What to do?

this 3 post fisherman is just throwing a line out to see what he can catch...trolling is all...just stirring the water...putting down the ladies here...HE ALREADY IS BANKRUPT IN MY OPINION...

As I understand it, .... I am aware of a case in Harris Co. about six years ago where the wife argued .... The case was settled ... so the court did not actually rule.

Certainly, if one hides community assets with the intent of shielding them from a property division, this is conduct that is arguably "fraudulent" and can be addressed by a court.

Consequently, I believe the statement that " there cannot be conceptually a 'fraud' as a consequence of taking one's own property" is, perhaps, overbroad.

Surely we can agree that the discovery in a divorce proceeding that a guy is spending loads of cash on hookers will not typically induce a court to cut him any slack or tilt the equities in his favor, right? Originally Posted by lizardking

lizard, my sole concern regarding some posts on here about "the law" is that there are some folks on here who will take things literally and without qualification, sometimes even because the poster announcing "the law" has "tenure" on the board, and those persons act or react upon the statement.

Comment: A "settled" case is not a case in which there was a "finding" that spending money on a provider is a fraud on the community estate. Such a determination would have to come from an appellate decision interpreting some provision of the Texas Family Code (in Texas) that has not been reversed or otherwise "modified."

In the context of "taking" the money by paying it to a provider is not "secreting" the money, unless the provider had agreed to merely hold the money for the husband (or wife) until the husband or wife asked for it to be returned and in fact got it back. The money is not "gone" if it is held "secretely" by the other spouse, and the fraud is on the failure to disclose an existing asset of the estates of the parties, which applies whether the asset is community or separate. If paid to the provider, it is NOT EXISTING.

One settled case is not "precedent" for the "legal" conclusion you announced.

LL,

If you're arguing that payment to or for the benefit of a mistress cannot constitute fraud on the community, I believe you are mistaken. If you are arguing that a persuasive (and "successful") argument could not be made to a finder of fact that a long-term relationship between a hobbyist and provider rises to the level of a "dating relationship", I believe you are mistaken.

I was not arguing that payment of consideration to a provider or mistress constitutes "secreting" the money. I was simply pointing out that the handling or mishandling of one's "own money" can create liability for fraud, thereby undercutting the broad generalization that there cannot be fraud associated with the "taking of one's own property."

Certainly, a settled case is not precedent. I did not mean to suggest that it is (and I don't believe I did). I meant only to point out that I had seen the argument successfully advanced, and I believe I made that point. Again, the specifics of this issue and the authorities cited by the wife were beyond the ambit of my concern. I did not review the cases cited. I assume the husband's counsel did, and the husband ultimately caved on the issue. Of course, there could have been myriad factors having nothing to do with the merits of his spouse's argument that led to that result.

My initial point was to emphasize the irony of the moral outlook expressed by some of our comrades here, to wit, the indignation at soaking a credit card company and blissful ignorance regarding the usual source of hobby funds.

I certainly did not mean to be giving advice or to induce anyone to act on my statements. However, both common sense and a a passing familiarity with family law tell me that evidence of cash going to hookers is not going to improve anyone's standing in a divorce. But, that wasn't really my point.

I am less than impressed with any of you assisting this fucktard.

I say max out those cards and burn the motherfucker down!

Cash you take within 90 days of filing will be looked at hard by the trustee. You may cause yourself some problems.

Is this real? Originally Posted by Jaleh

Uh... No, it's not real. Any real shrimp boat captain has had an opportunity to be making money like crazy working for BP. Now the spill is cleaned up just in time for shrimp season to open and and the powers that be are saying "go catch shrimp - the shrimp fine and the water is safe."

Sounds like he has already made up his mind. Makes one wonder why he has not soaked up BP money skimming oil like so many others. I read one article that the shrimpers were making more money skimming oil for BP than fishing.

Commit fraud, just be prepared to take the punishment.

I say max out those cards and burn the motherfucker down! Originally Posted by lizardking

...then get ready for Karma to kick the shit out of you. One way or another all thieves end up paying more than they would have if they had acquired money and stuff honestly.

You show me a shitbird thief who's prosperous and happy. Tick tock.

...then get ready for Karma to kick the shit out of you. One way or another all thieves end up paying more than they would have if they had acquired money and stuff honestly.

You show me a shitbird thief who's prosperous and happy. Tick tock. Originally Posted by Don T. Lukbak

A-freaking-men! Wise words & something to remember.

LOL .. and something tells me you will not be getting any responses now.

If you came to eccie looking for chicks that are hard up for cash, you picked the wrong place. Most of us cyber whores make that cash in 1/2 a year. Hell most of us cyber whores decline more appointments then we accept. And most of us cyber whores will never even have to consider bankruptcy. Originally Posted by Brooke Wild

Amen Sista!

Name your boat "Jenny", hire lieutenant Dan and start going to church.........just sayin'.

start going to church.........just sayin'. Originally Posted by boardman

I knew I saw you in church yesterday!

Bringing in the sheathes
Bringing in the sheathes
We shall come rejoicing
Bringing in the sheathes

I am less than impressed with any of you assisting this fucktard. Originally Posted by dearhunter

you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him thinck