People who encounter the need to pursue a high asset divorce often hesitate to engage in this process for several reasons, not the least of which is that litigated high asset divorce cases tend to make public information that families want kept private.  In addition, the assets available to the spouses can make it possible for these situations to drag on in court for years at a time.  The United Kingdom has seen the same situations arise, and it is now offering a potential solution.

When people of a high net worth decide to end their marriage, they tend to become involved in what can easily become extremely complicated situations as they relate to dividing the marital estate and accounting for all of the assets.  Unfortunately, many of these high asset divorce cases lead to fraudulent attempts to conceal assets and then to allegations regarding this type of conduct.  That appears to be what is occurring in a New York divorce case.

In recent years, the entire country has moved to a system of no-fault divorce which basically allows one spouse to file to end a marriage without having to state grounds for doing so.  The last state to move to this system was New York in 2010, and in conjunction with that change came a new statute that was designed to deal with temporary alimony, or spousal support.  Unfortunately for many people, this temporary alimony law has created much controversy to the point where the law is being reviewed.

In recent years, more and more types of companies have emerged that have helped finance litigation in different types of cases.  Most prominent among these new business models have been companies that provide financing for personal injury cases.  However, a new business model is emerging regarding the funding of high asset divorce cases where one spouse does not have access to the funds necessary to see their way through these battles.

Generally speaking, legal actions and legal situations fall under certain statutes of limitations.  These statutes are basically time limits to bring an action.  The reason for this time limit is in the interests of general justice, but there are exceptions to this rule.  One high asset divorce case in New York could be reinstated despite the fact that it was originally litigated in 1990, as a federal appeals panel has heard arguments regarding this possibility.

The case involves the divorce of billionaire Steven Cohen and his divorce case that dates back over 20 years.  His former wife alleges that Mr. Cohen hid $5.5 million from his 1989 financial statement.  While an obvious statute of limitations argument was made, the former Mrs. Cohen argued that she did not become aware of this alleged hiding of these funds until 2008, and as a result the case should be allowed to continue.

No word or indication was given regarding whether or not this high asset divorce lawsuit would be reinstated, but if the former Mrs. Cohen successfully argued that fraud was the reason that she did not become aware of this $5.5 million for so long, it is possible that the federal appeals court could reinstate the lawsuit.  If so, she could stand to recover these funds if she successfully proves that these allegations are true and accurate.

San Diego High Asset Divorce Lawyers

When people of a high net worth decide that it’s time to end their marriage, these situations that relate to property division can become extremely complicated for many reasons.  In addition, these situations can become antagonistic because of the money that is involved with so many of these matters.  Anyone who faces the possibility of ending their marriage and they have many assets to deal with should take immediate steps to protect their legal rights and interests.

If you are of a high net worth and you are facing the end of your marriage, you need to seek the help of San Diego high asset divorce lawyers who have been fighting for the rights of clients for many years.  Contact the law office of James D. Scott today to schedule an initial consultation.

For many years, academics and other professional researchers have been taking a close look at the institution of marriage from seemingly every angle and perspective imaginable.  One of the most recent studies that was recently completed has shed light on the general income levels of those who have chosen to get married in the United States in recent decades, and the results have been met with a degree of surprise.

Hedge fund managers have not fared well overall in recent years in terms of how they are perceived by the public in the United States.  Given the similar circumstances economically that have hit the United Kingdom, a similar sentiment exists for those who are involved in this profession in that culture.  However, hedge fund managers are continuing to find new ways to make money, and one of those new ideas is also controversial – funding litigated high asset divorce cases.

For many years, people of a high net worth have held back from moving into the divorce process because they were concerned about the costs involved.  Specifically, the most concerning costs for many concerned the issue of spousal support, which could potentially continue on for many years and result in enormous payment requirements for the former spouse who was ordered to provide this support.  However, Florida is the latest state to begin the process of considering a law that would reform and limit the spousal support payments that would be made.

For centuries, affluent people have sometimes encountered trepidation when they thought of how their children or other inheritance beneficiaries would handle those inherited assets once they were transferred.  A  recent study has revealed that those concerns held by people of a high net worth remain, and as a result new strategies are being promoted and discussed that would help to protect those assets, including in the event of a divorce that's encountered by a beneficiary in the future.

Most people understand that the biggest source of disagreement between spouses is money or general financial matters.  Money issues always lead to stress, and over time this stress has led to many divorces.  As a result, researchers have begun to take a look at spouses’ views and habits with regards to money and compare them to other marriages in an effort to define what types of money-related attitudes are most compatible.

In many San Diego high asset divorce cases, one of the catalysts to the spouses having a high net worth is a business ownership interest.  Unfortunately, when proper planning is not in place and a divorce occurs, the ownership interest of that business and even the viability of that business overall can be placed in jeopardy.  This is particularly true when the property division aspect of a divorce case arises and equal value must be provided for each spouse under California’s community property standards.

When people who are of a high net worth decide that they want to end their marriage, the situation can quickly become complicated because of all of the value that must be assigned and ultimately divided.  It’s not uncommon for these San Diego high asset divorce cases to take years to be resolved, particularly if one of the parties feels that he or she is not being treated fairly by the court.  That seems to have been the case with a San Diego high asset divorce case involving Charles and Linda Brandes, who at one time were considered the wealthiest couple in the area.

When people of a high net worth decide that it's time to end their marriage, they generally have more work to do than many others when it comes to organizing their assets and completing the process of dividing them in accordance with California's community property laws.  This is especially true if no proactive steps have been taken by the spouses to label certain assets in certain ways that arguments over them can be avoided.  Most often, this lack of proactive steps involves a business ownership interest.

When people of a high net worth decide that it’s time to pursue a divorce, they often must deal with a complicated property division process such that the result is fair and equitable.  This is particularly difficult when one of the spouses owns a business that has been supplying the family with income and other assets during the marriage.  Unfortunately, mistakes in this regard are often made by those involved to the point where the split is not equitable and/or unforeseen and punitive tax consequences can arise for one or even both spouses sometime down the road.

When San Diego high asset divorce cases arise, they often involve one spouse having an ownership interest in a business that in part defines the value of the marital estate.  Unfortunately, a lack of proper planning could lead to an ex-spouse suddenly becoming a partner in the business that the other spouse owned while the two parties were married.  However, there are steps that can be taken that would help to prevent this possibility and to protect the interests of the other owners of the business and the company’s employees.

When people who are of a high net worth come to the end of their marriage, there is much that needs to be organized and apportioned as part of the marital property division so that the California divorce can move towards a final and legal dissolution. Unfortunately, the more assets that are involved, the more opportunity there is for things to go wrong. One of the most common issues to arise in these situations involves allegations of hidden assets. Anyone who faces this situation should seek the help of experienced San Diego high asset divorce lawyers, and below is a brief overview of this issue.

One of the most infamous recent California high asset divorce cases that has caught the public eye involves Frank and Jamie McCourt.  This couple, depending on whom you ask, own the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team and they've been locked into a bitter fight over their assets and other issues stemming from the case that was filed.  However, this California high asset divorce case still has some similarities to most other cases, including the fact that there are times when spousal support orders will be asked to be adjusted based on economic circumstances.

While it’s rare for anything that occurs in another country to affect the way that divorce cases are handled in the United States or in California, it is worth noting that some decisions that are made abroad should be watched carefully to see how the system of divorce laws develops in response.  The latest issue to arise comes from England, where a court last year ruled that documents that were obtained secretly by one spouse in a divorce proceeding could not be used to prove that assets were being hidden.

When people go through a California divorce, they tend to rely on the fact that if a state law exists that speaks directly to their situation, they can rest assured that such a state law will govern that situation after a divorce is complete.   Specifically, there are laws that are in place that tend to place automatic assumptions into a post-divorce situation that basically remove the ex-spouse from the opportunity to inherit assets from an estate if the other spouse passes away.  Unfortunately, that is not necessarily the case.

Prenuptial agreements are basically contracts that protect the interests of the parties who are about to enter into a marriage.  Unfortunately, many people hesitate to even bring up the idea of formulating a prenuptial agreement because they fear that doing so will lead to a serious conflict.  While that may be the reason that most people do not bring up the idea of such an agreement, a recent poll shows that many people carry regrets with regards to failing to sign a prenuptial agreement before marriage.

Prenuptial agreements are basically contracts that protect the interests of the parties who are about to enter into a marriage.  Unfortunately, many people hesitate to even bring up the idea of formulating a prenuptial agreement because they fear that doing so will lead to a serious conflict.  While that may be the reason that most people do not bring up the idea of such an agreement, a recent poll shows that many people carry regrets with regards to failing to sign a prenuptial agreement before marriage.

When someone who owns a business becomes involved in a nasty divorce, everything that the couple has worked for can instantly be put in a position of risk.  This risk not only directly affects the spouses and any children of the marriage, but it can also extend to the employees of the business that one of the spouses owns.  That potential risk has played out in an ongoing Manteca divorce case that now threatens the financial stability of dozens of families of employees.

One of the most common problems faced in high asset divorce cases arises when one of the spouses is hiding assets from the other before the divorce is filed and the property division process can begin. This is obviously done in order to reduce the value in assets that are deemed to be marital property and therefore subject to division. Fortunately, there are some warning signs that have been identified over time that could indicate that such conduct is occurring.

When people are contemplating a California divorce and one of the spouses owns a business, there are many situations where California’s community property laws can deem a business a marital asset and therefore award a share of ownership to the other spouse.  When this situation arises, it can lead to a terrible financial result for the person who has worked for years to build the business, and in some cases it can lead to a forced sale of the business or even the other spouse being named as the owner of that business.

When people become involved in a California high asset divorce, many of these cases involve a business ownership interest and how it should be valued when it comes time to dissolve the marital estate under California’s community property rules.  These business valuations can be extremely complicated, and there are several generally accepted methods that can be used to derive a value for the business at issue so that a specific amount can be applied to the estate before properly division.  A recent case involved a controversy and an appeal regarding the appropriate business valuation method to use.