Comments on: Adventures in Community Property, Part One: The Road Warrior and the Pedophile http://decouplingblog.com/2009/09/adventures-in-community-property-part-one-the-road-warrior-and-the-pedophile/ Explaining and Discussing Washington Family Law Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:41:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Adventures in Community Property, Part Two: The Wasted Hostage Taker and the Amorous Yachtsman | Decoupling Seattle Family Law and Divorce Blog http://decouplingblog.com/2009/09/adventures-in-community-property-part-one-the-road-warrior-and-the-pedophile/comment-page-1/#comment-209 Adventures in Community Property, Part Two: The Wasted Hostage Taker and the Amorous Yachtsman | Decoupling Seattle Family Law and Divorce Blog Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:24:15 +0000 http://decouplingblog.com/?p=3146#comment-209 [...] Decoupling Seattle Family Law and Divorce Blog Explaining and Discussing Washington Family Law Rao & Pierce Seattle Family Law Firm Skip to content ServicesAbout UsContact UsDisclaimer « Adventures in Community Property, Part One: The Road Warrior and the Pedophile [...] [...] Decoupling Seattle Family Law and Divorce Blog Explaining and Discussing Washington Family Law Rao & Pierce Seattle Family Law Firm Skip to content ServicesAbout UsContact UsDisclaimer « Adventures in Community Property, Part One: The Road Warrior and the Pedophile [...]

]]> By: Yoram http://decouplingblog.com/2009/09/adventures-in-community-property-part-one-the-road-warrior-and-the-pedophile/comment-page-1/#comment-207 Yoram Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:12:39 +0000 http://decouplingblog.com/?p=3146#comment-207 Really interesting. Thanks for posting. I am pondering the case in which the court finds that only one of the spouses is responsible for the injury and there is no separate property (the delicate balancing act that you discuss)... The problem arises because all the defendant's property is jointly owned with someone else - right? Would it be just to recognize that 50% of the joint property belongs to one spouse and 50% to the other? Wouldn't it follow that it would be fair to take 50% of the joint property? This might be simple in the case of liquid assets such as cash but clearly poses some problems if it forces the sale of a jointly owned house or other non-liquid property. Even in the case of cash, it could penalize the 'other' party indirectly. For example, if the guilty party is left with zero cash, then the spouse might feel morally obliged to support the guilty party, thereby imposing a big burden on the innocent spouse. But hey - if you married a bully, there's some price to pay... Really interesting. Thanks for posting. I am pondering the case in which the court finds that only one of the spouses is responsible for the injury and there is no separate property (the delicate balancing act that you discuss)…

The problem arises because all the defendant’s property is jointly owned with someone else – right? Would it be just to recognize that 50% of the joint property belongs to one spouse and 50% to the other? Wouldn’t it follow that it would be fair to take 50% of the joint property? This might be simple in the case of liquid assets such as cash but clearly poses some problems if it forces the sale of a jointly owned house or other non-liquid property.

Even in the case of cash, it could penalize the ‘other’ party indirectly. For example, if the guilty party is left with zero cash, then the spouse might feel morally obliged to support the guilty party, thereby imposing a big burden on the innocent spouse. But hey – if you married a bully, there’s some price to pay…

]]>