why should kids suffer at mistakes of parent(s)?

???? Are you reading the same posts I read , you seem to be finding arguments and implications that I can't see in the Op 's post . Spouses being forced to pay half of the house ? Marriage to a criminal making wedding void ? Kids ? Courts deciding on culpability of spouses ?
I don't think anyone has a right to a "champagne lifestyle" because they're used to it ... If your in for half the profits you should be in for half the liabilities ... Pensions and family homes included -- admittedly complicated if the spouse is independently wealthy... ie left or made their money as opposed to suddenly acquiring wealth just before their spouse gets into trouble....
As ever we haves complex legal system but not a justice system ....

4.legs.good

Laminations wrote: »

Change the rules around transfer of assets, making it impossible if that asset has been used as leverage against something else, and making it easily recoverable if it was acquired through unsecured loans or by criminal means (this would involve broadening the definition of criminality to encompass far more white collar corporate negligence type stuff. Make a family home the house where the family is, not the house and lifestyle the family has become accustomed to, seeing as that can be an illusion, a house of cards, a complex web of financial hokey pokery. So the family homes, if valuable/liquidable, are seized and council housing used instead.

Kids always suffer for the mistakes of parents. Why should kids benefit from ill-gotten assets or from a loan that will never be repaid?

Once again you have good intentions but this is crazy and I give you a quick example as to why.

* Entrepreneur A starts a company, he and Wife A (:D!) have a Home A
* Entrepreneur gets a loan for company and gives personal guarantee since its the only way he would have a chance of getting a loan in this day and age
* Company A goes bust lets say due to competition from Company B,C,D (nothing criminal)

Entrepreneur A not only loses his company but his home, and him with Wife A and Kids X,Y,Z endup in social housing (it takes many many years btw to get social housing!).


Why would anyone in their right mind start a business then? Its already pretty pointless to have a company in this country.

Markcheese wrote: »

???? Are you reading the same posts I read , you seem to be finding arguments and implications that I can't see in the Op 's post . Spouses being forced to pay half of the house ? Marriage to a criminal making wedding void ? Kids ? Courts deciding on culpability of spouses ?
I don't think anyone has a right to a "champagne lifestyle" because they're used to it ... If your in for half the profits you should be in for half the liabilities ... Pensions and family homes included -- admittedly complicated if the spouse is independently wealthy... ie left or made their money as opposed to suddenly acquiring wealth just before their spouse gets into trouble....
As ever we haves complex legal system but not a justice system ....

Why would people get married at all if they could be held liable for the other half's problems?

There are already little few reasons for people to marry and in many cases better for couples to stay separate and milk the welfare system.

Laminations

4.legs.good wrote: »

Once again you have good intentions but this is crazy and I give you a quick example as to why.

* Entrepreneur A starts a company, he and Wife A (:D!) have a Home A
* Entrepreneur gets a loan for company and gives personal guarantee since its the only way he would have a chance of getting a loan in this day and age
* Company A goes bust lets say due to competition from Company B,C,D (nothing criminal)

Entrepreneur A not only loses his company but his home, and him with Wife A and Kids X,Y,Z endup in social housing.

Why would anyone in their right mind start a business then? Its already pretty pointless to have a company in this country.

You can't sign over your home as security without consent from the wife AFAIK. If Mrs Quinn and Mrs Lynn etc want to plead ignorance over the undertakings that they signed they can try - but they should fail. An entrepreneur should not have to sign away his home for the business. And in the scenario you paint he is really putting up as security something which cannot be seized so why would a bank ever accept the family home as security for a loan??

Is is either a viable, recoverable asset / security or it is not

Laminations

4.legs.good wrote: »

Why would people get married at all if they could be held liable for the other half's problems?

Why are they solely the other half's problems? Some partnership that is. And to answer your question - tax breaks, or less cynically, as a demonstration of their love and committment to each other, for better or worse.

4.legs.good

Laminations wrote: »

You can't sign over your home as security without consent from the wife AFAIK. If Mrs Quinn and Mrs Lynn etc want to plead ignorance over the undertakings that they signed they can try - but they should fail. An entrepreneur should not have to sign away his home for the business. And in the scenario you paint he is really putting up as security something which cannot be seized so why would a bank ever accept the family home as security for a loan??

The banks have been known to do crazy things such as give 100%+ mortgages which ended up a disaster especially with falling prices. And yes many companies did go under and people ended up in great difficulties due to personal guarantees.

Anyways what you are proposing would require a major change in family law and could potentially trigger a referendum.

I am still baffled as to why anyone would want to start a company under such a system.

Laminations

4.legs.good wrote: »

The banks have been known to do crazy things such as give 100%+ mortgages which ended up a disaster especially with falling prices.

These contracts didn't sneak up on people, while borrowings for family homes should be seen as a separate issue to business/investment loans which people intend to turn into profit, homeowners didn't go into banks and sign forms that they thought were for 80% mortgages only to see the glint in the bank managers eye as the pen leaves the paper and they snigger behind their hand 'you just signed up to a 100% mortgage mwhahahahahaha'. These weren't trick contracts.

Chuck Stone

The 'Babe in the Woods' routine.

Bankruptcy and limited liability laws should be tailored to encourage entrepreneurs and innovators not protect white collar criminals and their wives and families accomplices.

Sleepy

If I'm financially responsible for my partner simply because we co-habit (though not entitled to the tax credits we'll get once we're married), I fail to see how a husband or wife shouldn't be financially responsible for their spouse's debts.