5 ms·

Generally you just have your wages garnished for as long as you have an income. This would include Social Security. If, somehow, you came into significant funds

by Fezzik 4y ago

Generally you just have your wages garnished for as long as you have an income. This would include Social Security. If, somehow, you came into significant funds again you could probably negotiate a one time payment to satisfy the judgment. That seems highly unlikely in her case though.

HyperSane 4y ago
Her husband is quite rich.
- swarnie 4y ago
  Does debt pass to spouses in the US?
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    Generally, no, especially debt that occurred before the marriage. That said, California is a community property state, which means that income and debts that are incurred during the marriage are considered the joint property of both spouses. Again though, Holmes debt and her husband's wealth were acquired before their marriage, so in that case it's easy to keep these separate.
    - FireBeyond 4y ago
      > Holmes debt Is only being incurred now, at the verdict. > husband's wealth Acquired before marriage, and would have to have been mind bogglingly stupid, knowing the risk of a liability finding, not to protect that with a prenuptial.
      - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
        > Is only being incurred now, at the verdict. IANAL but that's generally not how it works. The timing of when the debt was incurred here would be considered when the conduct occurred that resulted in the verdict. > not to protect that with a prenuptial Would probably want a prenup for other reasons, but wouldn't be necessary here. Just need to ensure his pre-marriage assets weren't commingled with community property during the marriage.
      - HyperSane 4y ago
        Is the fact that he married and had a child with Holmes evidence that he is in fact "mind bogglingly stupid"?
    - compsciphd 4y ago
      if her husband is a beneficiary of a trust (i.e. as I'd assume many heirs are). would any future disbursements (if they exist, there might be none) be considered 50% hers and hence have to the settlement?
      - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
        No
      - narrator 4y ago
        No, that's separate property. That's his as long as trust funds are not commingled with community funds.
  - highwaylights 4y ago
    I'm going to guess no, given that this has all been coming down the pipe since before they got married - and I'm fairly certain no-one is foolish enough to do something like that under those circumstances. Also, I can't imagine his family would have jumped for joy over it either without consulting several lawyers ahead of time.
    - FireBeyond 4y ago
      My understanding is that the date of sentencing/verdict is the date of record, since until that point you have not been found guilty/liable. I guarantee there's a prenup.
      - highwaylights 4y ago
        Surely there must be. It makes no sense otherwise - this outcome has been widely predicted for a loooong time.
  - moralestapia 4y ago
    It's not that debt goes from one spouse to the other. When you marry someone you become some sort of combined entity where assets/liabilities now belong to the husband-and-wife-estate figure and not by any of them individually (obv. disregarding the effects of prenups and similar clauses).
    - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
      That's not the case in any state for assets and liabilities acquired before the marriage, including community property states.
School-Cotton 4y ago
What fraction of your wages get taken?
- tssva 4y ago
  From the Department of Labor information notice regarding wage garnishment: "Title III also protects individuals by limiting the amount of earnings that may be garnished in any workweek or pay period to the lesser of 25 percent of disposable earnings or the amount by which disposable earnings are greater than 30 times the Federal minimum hourly wage prescribed by Section 6(a) (1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. This limit applies regardless of how many garnishment orders an employer receives. The Federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour." It also states that if state limits are smaller than the state limits apply.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
moralestapia 4y ago
I've heard it is 5 years but I have no good source on that. Perhaps it depends on each particular case?

by Fezzik 4y ago

HyperSane 4y ago

Her husband is quite rich.

swarnie 4y ago
Does debt pass to spouses in the US?
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  Generally, no, especially debt that occurred before the marriage. That said, California is a community property state, which means that income and debts that are incurred during the marriage are considered the joint property of both spouses. Again though, Holmes debt and her husband's wealth were acquired before their marriage, so in that case it's easy to keep these separate.
  - FireBeyond 4y ago
    > Holmes debt Is only being incurred now, at the verdict. > husband's wealth Acquired before marriage, and would have to have been mind bogglingly stupid, knowing the risk of a liability finding, not to protect that with a prenuptial.
    - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
      > Is only being incurred now, at the verdict. IANAL but that's generally not how it works. The timing of when the debt was incurred here would be considered when the conduct occurred that resulted in the verdict. > not to protect that with a prenuptial Would probably want a prenup for other reasons, but wouldn't be necessary here. Just need to ensure his pre-marriage assets weren't commingled with community property during the marriage.
    - HyperSane 4y ago
      Is the fact that he married and had a child with Holmes evidence that he is in fact "mind bogglingly stupid"?
  - compsciphd 4y ago
    if her husband is a beneficiary of a trust (i.e. as I'd assume many heirs are). would any future disbursements (if they exist, there might be none) be considered 50% hers and hence have to the settlement?
    - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
      No
    - narrator 4y ago
      No, that's separate property. That's his as long as trust funds are not commingled with community funds.
- highwaylights 4y ago
  I'm going to guess no, given that this has all been coming down the pipe since before they got married - and I'm fairly certain no-one is foolish enough to do something like that under those circumstances. Also, I can't imagine his family would have jumped for joy over it either without consulting several lawyers ahead of time.
  - FireBeyond 4y ago
    My understanding is that the date of sentencing/verdict is the date of record, since until that point you have not been found guilty/liable. I guarantee there's a prenup.
    - highwaylights 4y ago
      Surely there must be. It makes no sense otherwise - this outcome has been widely predicted for a loooong time.
- moralestapia 4y ago
  It's not that debt goes from one spouse to the other. When you marry someone you become some sort of combined entity where assets/liabilities now belong to the husband-and-wife-estate figure and not by any of them individually (obv. disregarding the effects of prenups and similar clauses).
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    That's not the case in any state for assets and liabilities acquired before the marriage, including community property states.

School-Cotton 4y ago

What fraction of your wages get taken?

tssva 4y ago
From the Department of Labor information notice regarding wage garnishment: "Title III also protects individuals by limiting the amount of earnings that may be garnished in any workweek or pay period to the lesser of 25 percent of disposable earnings or the amount by which disposable earnings are greater than 30 times the Federal minimum hourly wage prescribed by Section 6(a) (1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. This limit applies regardless of how many garnishment orders an employer receives. The Federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour." It also states that if state limits are smaller than the state limits apply.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

moralestapia 4y ago

I've heard it is 5 years but I have no good source on that. Perhaps it depends on each particular case?