3 ms·
> If we cared about fights of the rich if you just were allowed to take previous assertions at face value and kept the process tight things would move more quic
by vageli 7y ago
> If we cared about fights of the rich if you just were allowed to take previous assertions at face value and kept the process tight things would move more quickly.
> ie, if in previous cases / situations you claimed to have no control / no interest in an entity (liability claims / previous divorce claims / tax claims and structuring), then for purposes of current litigation that is what counts.
It sounds like you are getting at the concept of estoppel.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel
- privateSFacct 7y agoThe problem is the public interest is not usually well represented here. For example, Rich person A in cahoots with Trustee C claims no interest in (untaxed) asset B. When they litigate against each other Trustee C can struggle with estoppel because they themselves knew transaction was a sham so in communication with C rich person A WAS clear that they intended to maintain control. We need to have something like an absolute public interest estoppel. If you assert something to the government or in court that reduces your taxes / avoids liability etc, then what you said to anyone actually suing you not critical.