8 ms·

She’s spending her money on the criminal case to keep her out of jail. She is 100% going to file for bankruptcy so she doesn’t care about the civil case.

megablast 7y ago
Doesn’t that make perfect sense though?
- tmpz22 7y ago
  More so when you realize she just married a millionaire hotel heir who won’t be liable for her wife’s debts because they were incurred before the marriage...
  - gnicholas 7y ago
    I’m sure he paid top dollar for that prenup — and worth every penny.
    - stevehawk 7y ago
      I think you're confused about how a prenup works in regards to the current context
      - Jamwinner 7y ago
        I think he is making insinuations as to her wiles.
      - gnicholas 7y ago
        Nope, a prenup could cover issues arising during the marriage, in addition to at dissolution. It is critical that she not have rights during the marriage to his separate property because then it could be taken by creditors. And also, as mentioned below, she is obviously not super trustworthy!
        gamblor956 7y ago
        No, he means you're confused about the need for a pre nup. Creditors do not have rights to the separate assets of a spouse for pre material debts even without a pre nup.
        gnicholas 7y ago
        Sure, but assets can be commingled, and I would think one would want to have a very clear understanding of what would and wouldn't be commingled, and what happens to earnings during the marriage (which would be community property in CA).
        stevehawk 7y ago
        But his assets would be protected for all of this, by default, because she (allegedly) committed all of these crimes prior to the marriage.
        gamblor956 7y ago
        You're still not getting it... Premarital assets of one spouse are not subject to the premarital debts of the other spouse. Period. For actions like this arising before the marriage but concluding after the marriage, the debt is premarital. The same is true of one spouse's separate assets, such as an inheritance. Marital debts can be subject to marital assets, regardless of whether you have a prenup or not, but even most community property states generally treat legal settlements as debt of the incurring spouse rather than as marital debt. And even the ones that don't will usually allocate that debt to the incurring spouse in the event of a divorce.
        gnicholas 7y ago
        Yeah, I don't think you're getting what I'm saying either. My point is that this is a very untrustworthy person who is currently being sued and will likely be sued again, marrying a person who is super wealthy. This is clearly a situation where an ironclad prenup is warranted. As to the specific legal/financial implications: if she continues to lie about things in her civil or criminal trials, she could end up incurring further liabilities — during the marriage — that could put marital property at risk. Or she could defraud other people, again putting marital property at risk. It would be a good idea to cordon off as much as possible to keep it from being attachable by her current/future creditors. But honestly, I have no idea why anyone would take issue with my original comment: The dude needed a prenup, he probably paid a lot, and it was probably worth it. Why pick nits? And I say this as a (former) lawyer, who appreciates nuance and getting things right.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      She's a proven extremely competent swindler. It's probably a mistake to assume she can't possibly have convinced someone a pre-nup isn't necessary.
      - gnicholas 7y ago
        I would imagine his family would condition his inheritance on a prenup, at least under circumstances such as these.
  - nradov 7y ago
    It's strange how someone supposedly intelligent like Billy Evans can be so stupid. As a spouse, Elizabeth Holmes comes with tremendous baggage regardless of the outcome of the court cases. And — not to be crude — she isn't even particularly attractive. I guess I just don't understand the ways of billionaires?
    - callalex 7y ago
      I bet she is very energizing/encouraging/inspiring to be around, which is a good quality in a partner. On the other hand, so is honesty...
    - Fnoord 7y ago
      Has she ditched The Voice? Perhaps that got him attracted. She is intelligent, too. Which is potentially attractive. As for physically attractive: lots of make up isn't, to me. She seems tall. I don't fancy blondes. Ie. also matter of taste.
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        Former family friend Richard Fuisz said she was a fair student with poor grades. All indications I've seen are that she isn't intelligent but happens to be a sociopath who worked wealthy connections.
        Fnoord 7y ago
        Above-average intelligence*.
thechao 7y ago
Filing for bankruptcy solely with the intent to stop litigation is grounds for the dismissal of the bankruptcy. She’d need to demonstrate that her distress is mostly defined by action other than the litigation—also, costs with respect to the criminal case probably can’t be used to justify bankruptcy.
- rhino369 7y ago
  But does that same rule prevent bankruptcy after getting a final judgement. She's going to get hit with a 200 million dollar judgement. But she doesn't have 200 million dollars. I assume, at that point, she can declare bankruptcy.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    Well it can be paid over time. There are other convicted scammers with giant restitution amounts that they just keep paying until they die.
    - voxic11 7y ago
      You obviously can't discharge criminal restitution in bankruptcy. You can discharge civil judgements in most cases, but intentional fraud can be non-dischargable if the creditor files a adversary proceeding. I guess if they won the criminal case they would have a much better chance of arguing to the bankruptcy court that it wasn't intentional fraud.
- throwawayjava 7y ago
  So, here's what I sincerely don't get: why is she allowed to spend a bunch of money on her criminal defense while there are civil cases working their way through the courts, and after she's basically admitted she doesn't have enough money to defend herself in both cases? I understand it would be probably unconstitutional to delay criminal proceedings until after the civil proceedings. But can't the judge in the civil proceedings do something to prevent all the money from being spent on her criminal defense? It seems morally wrong that someone can commit fraud and then spend the money obtained via that fraud defending themselves against the state before having to settle up with the people who they defrauded.
manigandham 7y ago
Does a bankruptcy eliminate a civil judgement? Why wouldn't everyone file and wipe out their civil case debt then? Seems too easy of a workaround.
- parsimo2010 7y ago
  Bankruptcy can discharge most judgements, but you actually have to be bankrupt. If you have $190 million and have a judgement against you of $200 million, you don't get to file bankruptcy and discharge the whole thing because you can't pay the full amount. You'll end up paying most of the judgement before you are actually bankrupt and can discharge the remaining amount.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Caveat: Some assets are protected during bankruptcy proceedings, 401ks federally, IRAs in most states, primary residence up to unlimited value in Florida. Not legal advice: if you’re going bankrupt with flush 401ks, IRAs, and a luxury residence, Florida is not a bad state to do it in.
    - ranDOMscripts 7y ago
      Which is why many pro athletes move their residency to Florida the day they sign their multi-million dollar contracts and buy the biggest mansions they can afford.
      - distances 7y ago
        Are pro athletes prone to bankruptcy?
      - gdilla 7y ago
        That's the bonus. No state income tax of FL is your primary residence.
- AlexCoventry 7y ago
  Bankruptcy is not an easy matter. > One factor in considering whether the U.S. Trustee can prevail in a challenge to the debtor's Chapter 7 filing is whether the debtor can otherwise afford to repay some or all of his debts out of disposable income in the five year time frame provided by Chapter 13. If so, then the U.S. Trustee may succeed in preventing the debtor from receiving a discharge under Chapter 7, effectively forcing the debtor into Chapter 13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_7,_Title_11,_United_States_Code#For_individuals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_7,_Title_11,_United_St... You really don't want to give a Federal officer the power to decide you have too much disposable income for the next five years.

megablast 7y ago

Doesn’t that make perfect sense though?

tmpz22 7y ago
More so when you realize she just married a millionaire hotel heir who won’t be liable for her wife’s debts because they were incurred before the marriage...
- gnicholas 7y ago
  I’m sure he paid top dollar for that prenup — and worth every penny.
  - stevehawk 7y ago
    I think you're confused about how a prenup works in regards to the current context
    - Jamwinner 7y ago
      I think he is making insinuations as to her wiles.
    - gnicholas 7y ago
      Nope, a prenup could cover issues arising during the marriage, in addition to at dissolution. It is critical that she not have rights during the marriage to his separate property because then it could be taken by creditors. And also, as mentioned below, she is obviously not super trustworthy!
      - gamblor956 7y ago
        No, he means you're confused about the need for a pre nup. Creditors do not have rights to the separate assets of a spouse for pre material debts even without a pre nup.
        gnicholas 7y ago
        Sure, but assets can be commingled, and I would think one would want to have a very clear understanding of what would and wouldn't be commingled, and what happens to earnings during the marriage (which would be community property in CA).
        stevehawk 7y ago
        But his assets would be protected for all of this, by default, because she (allegedly) committed all of these crimes prior to the marriage.
        gamblor956 7y ago
        You're still not getting it... Premarital assets of one spouse are not subject to the premarital debts of the other spouse. Period. For actions like this arising before the marriage but concluding after the marriage, the debt is premarital. The same is true of one spouse's separate assets, such as an inheritance. Marital debts can be subject to marital assets, regardless of whether you have a prenup or not, but even most community property states generally treat legal settlements as debt of the incurring spouse rather than as marital debt. And even the ones that don't will usually allocate that debt to the incurring spouse in the event of a divorce.
        gnicholas 7y ago
        Yeah, I don't think you're getting what I'm saying either. My point is that this is a very untrustworthy person who is currently being sued and will likely be sued again, marrying a person who is super wealthy. This is clearly a situation where an ironclad prenup is warranted. As to the specific legal/financial implications: if she continues to lie about things in her civil or criminal trials, she could end up incurring further liabilities — during the marriage — that could put marital property at risk. Or she could defraud other people, again putting marital property at risk. It would be a good idea to cordon off as much as possible to keep it from being attachable by her current/future creditors. But honestly, I have no idea why anyone would take issue with my original comment: The dude needed a prenup, he probably paid a lot, and it was probably worth it. Why pick nits? And I say this as a (former) lawyer, who appreciates nuance and getting things right.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    She's a proven extremely competent swindler. It's probably a mistake to assume she can't possibly have convinced someone a pre-nup isn't necessary.
    - gnicholas 7y ago
      I would imagine his family would condition his inheritance on a prenup, at least under circumstances such as these.
- nradov 7y ago
  It's strange how someone supposedly intelligent like Billy Evans can be so stupid. As a spouse, Elizabeth Holmes comes with tremendous baggage regardless of the outcome of the court cases. And — not to be crude — she isn't even particularly attractive. I guess I just don't understand the ways of billionaires?
  - callalex 7y ago
    I bet she is very energizing/encouraging/inspiring to be around, which is a good quality in a partner. On the other hand, so is honesty...
  - Fnoord 7y ago
    Has she ditched The Voice? Perhaps that got him attracted. She is intelligent, too. Which is potentially attractive. As for physically attractive: lots of make up isn't, to me. She seems tall. I don't fancy blondes. Ie. also matter of taste.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      Former family friend Richard Fuisz said she was a fair student with poor grades. All indications I've seen are that she isn't intelligent but happens to be a sociopath who worked wealthy connections.
      - Fnoord 7y ago
        Above-average intelligence*.

thechao 7y ago

Filing for bankruptcy solely with the intent to stop litigation is grounds for the dismissal of the bankruptcy. She’d need to demonstrate that her distress is mostly defined by action other than the litigation—also, costs with respect to the criminal case probably can’t be used to justify bankruptcy.

rhino369 7y ago
But does that same rule prevent bankruptcy after getting a final judgement. She's going to get hit with a 200 million dollar judgement. But she doesn't have 200 million dollars. I assume, at that point, she can declare bankruptcy.
- manigandham 7y ago
  Well it can be paid over time. There are other convicted scammers with giant restitution amounts that they just keep paying until they die.
  - voxic11 7y ago
    You obviously can't discharge criminal restitution in bankruptcy. You can discharge civil judgements in most cases, but intentional fraud can be non-dischargable if the creditor files a adversary proceeding. I guess if they won the criminal case they would have a much better chance of arguing to the bankruptcy court that it wasn't intentional fraud.
throwawayjava 7y ago
So, here's what I sincerely don't get: why is she allowed to spend a bunch of money on her criminal defense while there are civil cases working their way through the courts, and after she's basically admitted she doesn't have enough money to defend herself in both cases? I understand it would be probably unconstitutional to delay criminal proceedings until after the civil proceedings. But can't the judge in the civil proceedings do something to prevent all the money from being spent on her criminal defense? It seems morally wrong that someone can commit fraud and then spend the money obtained via that fraud defending themselves against the state before having to settle up with the people who they defrauded.

manigandham 7y ago

Does a bankruptcy eliminate a civil judgement? Why wouldn't everyone file and wipe out their civil case debt then? Seems too easy of a workaround.

parsimo2010 7y ago
Bankruptcy can discharge most judgements, but you actually have to be bankrupt. If you have $190 million and have a judgement against you of $200 million, you don't get to file bankruptcy and discharge the whole thing because you can't pay the full amount. You'll end up paying most of the judgement before you are actually bankrupt and can discharge the remaining amount.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  Caveat: Some assets are protected during bankruptcy proceedings, 401ks federally, IRAs in most states, primary residence up to unlimited value in Florida. Not legal advice: if you’re going bankrupt with flush 401ks, IRAs, and a luxury residence, Florida is not a bad state to do it in.
  - ranDOMscripts 7y ago
    Which is why many pro athletes move their residency to Florida the day they sign their multi-million dollar contracts and buy the biggest mansions they can afford.
    - distances 7y ago
      Are pro athletes prone to bankruptcy?
    - gdilla 7y ago
      That's the bonus. No state income tax of FL is your primary residence.
AlexCoventry 7y ago
Bankruptcy is not an easy matter. > One factor in considering whether the U.S. Trustee can prevail in a challenge to the debtor's Chapter 7 filing is whether the debtor can otherwise afford to repay some or all of his debts out of disposable income in the five year time frame provided by Chapter 13. If so, then the U.S. Trustee may succeed in preventing the debtor from receiving a discharge under Chapter 7, effectively forcing the debtor into Chapter 13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_7,_Title_11,_United_States_Code#For_individuals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_7,_Title_11,_United_St... You really don't want to give a Federal officer the power to decide you have too much disposable income for the next five years.