Joe Paterno - fraudulent transfer?

[bocabull]

The plot thickens. Transfers his portion of their jointly owned house to his wife this summer for $1 supposedly for "estate planning" purposes. Of course there is not an estate benefit for doing this. Trying to shield assets from personal liability?

link

 

[ben]

Penn State? More like STATE PENN

 

[AdaSooner]

The plot thickens. Transfers his portion of their jointly owned house to his wife this summer for $1 supposedly for "estate planning" purposes. Of course there is not an estate benefit for doing this. Trying to shield assets from personal liability?

link

I'm no lawyer. But aren't things like this fairly common when there is a need to protect essential assets from the state in cases were a family member might need longterm care at some point? Seems to me that could be a reasonable assumption at Joe Pa's age.

I'm in no way defending what is going on at Penn State. There is no defense for the way the Sandusky's abuse scandal was handled. I'm just saying there could be a legitimate reason why the house was transferred to Paterno's wife. What other motivation could there be?

 

[gwydion]

My parents did this many years ago. I think it is common but I guess if you're into conspiracies then you can question the timing.

 

[bocabull]

Lawrence A. Frolik, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh who specializes in elder law, said that he had “never heard” of a husband selling his share of a house for $1 to his spouse for tax or government assistance purposes.

“I can’t see any tax advantages,” Frolik said. “If someone told me that, my reaction would be, ‘Are they hoping to shield assets in case if there’s personal liability?’ ” He added, “It sounds like an attempt to avoid personal liability in having assets in his wife’s name.”

 

[AdaSooner]

My parents did this many years ago. I think it is common but I guess if you're into conspiracies then you can question the timing.

My parents did, too, that's why I raised the question.

Who knows in Paterno's case? Maybe he saw this coming and moved to protect his family's assets. Can' say I blame him. He had to know that he would be at risk when the poo finally hit the proverbial fan. He even admitted that he wished he had done more at the time.

There seems to be more questions than answers with every passing day. Did Joe Pa fail to ask his assistant coach about the abuse, or is that one of the many lies Sandusky told? Did McCreary put a stop to the scene he witnessed in the shower, or did he walk away and tell someone later, as his grand jury testimony indicates? Can anyone who has been associated with Penn State the past fifteen years or so be trusted to tell the truth?

:facepalm This whole affair makes me want to throw up! I can only imagine what it must be doing to loyal PSU fans.

 

[badger]

One of the reasons Stoops will never leave Oklahoma is because the media is fairly tame compared to the vicious, investigative, prying, intrusive nature of the coasts, especially if the word "Times" is in the name (LA or New York).

I fully expect JoePa to get every aspect of his life open-records requested, as well as Sandusky, as well as Second Chance (or whatever that charity's name was), and all of his assistants, the AD, the president, you name it, until people have a more solid reason why this was uncovered a decade later.

 

[DenverSooner]

The plot thickens. Transfers his portion of their jointly owned house to his wife this summer for $1 supposedly for "estate planning" purposes. Of course there is not an estate benefit for doing this. Trying to shield assets from personal liability?

link

That really isn't true. If they are confident she will surive him it may avoid probate. It really depends on how title is commonly held in Pennsylvania. It also depends on what, if anything they are doing to balance their estates. I can think of lots of legitimate reasons to do this but given the timing it does appear suspect.

 

[tycat947]

I believe this also took place in July.

 

[DenverSooner]

One of the reasons Stoops will never leave Oklahoma is because the media is fairly tame compared to the vicious, investigative, prying, intrusive nature of the coasts, especially if the word "Times" is in the name (LA or New York).

I fully expect JoePa to get every aspect of his life open-records requested, as well as Sandusky, as well as Second Chance (or whatever that charity's name was), and all of his assistants, the AD, the president, you name it, until people have a more solid reason why this was uncovered a decade later.

Individuals are not subject to open records request so just tell the media to F off. His employment records are likely subject to these requests (or at least some of them) because he works for the State. His deed records are public just like your and mine our.

 

[badger]

Individuals are not subject to open records request so just tell the media to F off. His employment records are likely subject to these requests (or at least some of them) because he works for the State. His deed records are public just like your and mine our.

If only he worked at Penn and not Penn State, it wouldn't be a public university subject to open records. As such, I fully expect every last little crazy detail to get unveiled. You might think individuals have some protection... in actuality, public employees can get every scrap of info found out about them through the most clever requests. Some of it might not be legal, but most I suspect could be done in a non-Murdoch way.

 

[DenverSooner]

If only he worked at Penn and not Penn State, it wouldn't be a public university subject to open records. As such, I fully expect every last little crazy detail to get unveiled. You might think individuals have some protection... in actuality, public employees can get every scrap of info found out about them through the most clever requests. Some of it might not be legal, but most I suspect could be done in a non-Murdoch way.

I don't follow this. Is Penn State not a public school?

 

[garyeb2]

I don't follow this. Is Penn State not a public school?

Penn. St. is a publicly supported land grant institution just like Okla. St.

 

[WTSooner]

Why is the word "fraudulent" used in the title? He is free to transfer ownership of his house however he wants. He didn't break a law in doing so.

 

[DenverSooner]

Why is the word "fraudulent" used in the title? He is free to transfer ownership of his house however he wants. He didn't break a law in doing so.

Actually if you transfer assets when you know of potential liability for less than fair value you run the risk of having made a transfer that is considered fraud on your creditors.

 

[WTSooner]

Actually if you transfer assets when you know of potential liability for less than fair value you run the risk of having made a transfer that is considered fraud on your creditors.

In a business sense, sure.

Talking about a person who MIGHT be ligitaged down the road? Hardly. Happens all the time. And until a time where he is aware of such litigation, there is nothing the courts can do about it.

 

[garyeb2]

In a business sense, sure.

Talking about a person who MIGHT be ligitaged down the road? Hardly. Happens all the time. And until a time where he is aware of such litigation, there is nothing the courts can do about it.

I'm not an attorney. But, i believe that in Oklahome the time frame is one year. The courts can go back and unwind any transfer of any property if it is determined that the transfer was an attempt to conceal the asset from a creditor or litigant.

 

[DenverSooner]

In a business sense, sure.

Talking about a person who MIGHT be ligitaged down the road? Hardly. Happens all the time. And until a time where he is aware of such litigation, there is nothing the courts can do about it.

I think you are mistaken as to the scope of the fraudulent transfer acts across the country. You can't know of liability and give away your assets leaving a known creditor with no remedy. Under your theory that litigation had to have been filed, you could kill someone in a car accident while driving drunk and do asset protection work the next day even though you clearly know or should know a lawsuit is coming.

If Paterno knew or should have known his actions years ago exposed him to liability, it was now just being exposed and then transfered assets for less than fair value leaving nothing for the potential creidtors he has potential liability. How it will turn out is certainly debatable but I do not believe it is t a black and white issue where you can say with certainty he can do this.

 

[WTSooner]

I think you are mistaken as to the scope of the fraudulent transfer acts across the country. You can't know of liability and give away your assets leaving a known creditor with no remedy. Under your theory that litigation had to have been filed, you could kill someone in a car accident while driving drunk and do asset protection work the next day even though you clearly know or should know a lawsuit is coming.

If Paterno knew or should have known his actions years ago exposed him to liability, it was now just being exposed and then transfered assets for less than fair value leaving nothing for the potential creidtors he has potential liability. How it will turn out is certainly debatable but I do not believe it is t a black and white issue where you can say with certainty he can do this.

I never said they might not be able to go back and take the said asset, should Joe Pa lose a civil case. I said using the word fraudulent isn't correct. Fraud implies that the act itself is illegal. Joe Pa won't get into trouble for selling his house to his wife. Even if he loses a civil case, and they decide the house is fair game (doubtful he'd have to sell his house to pay off any judgement, IMO), he won't be "fraudulent" of anything.

And example of fraud would be a Controller fraudulently changing the books to cover up something. In that instance, fraud is the right word b/c they can actually be charged with a crime for the cover up. Joe Pa isn't going to be charged with a crime for selling his house.

And what if he had sold it to somebody else? What if it wasn't his wife? Are they really going to go take somebody's house that has been living there for a year, or two, or five? HIGHLY unlikely, IMO.

 

[DenverSooner]

I never said they might not be able to go back and take the said asset, should Joe Pa lose a civil case. I said using the word fraudulent isn't correct. Fraud implies that the act itself is illegal. Joe Pa won't get into trouble for selling his house to his wife. Even if he loses a civil case, and they decide the house is fair game (doubtful he'd have to sell his house to pay off any judgement, IMO), he won't be "fraudulent" of anything.

And example of fraud would be a Controller fraudulently changing the books to cover up something. In that instance, fraud is the right word b/c they can actually be charged with a crime for the cover up. Joe Pa isn't going to be charged with a crime for selling his house.

And what if he had sold it to somebody else? What if it wasn't his wife? Are they really going to go take somebody's house that has been living there for a year, or two, or five? HIGHLY unlikely, IMO.

The statutes are called Fradualent Transfer Acts. There is both civil fruad and criminal fraud in the United States (and to my knowledge the common law countries).