Scenario:
A and B got married 5 years ago.
Both entered marriage with $0 net worth. (no assets, no liabilities).
Today they separate:
A has $(30K) net worth - no assets, ($30K) liabilities.
B has $10K net worth - $10k assets.
Normally, the NFP would result in NFP payment by B to A of $20K. But let's say A generated the $30K debt by recklessly gambling behind B's back, and the full $30K is purely related to gambling. Also, let's say, that A actually lost $100K over the 5 years gambling, but the debt is only $30K (was able to finance the other $70k through his income). In other words, if A hadn't gambled at all, his net worth would be $100K. Finally, let's assume A's credit is in shambles, and there's no way he can get new debt from anywhere or anyone.
Given this case, assuming proof is there and judge says its "reckless", would/could a judge actually order an equilization payment from A to B over-and-above, instead of just leaving A with his 30K debt and leaving B with her $10K net worth? i.e., would/could a judge force A to go bankrupt even though he's agreed to keep his $30K debt and move on? Secondly, would going bankrupt alleviate A from having to pay such NFP payment, even if judge made it payable over like 10-20 years?
tx
A and B got married 5 years ago.
Both entered marriage with $0 net worth. (no assets, no liabilities).
Today they separate:
A has $(30K) net worth - no assets, ($30K) liabilities.
B has $10K net worth - $10k assets.
Normally, the NFP would result in NFP payment by B to A of $20K. But let's say A generated the $30K debt by recklessly gambling behind B's back, and the full $30K is purely related to gambling. Also, let's say, that A actually lost $100K over the 5 years gambling, but the debt is only $30K (was able to finance the other $70k through his income). In other words, if A hadn't gambled at all, his net worth would be $100K. Finally, let's assume A's credit is in shambles, and there's no way he can get new debt from anywhere or anyone.
Given this case, assuming proof is there and judge says its "reckless", would/could a judge actually order an equilization payment from A to B over-and-above, instead of just leaving A with his 30K debt and leaving B with her $10K net worth? i.e., would/could a judge force A to go bankrupt even though he's agreed to keep his $30K debt and move on? Secondly, would going bankrupt alleviate A from having to pay such NFP payment, even if judge made it payable over like 10-20 years?
tx
Comment