Penn State horror story

[G&T]

Maybe it's just to make the transition easier for his wife when the inevitable happens? I mean, the guy's 84.

 

If the property is jointly held with survivorship rights, it legally passes at the moment of death to the wife. All you do is send the death certificate to whoever holds the records to make it official on the books. It would be far easier not to sell it.

[Steve9347]

If the property is jointly held with survivorship rights, it legally passes at the moment of death to the wife. All you do is send the death certificate to whoever holds the records to make it official on the books. It would be far easier not to sell it.

Oh, Happy Valley times.

[NorthSideSox72]

If the property is jointly held with survivorship rights, it legally passes at the moment of death to the wife. All you do is send the death certificate to whoever holds the records to make it official on the books. It would be far easier not to sell it.

But there are also sometimes tax reasons, not related to death and estate, that you want assets in the name of one or the other.

 

[RockRaines]

But there are also sometimes tax reasons, not related to death and estate, that you want assets in the name of one or the other.

And I believe a few lawyers said there werent any tax reasons. You have to admit its a bit of a coincidence that he did this after being interviewed by a Grand Jury about this mess. The guy didnt just turn old this year, he has been old for awhile and this could have happened at an time, why now?

[NorthSideSox72]

And I believe a few lawyers said there werent any tax reasons. You have to admit its a bit of a coincidence that he did this after being interviewed by a Grand Jury about this mess. The guy didnt just turn old this year, he has been old for awhile and this could have happened at an time, why now?

I'm not saying one way or the other, I honestly don't know. Just pointing out one possible reason.

 

[Texsox]

It would be helpful to know what other things he may have done. This does seem somewhat normal for someone retiring and 84 years of age. Who knows, it may have something to do with his retirement. But, I can easily see that it is tied to the scandal.

 

 

[G&T]

But there are also sometimes tax reasons, not related to death and estate, that you want assets in the name of one or the other.

 

Well there could be other reasons entirely. One explanation could be old Joe's brain isn't so good. They may be moving everything to her name before he goes demented and they don't care about tax consequences.

[Texsox]

Thinking about it a little more, my best guess is

 

it is something that they have been thinking about and the GJ stuff proded them along faster.

[RockRaines]

Thinking about it a little more, my best guess is

 

it is something that they have been thinking about and the GJ stuff proded them along faster.

Could be. It would seem so normal except for the timing.

[Balta1701]

It would be helpful to know what other things he may have done. This does seem somewhat normal for someone retiring and 84 years of age. Who knows, it may have something to do with his retirement. But, I can easily see that it is tied to the scandal.

You really think he'd have retired this year if it wasn't for the scandal?

[Soxbadger]

Its odd. But if you were just trying to shield assets isnt the simplest plan to create a trust and put the asset in the trust?

 

The only actual explanation is that Paterno wanted to give his wife the house so that she would have an asset of her own that she could do whatever she wanted with.

 

Any other motive just (imo) makes no sense.

[G&T]

Its odd. But if you were just trying to shield assets isnt the simplest plan to create a trust and put the asset in the trust?

 

The only actual explanation is that Paterno wanted to give his wife the house so that she would have an asset of her own that she could do whatever she wanted with.

 

Any other motive just (imo) makes no sense.

 

 

It looks like it was placed in trust with the wife as trustee and beneficiary. The original article says the wife's name as trustee.

[Soxbadger]

Ha I didnt even read the article. Anyway its still the same reasoning, the only reason you put it in a trust that is run by your wife is if you want your wife to have the asset. If the asset is in the Joe Paterno and Wife Trust, its still not Paterno's asset and therefore generally not subject to a turnover order.

 

I guess Penn law could be different and maybe there is some potential liability on a joint trust, just generally thats not the case.

[RockRaines]

Peek into the minds of Boy Lovers aka Pedo's

 

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/weekend-we...bliss-olsen.php

[Texsox]

You really think he'd have retired this year if it wasn't for the scandal?

 

Possibly. It depends on what his milestone was. If it was wins, then yeah, I think he might have. It may have been at his, or the university's, choice.

[G&T]

Ha I didnt even read the article. Anyway its still the same reasoning, the only reason you put it in a trust that is run by your wife is if you want your wife to have the asset. If the asset is in the Joe Paterno and Wife Trust, its still not Paterno's asset and therefore generally not subject to a turnover order.

 

I guess Penn law could be different and maybe there is some potential liability on a joint trust, just generally thats not the case.

 

I think if he we both trustee and beneficiary the asset could be reached to the extent of his interest. In other words, you can't hide assets in a trust while retaining the benefit and management of the assets. But that's all dependent on form, state law, etc.

 

But your concept is right. I can't think of a real reason to take the form they did except to prevent Joe's creditors from reaching it. And the form they took is pretty much airtight regardless of the state.

[G&T]

Peek into the minds of Boy Lovers aka Pedo's

 

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/weekend-we...bliss-olsen.php

 

I worked for a summer in a special victims unit of a DA's office. That's the type of trash that we would get. Some monster would be caught with a kid or talking about meeting a kid, computer confiscated, and all these transcripts of messages like those would be on my desk to sort through.

 

I read very little at that link but it reminds me of exactly how I felt back then. The act is horrific enough, but I always assumed they felt guilty for their actions. They don't. I also assumed pedos were rare. They aren't. That would be why I have no remorse for those who covered this up.

[Soxbadger]

GT,

 

http://www.virtuwillsolutions.com/pautc.htm#_SUBCHAPTER_E

 

§ 7745. Creditor's claim against settlor - UTC 505(a).

 

Whether or not a trust instrument contains a spendthrift provision and notwithstanding section 7744 (relating to discretionary trusts; effect of standard - UTC 504):

 

 

 

(1) During the lifetime of the settlor, the property of a revocable trust is subject to claims of the settlor's creditors.

 

So it does look like Penn law allows for trust assets to be reached (at least in revocable trust). This is different than IL law.

[StrangeSox]

I think if he we both trustee and beneficiary the asset could be reached to the extent of his interest. In other words, you can't hide assets in a trust while retaining the benefit and management of the assets. But that's all dependent on form, state law, etc.

 

But your concept is right. I can't think of a real reason to take the form they did except to prevent Joe's creditors from reaching it. And the form they took is pretty much airtight regardless of the state.

Why is that legal? Seems ripe for abuse.

[G&T]

Why is that legal? Seems ripe for abuse.

 

To protect the beneficiaries who were not involved and had no knowledge.

 

I can't state that there are no arguments that might get around the trust formation for the creditors, but given Joe's age and faculties I think the move is probably objectively valid. However, if the wife knew that Paterno was covering this up and had knowledge of the conspiracy then she may be liable anyway and the trust would be meaningless. Additionally, there could be something in PA that would invalidate the transfer to a close relative where it appears that the move was made to avoid creditors.

 

In any event, the house isn't worth that much. Paterno is getting something like a $500k a year pension, which can be reached. I'm sure there are millions in assets that have been moved. The house is probably the tip of the iceberg.

[Soxbadger]

Paterno isnt even the subject of a lawsuit yet, so he really can do whatever he wants with his assets. Even after a judgment you can move assets, provided that you have not been served with a citation restricting the movement.

 

Collecting money on a judgment is actually harder than winning a judgment.

[RockRaines]

I worked for a summer in a special victims unit of a DA's office. That's the type of trash that we would get. Some monster would be caught with a kid or talking about meeting a kid, computer confiscated, and all these transcripts of messages like those would be on my desk to sort through.

 

I read very little at that link but it reminds me of exactly how I felt back then. The act is horrific enough, but I always assumed they felt guilty for their actions. They don't. I also assumed pedos were rare. They aren't. That would be why I have no remorse for those who covered this up.

Thats sick. Some of those guys really think what they are doing is good.

[RockRaines]

Finally an out of state judge is appointed to hear this case.

 

Guess someone finally figured out that a judge who donated huge sums of money to Sandusky's charity wasnt a good idea.

 

Edit: And she was a volunteer for the Second Mile.

Edited November 16, 2011 by RockRaines

[RockRaines]

Apparently McQ spoke to some non-existant super secret police force...

 

 

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/...porting-assault

[Milkman delivers]

I worked for a summer in a special victims unit of a DA's office. That's the type of trash that we would get. Some monster would be caught with a kid or talking about meeting a kid, computer confiscated, and all these transcripts of messages like those would be on my desk to sort through.

 

I read very little at that link but it reminds me of exactly how I felt back then. The act is horrific enough, but I always assumed they felt guilty for their actions. They don't. I also assumed pedos were rare. They aren't. That would be why I have no remorse for those who covered this up.

 

How do you mean "rare"? I always assumed they were pretty rare as well, but I never thought of the number. I probably would have said something like roughly a few hundred in a big city.

 

It's something I could never wrap my mind around, and always figured most pedophiles were that way because they were abused or neglected.