I was sitting in a courtroom when the judge was starting arraignments he started talking about being extra careful on who you go into partnership with cause it was more risky than who you marry. With marriage you'll only lose half of your stuff with a partnership. You can lose it all.
Yep; dont marry someone you dont know fully. Don't go into business with someone you dont trust with your life. Both are equally as true. Fraudsters can harm you greatly...
Those are words of wisdom, had a doctor friend tell me one time in an elevator with just me and him do not ever have elective surgery ever while looking directly into my eyes, Joan Rivers died two days later…….
A really good Bankruptcy Attorney would review the actual debt and strip away all the portions of the amount that aren't part of the actual frauf judgment and get the non-fraud debt that's piggybacking and inflating and hindering repayment removed or reduced because certain parts (fees and interest) ARE subject to discharge or renegotiation.
@@scottmcshannon6821 They sold a million dollar house, maybe they've blown the lot and have no assets at all remaining or maybe they have tried to move the money to somewhere it is protected, declare bankruptcy to discharge the debt, then seek to bring the money back from wherever it is. Bring back the good old days of debtors jail, can't pay your debts, off to prison with you.
@@scottmcshannon6821 She can apparently afford a lawyer to plead her case to the Supreme Court, though. From what I've heard, that starts at about a million dollars and goes up pretty quickly...
@@TheRealScooterGuy I think the point is that declaring bankruptcy doesn't have a lot of drawback in many circumstances, just a good way to avoid paying back creditors. A little more incentive to not go bankrupt might be good. Even more obnoxious when you see people start a company and go bankrupt owing millions, then the next day they start another company and buy the assets of the old one from the administrator and carry on like nothing happened just without the debts, only to repeat it again 6 months time etc etc.
"You can't just insert words into a statute you don't like." Well, you and I can't. Judges do it all the damn time. Especially when it comes to adding exceptions/limits/etc. to the bill of rights. Seemingly with the purpose/intent to erode our rights and to give cops and the gov the very powers the US constitution intended them not to have.
Thanks for editing the videos to remove stuff we don't need to see (or hear). It makes a difference and is one of the things that I especially like about your channel.
This is perhaps more specific than a general debt, but I seem to remember that the IRS has something called an "innocent spouse" rule, which makes it possible (with the permission of the IRS, I would assume) to disavow tax debt due to fraud by one's spouse, if one claims to know nothing about it. A friend used this years ago to avoid debt incurred by a spouse who committed tax fraud while married to her, and as a result, the spouse was judged to be solely responsible for the tax debt. Comment on this, Steve?
That happened to my cousin. Husband had his business closed by IRS owing over a million dollars in back taxes fees etc. She had no idea he hadn’t paid taxes in years. She was released because she wasn’t involved and didn’t know.
I claimed Innocent Spouse after divorcing my first husband. In doing so, I had to document the abuse and coercion that happened in that marriage. It isn't an easy process.
@@DiscoCatsMeow - I've known too many married couples where one spouse has no idea what the business dealings of the other spouse were. Not saying it's right, but it happens.
Oh I hope you get better swiftly and enjoy good health again soon. Thanks for such great content. I love nerding out here with y'all! I would be such a poor lawyer. It's much better to leave it to you and watch the shareable fun stuff.
I always watch your content, like and comment, even though I think I might not be interested. Always entertaining and I learn things I never knew. Thank you.
Here in Australia you can sell without disclosing critical information if you are a qualified legal worker. I lost the unlosable case, which is what my barrister called it. The seller worked in the legal profession. My legal team were so dismayed they never sent me a bill just an apology. Goes to show what can happen when you got mates in the right place.
When I read the headline I thought "That's not fair!" After I read the article (yes, I read this a couple of days ago), I thought "Yeah, that makes sense." (With Sotomayor's caveat)
Maybe, but if I were the buyer's I would have dumped the property immediately. Also, there is the possibility that the house would have been condemned by now, or even be "cheaper" to tear down and rebuild. The value might not have gone up, it might've even fallen because the house depreciated the value of the land.
@@jamessimms415 On the other hand, I was married to a very sweet, loving, reliable, honest woman for over 30 years before she passed from cancer. A good marriage is a true blessing. Careful who you partner with. But being single for an entire life doesn't sound like much of a blessing to me. To each their own.
Of course she profited from it. She may not have known about the fraud, but she was part of the partnership that bought and then old the house. The buyer was looking to recover money the sellers never should have received. If she had paid it back when her finances would have ended up right where they should have been.
Why was this case even heard by SCOTUS when the code for bankruptcy already has such a clean cut, clear and obvious exception for what cannot be discharged in bankruptcy proceedings? I thought they only heard cases where the only facts in question involve their constitutionality
It sounds like the applicable law in this area was not uniformedly settled. There was disparity among several circuits, and that is quite often a trigger for SCOTUS to grant certiorari.
No. SCOTUS hears cases that arise under federal law, or the constitution, cases between states, and certain cases between foreign countries and officers
As Darryl said in another reply, and as Steve said in the video, this was a "circuit split" situation. When the various circuit courts have ruled in contradictory ways, SCOTUS will sometimes take up a case in order to resolve the split. Moving forward, all of the circuit courts will follow this case when hearing appeals that raise the same questions of law.
The 2 million sounds a bit excessive since it initially was a $200,000. I know there is interest to pay, but that seems like an awfully high rate. Also if there was a divorce in the process of all this I would expect the husband to have a higher debt burden in this situation.
I normally just listen to your videos and not really watch them. Until you started talking about the edits I never noticed them. Now I watch for them, even will go back up a video if I think i hear one.
I agree with the final judges ruling in this caes. I don't think someone can just claim ignorance when it come to your business partners behavior (even if they are your spouse, boyfriend/girlfriend, etc.). If I am going to own property (or go into business with a partner), I am going to make damn sure I know what they up to by asking questions (you can even hire your own accountant, financial advisor, real estate attorney, agent/inspector) or do your own due diligence/research.
can't always know what your spouse is doing that's literally impossible with out being with them at all times 24/7. always a way for one to do stuff that can screw the other. there are those out there that do this kind of thing as a way of living
My mom has 2 credit cards going back to when I was 10. I caught a sliver after being torn up of the statement. It’s nothing life changing but my dad would never forgive her. She pays the minimum. It helps his credit and she will die before she pays it off. So im not worried about it. But I told her I was extremely disappointed. She hasn’t used the cars in decades. My exes mom got credit cards in her name when she was 9. At 18 she had 20k in debt but had to choose that or putting her mom in jail.. that’s really messed up.
They are legally both responsible for the sale as they were both listed owners. They jointly bought a home and were not married at the time. It would have been different if he was the only owner and, remember, she did not have to agree to anything as they were not married.
My wife wasn't on the roof when I re-shingled it last summer... She doesn't follow me into the crawl space either. Nor is she looking over my shoulder while I'm installing windows.
They never said that the husband was her "ex". It sounded to me like they just separated their finances in order to allow her to file bankruptcy on her own and cut the debt in half...... Of course, her marital status is pure speculation on our parts. I personally would have divorced him as well.
I'll admit, I definitely think this ruling is more damaging in general. I can think of several situations already that can exploit this at an innocent partners expense. That said, since this specific case was about property and the lack of due diligence by the seller, it makes sense. Ignorance to negligence is never a good excuse for anything. It's sad she chose to trust her husband and got screwed by that choice but this is why you need to be part of everything that comes with selling a house. I just hope this definitive ruling doesn't comeback to affect those in abusive relationships because this seems like an excellent thing for abusers to use to get off the hook for a large portion of the debt if caught. And thats for any debt, not just property. Thats the scary part in my opinion.
You mean lack of due diligence by the buyer. If you buy a defective product, you return it. End of story. You don't sue the seller and KEEP the product. Buyers should be required by law to have a certified home inspection as well. The buyer double dipped, period.
She would have wanted to assets to be “mutual” if she was divorcing him, however she wants their finances unattached when it comes to the mutual debt! I Am So Surprised!
So her credit report is permanently broken, but she herself has no criminal conviction for fraud. I believe she likely knew about it so I'm not against her paying in some way. But if she has no convictions and has technically committed no crime herself, I'm not very comfortable with that. It's proxy conviction, guilt by proxy. I'm not exactly ok with that. She herself should have been charged and then her credit history would be on the table. Until she's guilty of a crime I don't agree forcing this on her. But I do believe she's guilty....
😮😮I sold a house and wrote a comment that the selling price was reduced to accommodate foundation issues. ( I did not state details and no one asked) The realtor said I might scare off sellers. I didn’t care. I didn’t want a buyer coming after us. That house sold in 3 weeks.
Yes, but a leaking sky light ( one of many problems in this case) may not be identifiable. And the home inspector is not on the hook to pay for the repairs.
Honestly it seems pretty simple because it's essentially the legal definition of a conspiracy where one hand doesn't have to know what the other hand is doing. In either kind of case both parties are benefiting and if she didn't read what she was signing it's still on her because any reasonable person should know what they are selling, especially property.
It's pretty common for corporate guys to use their wives, and the wives go along because they trust their husbands. Was referred to as Sexually Transmitted Debt.
When I saw this and reread the ruling, I would have found it infuriating if I were to be held liable for anothers wrongdoing and I were not involved or knowledgeable.
Maybe there is a better common law reference, but it seems that under the principle of Vicarious Liability the wife bears responsibility. The bankruptcy code cannot be used to back door yourself out of civil liability.
They should have appealed the decision of the jury trial instead of trying to skirt paying the judgment. But now... the woman will never be able to repay that mega-debt so it might as well be discharged or converted into a manageable "reduced amount" (say via Chapter 11 or 13... whichever applies). The purpose of Federal Bankruptcy Court is to assist petitioners receive "a fresh start" which can include renegotiating amounts for repayment so the petitioner is not permanently buried under interest on interest on interest...
Imagine if murder worked that way..... Husband murders someone, wife not involved, but is equally responsible...... Gives a new meaning to partners in crime!
That is if you have confidence in your inspector.. ive seen many a time buyers will opt to hire their own guy from a reputable licensed company and some 400lb ball of sweat rolls up in a beater truck armed with a step ladder and a screwdriver who never catches his breath the entire 30 mins he “inspects” the house.. by the way ive seen way way to many times the inspector doesnt get on the roof, doesnt go back in crawl spaces or in attics but just shines a flashlight and checks off a box on their clipboard.. gotta watch what kind of tests they do which is a good question as some are required tests in certain places..
@@Z-Ack Fire the inspector and find someone else. I'd go back and torch the house if someone pulled this shit on me. The buyer clearly double dipped. There needs to be laws in place that allow a buyer to back out (after closing) and refunded if something is discovered. I bet the buyer is still living there...
The edits don't bother me (and I suspect most of the viewers as well). I am also very happy that you don't put any music in the videos. If I want music in a video, I watch a music video, not a channel about aviation or home repair (MentourPilot and ThisOldHouse, for examples). I really wish all those background-music channels would knock it off.
I do question the justice in this type of verdict, because this wasn't a business issue this was a husband and wife , there's a long standing of spouse's hiding stuff from the other especially potentially criminal issues. If this theory is to be followed then every criminal act by a spouse would automatically be also the fault of the other?
She was liable because she signed the paper that said all material facts had been disclosed, and she was a part-owner of the home. It is unclear what she actually knew.
This entire system needs to be replaced! Same with credit scores. Car insurance being higher if your score is lower? BS! I even had a home refinance just days away and it was denied at the final credit check because my mom's credit card was delinquent. I called Citibank and tried to find out why it was affecting my credit? They said I was NOT a card holder on the account so they can not discuss why they did it to me. WTH?
Would you make a lone to someone if you didn't know their credit history? Would you lend money to a person with a history of defaulting on debt? If you made the loan, would you charge the same interest on a High risk loan, as on a Low risk loan? Also, the fact is, conscientious driving generally corresponds to conscientious debt repayment.
Those legally bound have a responsibility to assure that what benefits them is legally obtained. This is especially true if the means is ongoing and/or substantial. When they fail, they are each responsible for returning what was taken. SCOTUS got this one right.
You fall victim to a fraud - pay up? God, that is just wrong on so many levels. What's next? Victims of theft won't be able to get back stolen property?!
Lol. Right before he said its really early in the morning i was thinking “damn he looks really tired..” could see it in his eyes… got that small eyed tired face..
That maybe true, but what does have to do with this case ? Corporations get away with a lot of things, but irrelevant here. I may not like the current weather, but I won't insert it in a comment, where it does not apply. "Woman's stuck with debt ... But its going to snow here for the next whole week !"
Steve do a video on the girl who is suing Florida saying her unborn baby is being illegally detained bc she was sentenced while pregnant and with the overturn of roe v Wade
She made money off the fraud (profit from the house) of $200K (per the judgement). She ripped someone off then tried to get out of it (keep the money) through bankruptcy. Glad to hear she is being held accountable for the fraud. And if there was fraud after using architects, contractors, etc. then you know it was on purpose, not some sort of error.
A lot of comments seem to suggest that the woman shouldn't be liable for the house she jointly owned, jointly sold, and jointly got a ton of money for. That wasn't an issue in this case. She owed the money for sure. The only question is whether she can take care of it with bankruptcy. Of course if Congress had written the law a bit differently, people like this could get the relief from bankruptcy, but it would also make it even harder for victims of fraud to get their money back.
Seems strange that the buyer did not use an independent home inspection for what sounds like a relatively expensive purchase. Would that have shifted liability onto inspector especially if sold “as is”?
No. Legitimate home inspectors have you sign papers absolving them of liability for things unseen or unknown. Besides, how would that be the inspector's fault? No one can or will catch everything without tearing your house to shreds.
@@MrFixItGa fair enough. But a leaking roof? That’s surprising that it is not detectable. What’s the point of an inspection? Roofs are among the most expensive repairs.
@Skunk Masters again, no one can catch everything. I wired houses for several years before going into industrial electrical. You'd be amazed at how many hidey holes can be created that a person can't access. My dad is a home inspector as well. So I'm well-versed in this process.
Guilt by association . The plaintiff probably still won't see any money and I am sure his lawyers cost a pretty penny over this lengthy court battle . Winning a court case is a small part to actually collecting
If it was a company, they would have gotten away with it. Furniture stores are a prime example. Often go BK and reopen under a new corporate name. Interesting how some can defraud, intentionally not pay vendors, etc despite having funds to do so and yet still remain wealthy while the regular person can be relegated to a lifetime of insolvency.
If a husband goes from $0 to a $billion, the wife "deserves" half of it (in community property states like California). So, if a husband gores from $0 to minus $billion, she deserves half of that as well. However, there is an "innocent spouse" law that says she only deserves the upside, but not the downside.
"innocent spouse" law is an IRS ruling. Which puts alot of burden on the alleged innocent spouse to penalties. The Innocent would still be required to pay the tax on the income but MAY get relief from the penalties.
One thing though. You said the case was $200,000 in 2012 with a 10% annual interest. Unless my math and an online interest calculator are both wrong, that is around $570,000. How is it over a million? Or was that including all attorney fees already?
Yes, I have seen this and it is sad in one respect but if your partner is going down the poor choice path you will get drug off with them. Communication is very important in relationship of any kind.
The "innocent spouse defense" is not a ticket out of financial responsibility. You can't give a bunch of dirty money to your future ex and have them keep the money. Careful who you marry, if you want to be merry.
Last time I checked, defrauding someone is a crime, spouse or not. Wouldn't the wife be a victim too? We're punishing crime victims now? No way that could ever snowball out of control. Also, if the language of any portion of a statute criminalizes any innocent party's exercise of their rights, isn't it the job of the SCOTUS to quash that statute in part or in its entirety? If the wife truly is an innocent party, where are all of the advocacy groups that should be chomping at the bit in defense of this woman?
Now in bankruptcy Is there a different weight to be considered with the consideration of what type of fraud- Civil vs criminal ? Why not or civil lawsuits only and mainly claim fraud as one of the bases for the general wrongdoing of the other party ? Then the party in the first can’t escape monetary liability? Who or what triggers the dismissal of the term /part of fraud in a civil matter in civil court ?
When you sell a house don’t hide any problems disclose everything!! I had a house with a carpenter ant problem,I took care of it with exterminator with lifetime warranty. My dad told me don’t hide anything you will get sued!! Smart man miss him❤
@@knerduno5942 BINGO!!! You can only disclose what you know too! The fair way to handle these situations is by agreeing to pay for the repairs. If the repairs are too costly, the seller should be given an option to REBUY their house and refund all closing costs and commission payments.
All I got out of this, a few lawyers made a lot of money! The buyer probably will never get paid, the seller has spent every penny they have on legal fees...
Sounds like the sellers may have a case against the architect, the builders and or Town planning because they should have known what the building codes are or were at the time of building! and the buyer should have had a building inspection done prior to purchase to check for these defects if there was defects noted in the inspection and they proceeded with the purchase they knew about the defects and excepted the property in the state it was in at the time of sale.
The wife should have recourse against her (former?) husband. If he misrepresented the house/renovations to her in their partnership then she should be able to get relief from him in that way.
I think the court fails to understand something important here. The buyer failed diligence and the original ruling is unlikely to actually be valid. My understanding is that the amount owed cannot gain more then 3x its original value as well. Something is VERY stinky about this case. The law quoted referencing the 3 partners isn't valid to apply because while both the owners were owners they were not incorporated or associated as business partners but simply share-owners of the home. I would be fairly certain a review of the entirety would prove that she should have the opportunity to sue against him to clear herself.
Person A , Person B & Person C all profit in the amount X (legit) + Y (fraud) from fraud committed by Person A, it's only right that all 3 surrender the amount Y back to the entity defrauded. The only debate should be who pays for the additional penalty amounts that may be awarded, and that should be done during the original trial, not after the fact during a divorce.
You have the duty to make sure any profit you receive isn't fraud. If you deposit 10000+ you have to tell the bank where you got it and that is simular
I was sitting in a courtroom when the judge was starting arraignments he started talking about being extra careful on who you go into partnership with cause it was more risky than who you marry. With marriage you'll only lose half of your stuff with a partnership. You can lose it all.
Normally, it is men who lose it all. But hey, 2023, women wanted this.
Equal rights and wrongs, boo boo…
Yep; dont marry someone you dont know fully. Don't go into business with someone you dont trust with your life. Both are equally as true. Fraudsters can harm you greatly...
Those are words of wisdom, had a doctor friend tell me one time in an elevator with just me and him do not ever have elective surgery ever while looking directly into my eyes, Joan Rivers died two days later…….
In California marriage is a legally binding partnership so both can loose it all equally.
One thing is for sure, if you can get a unanimous vote from THIS Supreme Court. the law must be undeniably clear
Or have zero political interest.
A really good Bankruptcy Attorney would review the actual debt and strip away all the portions of the amount that aren't part of the actual frauf judgment and get the non-fraud debt that's piggybacking and inflating and hindering repayment removed or reduced because certain parts (fees and interest) ARE subject to discharge or renegotiation.
So I should care because she is a woman???
@𝓝𝓸𝓕𝓻𝓮𝓮𝓭𝓸𝓶𝓼 Who mentioned women, here? Nobody.
So, the judgment stands. How do you collect from someone who is in bankruptcy? Does the bankruptcy court assign its priority, and if so, where?
I bet that original $200 K judgement is looking mighty good to the defendants about now!
doesnt matter, they obviously cant afford a penny.
@@scottmcshannon6821 They sold a million dollar house, maybe they've blown the lot and have no assets at all remaining or maybe they have tried to move the money to somewhere it is protected, declare bankruptcy to discharge the debt, then seek to bring the money back from wherever it is.
Bring back the good old days of debtors jail, can't pay your debts, off to prison with you.
@@scottmcshannon6821 She can apparently afford a lawyer to plead her case to the Supreme Court, though. From what I've heard, that starts at about a million dollars and goes up pretty quickly...
@@mattc3581 So taxpayers can pay to house and feed debtors? No thanks.
@@TheRealScooterGuy I think the point is that declaring bankruptcy doesn't have a lot of drawback in many circumstances, just a good way to avoid paying back creditors. A little more incentive to not go bankrupt might be good.
Even more obnoxious when you see people start a company and go bankrupt owing millions, then the next day they start another company and buy the assets of the old one from the administrator and carry on like nothing happened just without the debts, only to repeat it again 6 months time etc etc.
"Hey Steve, how old are you?"
"I mean there was a case in 1885 I remember happening."
"You can't just insert words into a statute you don't like." Well, you and I can't. Judges do it all the damn time. Especially when it comes to adding exceptions/limits/etc. to the bill of rights. Seemingly with the purpose/intent to erode our rights and to give cops and the gov the very powers the US constitution intended them not to have.
You beat me to it. Thinking the exact same thing.
I mean, if i was a lawyer, i'd be saying the same thing
They were married his debt is her debt.
I see we are of the same mind. We could drink beers together, engage in some Florida Man hijinks.
Maybe fight the tyrannical government later...?
ATF has entered the chat.... how that brace errr.... nfa stock violation
If we could make up rules as we go, we'd essentially be playing Calvinball.
Thanks for editing the videos to remove stuff we don't need to see (or hear). It makes a difference and is one of the things that I especially like about your channel.
My only heart burn is the interest rate the court set. No one has paid 10% in interest in many years before 2008.
I hope they can start applying this logic of "it doesn't matter if you didn't know" to corporate malfeasance and the C suite employees.
They should have gotten the extended home warranty.
The warranty company would have just weaseled out of paying.
@@machintelligence that is the point. Everything is a scam.
This is perhaps more specific than a general debt, but I seem to remember that the IRS has something called an "innocent spouse" rule, which makes it possible (with the permission of the IRS, I would assume) to disavow tax debt due to fraud by one's spouse, if one claims to know nothing about it. A friend used this years ago to avoid debt incurred by a spouse who committed tax fraud while married to her, and as a result, the spouse was judged to be solely responsible for the tax debt. Comment on this, Steve?
If men could only use this as well.
That happened to my cousin. Husband had his business closed by IRS owing over a million dollars in back taxes fees etc. She had no idea he hadn’t paid taxes in years. She was released because she wasn’t involved and didn’t know.
I claimed Innocent Spouse after divorcing my first husband. In doing so, I had to document the abuse and coercion that happened in that marriage. It isn't an easy process.
David, she was not an innocent spouse, she was a legal partner in a partnership. It's different than just claiming and/or separating debt.
@@DiscoCatsMeow - I've known too many married couples where one spouse has no idea what the business dealings of the other spouse were. Not saying it's right, but it happens.
Oh I hope you get better swiftly and enjoy good health again soon. Thanks for such great content. I love nerding out here with y'all! I would be such a poor lawyer. It's much better to leave it to you and watch the shareable fun stuff.
I always watch your content, like and comment, even though I think I might not be interested. Always entertaining and I learn things I never knew. Thank you.
Steve's voice and how he explains things makes his videos watchable.
Here in Australia you can sell without disclosing critical information if you are a qualified legal worker.
I lost the unlosable case, which is what my barrister called it.
The seller worked in the legal profession.
My legal team were so dismayed they never sent me a bill just an apology.
Goes to show what can happen when you got mates in the right place.
Maybe they were thrilled to find a new revenue stream!
When I read the headline I thought "That's not fair!" After I read the article (yes, I read this a couple of days ago), I thought "Yeah, that makes sense." (With Sotomayor's caveat)
I appreciate your video editing efforts!
It's okay Steve...I remember 1885 as well. I still have a "Go Rutherford B Hays" bumper sticker, on my fliver.
Why is his fraud, HER responsibility? How is that justice?!
Even if there were all those problems 18 years ago, I betcha the value of that house is many times more today than it was then.
Maybe, but if I were the buyer's I would have dumped the property immediately.
Also, there is the possibility that the house would have been condemned by now, or even be "cheaper" to tear down and rebuild. The value might not have gone up, it might've even fallen because the house depreciated the value of the land.
Being a partner can be bad, whether by marriage or by contract. Careful who you partner with.
And that’s why I’ve never become involved w/anyone. 65 (nearly), Single, unattached, never married, no children.
@@jamessimms415 On the other hand, I was married to a very sweet, loving, reliable, honest woman for over 30 years before she passed from cancer. A good marriage is a true blessing. Careful who you partner with. But being single for an entire life doesn't sound like much of a blessing to me. To each their own.
I would have never thought I could discharge that as I profited from it! I would however have tried to sue my partner.
Of course she profited from it. She may not have known about the fraud, but she was part of the partnership that bought and then old the house. The buyer was looking to recover money the sellers never should have received. If she had paid it back when her finances would have ended up right where they should have been.
Why was this case even heard by SCOTUS when the code for bankruptcy already has such a clean cut, clear and obvious exception for what cannot be discharged in bankruptcy proceedings? I thought they only heard cases where the only facts in question involve their constitutionality
It sounds like the applicable law in this area was not uniformedly settled. There was disparity among several circuits, and that is quite often a trigger for SCOTUS to grant certiorari.
That's because the courts try like he'll NOT to follow actual laws.
No. SCOTUS hears cases that arise under federal law, or the constitution, cases between states, and certain cases between foreign countries and officers
As Darryl said in another reply, and as Steve said in the video, this was a "circuit split" situation. When the various circuit courts have ruled in contradictory ways, SCOTUS will sometimes take up a case in order to resolve the split. Moving forward, all of the circuit courts will follow this case when hearing appeals that raise the same questions of law.
@The Scooter Guy Well said sir!
If your husband gives you a car he stole without your knowledge, you don't get to keep the car.
and there is the charge of "receiving and/or concealing" that can be leveled against you as well....
No, you know have to pay for it and give it back as well!
editing out you coughing is much appreciated Steve. Even if we have to see the little glitches that come with. keep up the good work
She still benefited from the fraud, even if they didn't know.
IMHO it should also fall under unjust enrichment.
doesnt fraud supersede that?
The 2 million sounds a bit excessive since it initially was a $200,000. I know there is interest to pay, but that seems like an awfully high rate.
Also if there was a divorce in the process of all this I would expect the husband to have a higher debt burden in this situation.
Nobody forced them to appeal to the Supreme Court. It's been 18 years.
That's compounded interest.
I normally just listen to your videos and not really watch them. Until you started talking about the edits I never noticed them. Now I watch for them, even will go back up a video if I think i hear one.
I agree with the final judges ruling in this caes. I don't think someone can just claim ignorance when it come to your business partners behavior (even if they are your spouse, boyfriend/girlfriend, etc.). If I am going to own property (or go into business with a partner), I am going to make damn sure I know what they up to by asking questions (you can even hire your own accountant, financial advisor, real estate attorney, agent/inspector) or do your own due diligence/research.
Ben lying lengthwise on top of the cylindrical object, second shelf beneath the WRIF 101 sticker; Steve’s right side
Know what your spouse is doing as well. I’ve seen people get screwed by hidden debt by the other spouse.
can't always know what your spouse is doing that's literally impossible with out being with them at all times 24/7. always a way for one to do stuff that can screw the other. there are those out there that do this kind of thing as a way of living
My Lady Wife and I sit down together every so often and go over finances. No secrets between us, as it should be.
My mom has 2 credit cards going back to when I was 10. I caught a sliver after being torn up of the statement. It’s nothing life changing but my dad would never forgive her. She pays the minimum. It helps his credit and she will die before she pays it off. So im not worried about it. But I told her I was extremely disappointed. She hasn’t used the cars in decades. My exes mom got credit cards in her name when she was 9. At 18 she had 20k in debt but had to choose that or putting her mom in jail.. that’s really messed up.
@Rafael Torre
I'd pit mommy in jail without thinking twice.
Husband refurbishes home, wife not involved in any way, yeah right.
They are legally both responsible for the sale as they were both listed owners. They jointly bought a home and were not married at the time. It would have been different if he was the only owner and, remember, she did not have to agree to anything as they were not married.
My wife wasn't on the roof when I re-shingled it last summer... She doesn't follow me into the crawl space either. Nor is she looking over my shoulder while I'm installing windows.
@@cw6136 Did she sign papers making her legally a partner? Like it or not, she is half responsible in the profit or loss of your business.
If the wife think she's got a legitimate claim, can't she sue her ex husband to recoup her losses from the original lawsuit?
Absolutely. But is he collectible?
You may have to pay his legal bill as well as yours.
The system always collects.
that is how she will have to handle it. Make sure the debt is paid, but then turn around and sue her ex husband. But the debt still needs to be paid.
They never said that the husband was her "ex". It sounded to me like they just separated their finances in order to allow her to file bankruptcy on her own and cut the debt in half......
Of course, her marital status is pure speculation on our parts.
I personally would have divorced him as well.
I'll admit, I definitely think this ruling is more damaging in general. I can think of several situations already that can exploit this at an innocent partners expense. That said, since this specific case was about property and the lack of due diligence by the seller, it makes sense. Ignorance to negligence is never a good excuse for anything. It's sad she chose to trust her husband and got screwed by that choice but this is why you need to be part of everything that comes with selling a house. I just hope this definitive ruling doesn't comeback to affect those in abusive relationships because this seems like an excellent thing for abusers to use to get off the hook for a large portion of the debt if caught. And thats for any debt, not just property. Thats the scary part in my opinion.
You mean lack of due diligence by the buyer. If you buy a defective product, you return it. End of story.
You don't sue the seller and KEEP the product.
Buyers should be required by law to have a certified home inspection as well.
The buyer double dipped, period.
Um, it's not the ruling, it is the plain language of the Law.
She would have wanted to assets to be “mutual” if she was divorcing him, however she wants their finances unattached when it comes to the mutual debt!
I
Am
So
Surprised!
ok so the first thing i was thinking... didnt the guy buying it have a bloody inspection done?
Irrelevant. State law there requires a disclosure of known issues.
@The Scooter Guy ya but if he had gotten an inspection done then he would have known anyway.
So her credit report is permanently broken, but she herself has no criminal conviction for fraud. I believe she likely knew about it so I'm not against her paying in some way. But if she has no convictions and has technically committed no crime herself, I'm not very comfortable with that. It's proxy conviction, guilt by proxy. I'm not exactly ok with that. She herself should have been charged and then her credit history would be on the table. Until she's guilty of a crime I don't agree forcing this on her. But I do believe she's guilty....
Ben putting a cap on number of raccoons, Steve's RHS
Have a great weekend
@@keithe2150 I am(1.09am Sat), same to you😉😊
I guess the buyer learned his own lesson to do his due diligence and to hire experts if he can't do the due diligence.
😮😮I sold a house and wrote a comment that the selling price was reduced to accommodate foundation issues. ( I did not state details and no one asked) The realtor said I might scare off sellers. I didn’t care. I didn’t want a buyer coming after us. That house sold in 3 weeks.
Selling price reduced? A discount is a great way to get people to ignore scary stuff!
@@Tzizenorec I guess you are right cause it worked. ( Funny thing is we got the same price per sq foot as neighboring properties. Lol. )
Aren’t reasons like this why you get an inspection during the buying process
Yes, but a leaking sky light ( one of many problems in this case) may not be identifiable. And the home inspector is not on the hook to pay for the repairs.
Honestly it seems pretty simple because it's essentially the legal definition of a conspiracy where one hand doesn't have to know what the other hand is doing. In either kind of case both parties are benefiting and if she didn't read what she was signing it's still on her because any reasonable person should know what they are selling, especially property.
It's pretty common for corporate guys to use their wives, and the wives go along because they trust their husbands. Was referred to as Sexually Transmitted Debt.
Ignorance is not a defense, so they say.
When I saw this and reread the ruling, I would have found it infuriating if I were to be held liable for anothers wrongdoing and I were not involved or knowledgeable.
I totally noticed all the coughing in that video. Good call editing them out.
Maybe there is a better common law reference, but it seems that under the principle of Vicarious Liability the wife bears responsibility. The bankruptcy code cannot be used to back door yourself out of civil liability.
They should have appealed the decision of the jury trial instead of trying to skirt paying the judgment.
But now... the woman will never be able to repay that mega-debt so it might as well be discharged or converted into a manageable "reduced amount" (say via Chapter 11 or 13... whichever applies). The purpose of Federal Bankruptcy Court is to assist petitioners receive "a fresh start" which can include renegotiating amounts for repayment so the petitioner is not permanently buried under interest on interest on interest...
Imagine if murder worked that way..... Husband murders someone, wife not involved, but is equally responsible...... Gives a new meaning to partners in crime!
This is why you always pay for your own inspection, title check, etc. It is simply too expensive not to.
That is if you have confidence in your inspector.. ive seen many a time buyers will opt to hire their own guy from a reputable licensed company and some 400lb ball of sweat rolls up in a beater truck armed with a step ladder and a screwdriver who never catches his breath the entire 30 mins he “inspects” the house.. by the way ive seen way way to many times the inspector doesnt get on the roof, doesnt go back in crawl spaces or in attics but just shines a flashlight and checks off a box on their clipboard.. gotta watch what kind of tests they do which is a good question as some are required tests in certain places..
@@Z-Ack Fire the inspector and find someone else.
I'd go back and torch the house if someone pulled this shit on me. The buyer clearly double dipped.
There needs to be laws in place that allow a buyer to back out (after closing) and refunded if something is discovered.
I bet the buyer is still living there...
The edits don't bother me (and I suspect most of the viewers as well). I am also very happy that you don't put any music in the videos. If I want music in a video, I watch a music video, not a channel about aviation or home repair (MentourPilot and ThisOldHouse, for examples). I really wish all those background-music channels would knock it off.
love the cars in the background! Can you display the Chrysler jet more proeminently? It is Really Special!
I do question the justice in this type of verdict, because this wasn't a business issue this was a husband and wife , there's a long standing of spouse's hiding stuff from the other especially potentially criminal issues.
If this theory is to be followed then every criminal act by a spouse would automatically be also the fault of the other?
She was liable because she signed the paper that said all material facts had been disclosed, and she was a part-owner of the home. It is unclear what she actually knew.
As it should be.
This entire system needs to be replaced! Same with credit scores. Car insurance being higher if your score is lower? BS! I even had a home refinance just days away and it was denied at the final credit check because my mom's credit card was delinquent. I called Citibank and tried to find out why it was affecting my credit? They said I was NOT a card holder on the account so they can not discuss why they did it to me. WTH?
Would you make a lone to someone if you didn't know their credit history?
Would you lend money to a person with a history of defaulting on debt?
If you made the loan, would you charge the same interest on a High risk loan, as on a Low risk loan?
Also, the fact is, conscientious driving generally corresponds to conscientious debt repayment.
Those legally bound have a responsibility to assure that what benefits them is legally obtained. This is especially true if the means is ongoing and/or substantial. When they fail, they are each responsible for returning what was taken. SCOTUS got this one right.
You fall victim to a fraud - pay up? God, that is just wrong on so many levels.
What's next? Victims of theft won't be able to get back stolen property?!
I do know that knowingly benefiting from a fraud, is a fraud.
Being a neat freak I love looking at clutter, especially when at other folk's houses.
This certainly adds some comfort to my singledom...
I would say the innocent partner should be on the hook for compensatory damages but not punitive damages.
Lol. Right before he said its really early in the morning i was thinking “damn he looks really tired..” could see it in his eyes… got that small eyed tired face..
doing due diligence on your partners...
While buyer beware may not be a legal term for this instance it is most certainly good advice.
Bankruptcy is so loaded towards corporations. Its disgusting
That maybe true, but what does have to do with this case ?
Corporations get away with a lot of things, but irrelevant here. I may not like the current weather, but I won't insert it in a comment, where it does not apply. "Woman's stuck with debt ... But its going to snow here for the next whole week !"
@@michaelmoorrees3585 Pointing out a glaring double standard is far more relevant than your braindead comment.
@@michaelmoorrees3585 This is a comment section, sir. Logic is the thing you shouldn't try to insert.
In this case the husband and wife WERE the corporation
Steve do a video on the girl who is suing Florida saying her unborn baby is being illegally detained bc she was sentenced while pregnant and with the overturn of roe v Wade
"Never let the fear of striking out keep you from playing the game!" -- I'll have to remember that the next time someone asks me to play Chess!
She made money off the fraud (profit from the house) of $200K (per the judgement). She ripped someone off then tried to get out of it (keep the money) through bankruptcy. Glad to hear she is being held accountable for the fraud.
And if there was fraud after using architects, contractors, etc. then you know it was on purpose, not some sort of error.
A lot of comments seem to suggest that the woman shouldn't be liable for the house she jointly owned, jointly sold, and jointly got a ton of money for. That wasn't an issue in this case. She owed the money for sure. The only question is whether she can take care of it with bankruptcy. Of course if Congress had written the law a bit differently, people like this could get the relief from bankruptcy, but it would also make it even harder for victims of fraud to get their money back.
18 years and millions of dollars that's uncollectible that's some justice. Yes, I know creating the legal precedent is helpful to society.
Seems strange that the buyer did not use an independent home inspection for what sounds like a relatively expensive purchase. Would that have shifted liability onto inspector especially if sold “as is”?
No. Legitimate home inspectors have you sign papers absolving them of liability for things unseen or unknown.
Besides, how would that be the inspector's fault? No one can or will catch everything without tearing your house to shreds.
No one can or will catch everything, especially when it's deliberately hidden by a fraudster.
@@MrFixItGa fair enough. But a leaking roof? That’s surprising that it is not detectable. What’s the point of an inspection? Roofs are among the most expensive repairs.
@Skunk Masters again, no one can catch everything. I wired houses for several years before going into industrial electrical. You'd be amazed at how many hidey holes can be created that a person can't access. My dad is a home inspector as well. So I'm well-versed in this process.
Guilt by association . The plaintiff probably still won't see any money and I am sure his lawyers cost a pretty penny over this lengthy court battle . Winning a court case is a small part to actually collecting
If it was a company, they would have gotten away with it. Furniture stores are a prime example. Often go BK and reopen under a new corporate name. Interesting how some can defraud, intentionally not pay vendors, etc despite having funds to do so and yet still remain wealthy while the regular person can be relegated to a lifetime of insolvency.
Nine to Zero!!! Well for some politicians, that just ain't enough.....
If a husband goes from $0 to a $billion, the wife "deserves" half of it (in community property states like California). So, if a husband gores from $0 to minus $billion, she deserves half of that as well. However, there is an "innocent spouse" law that says she only deserves the upside, but not the downside.
"innocent spouse" law is an IRS ruling. Which puts alot of burden on the alleged innocent spouse to penalties. The Innocent would still be required to pay the tax on the income but MAY get relief from the penalties.
With 10% returns, that plaintiff might want to drag things out a little longer. 🤑
even if she didn't know, it happened while they were married and she benefited from it therefore she shares the debt that results from it.
One thing though. You said the case was $200,000 in 2012 with a 10% annual interest. Unless my math and an online interest calculator are both wrong, that is around $570,000. How is it over a million? Or was that including all attorney fees already?
Bad decision by the courts.
Yes, I have seen this and it is sad in one respect but if your partner is going down the poor choice path you will get drug off with them. Communication is very important in relationship of any kind.
Is this a case where a corporation, instead of a partnership, would have have protected the wife?
I'm not sure it would, fraud generally "pierces the corporate veil". I could be wrong, please correct.
That would depend on other factors.
The "innocent spouse defense" is not a ticket out of financial responsibility. You can't give a bunch of dirty money to your future ex and have them keep the money.
Careful who you marry, if you want to be merry.
Or dont get married?
Anyway, if she is innocent, the debt should just be placed in the husbands name.
This makes identity theft terrifying.
You don't seem to have watched the video.
Last time I checked, defrauding someone is a crime, spouse or not. Wouldn't the wife be a victim too? We're punishing crime victims now? No way that could ever snowball out of control. Also, if the language of any portion of a statute criminalizes any innocent party's exercise of their rights, isn't it the job of the SCOTUS to quash that statute in part or in its entirety? If the wife truly is an innocent party, where are all of the advocacy groups that should be chomping at the bit in defense of this woman?
Now in bankruptcy
Is there a different weight to be considered with the consideration of what type of fraud-
Civil vs criminal ?
Why not or civil lawsuits only and mainly claim fraud as one of the bases for the general wrongdoing of the other party ?
Then the party in the first can’t escape monetary liability?
Who or what triggers the dismissal of the term /part of fraud in a civil matter in civil court ?
When you sell a house don’t hide any problems disclose everything!! I had a house with a carpenter ant problem,I took care of it with exterminator with lifetime warranty. My dad told me don’t hide anything you will get sued!! Smart man miss him❤
That's what a home inspector does. It's just like buying a used car. Take it to a mechanic you trust.
@@knerduno5942 BINGO!!! You can only disclose what you know too!
The fair way to handle these situations is by agreeing to pay for the repairs. If the repairs are too costly, the seller should be given an option to REBUY their house and refund all closing costs and commission payments.
All I got out of this, a few lawyers made a lot of money! The buyer probably will never get paid, the seller has spent every penny they have on legal fees...
Sounds like the sellers may have a case against the architect, the builders and or Town planning because they should have known what the building codes are or were at the time of building!
and the buyer should have had a building inspection done prior to purchase to check for these defects if there was defects noted in the inspection and they proceeded with the purchase they knew about the defects and excepted the property in the state it was in at the time of sale.
The wife should have recourse against her (former?) husband. If he misrepresented the house/renovations to her in their partnership then she should be able to get relief from him in that way.
That's a lot of interest for the biggest bull market in history. I'm pretty sure rates were negative for a long time and 0% for five years in a row.
Insane.
The law can be unfair and unjust.
I think the court fails to understand something important here. The buyer failed diligence and the original ruling is unlikely to actually be valid. My understanding is that the amount owed cannot gain more then 3x its original value as well. Something is VERY stinky about this case. The law quoted referencing the 3 partners isn't valid to apply because while both the owners were owners they were not incorporated or associated as business partners but simply share-owners of the home. I would be fairly certain a review of the entirety would prove that she should have the opportunity to sue against him to clear herself.
Sue him for what. He has no money either as they both filed for bankruptcy
Person A , Person B & Person C all profit in the amount X (legit) + Y (fraud) from fraud committed by Person A, it's only right that all 3 surrender the amount Y back to the entity defrauded. The only debate should be who pays for the additional penalty amounts that may be awarded, and that should be done during the original trial, not after the fact during a divorce.
She should have divorced him first and than went to bankruptcy court.
This makes the US representatives that accepted money from the FTC fraud defendants in that fraud case.
Did buyer not get an professional inspection. YES, I watched the video
I'd be curious to see the result if they were a large corporation that had benefitted from an employee's fraud...
Pointless. If a large corporation gets slapped with millions in fines, it's a drop in a bucket. To an individual, it's a burden until they die.
No, who would have thought?
You have the duty to make sure any profit you receive isn't fraud. If you deposit 10000+ you have to tell the bank where you got it and that is simular
Also, some of those old codgers still rotting on the supreme court bench likely recall the 1885 decision, since they were there to witness it.
Great to know