Goldmans Sue

[socaldiva]

I will take the cowboys

Bengels vs steelers- toss up. But i am a steeler fan
MARTIN ii

This banter has NOTHING to do with this forum. This is the stuff PM's are for.

[2L8 4A D8]

I read somewhere in my surfing that after the death of the defendant, the plaintiff has 1 yr in which to file a claim against the estate. I don't remember if this was CA law, FL law or some other state (I viewed so many). Do you know if this would apply to this particular judgment?

I am not sure if I understand your question. IIRC, Creditors have one year to file a claim against someone's Estate. The Goldman's and The Brown's are not Creditors. As has been discussed, OJ's heirs will inherit the Judgment through his Estate. At that time, it will then be up to The Goldman's or The Brown's to enforce the Judgment against OJ's heirs to get the Judgment paid. That's where it has come up, "Will Fred? Won't Fred?"

JMO and MOO!!

[deputydi]

That is alright Deputy. I just want you to know that I have a lot of practice at the bars and have my Just Drunk degree.:)
:lol: Cute.

I could never root for a team that has T.O. on its roster. Since both Philly and Dallas have secured a place in the playoffs, I've got to be cheering loudly for the team that said "No way will we put up with T.O. and his mouth". Pgh's season will end tomorrow, but I still love my Steelers.

Sorry socal. Now let's get back on topic.

[2L8 4A D8]

I do not believe that with the new bankruptcy laws, you can walk away from credit card debt.

Prior to the new Bankruptcy Laws, credit card debt was dischargeable. However, that's why the Laws were changed. Too many people were running up massive credit card debt and then would file Bankruptcy to get rid of it. Not anymore. Ain't going to happen!

JMO and MOO!!

[deputydi]

I am not sure if I understand your question. IIRC, Creditors have one year to file a claim against someone's Estate. The Goldman's and The Brown's are not Creditors. As has been discussed, OJ's heirs will inherit the Judgment through his Estate. At that time, it will then be up to The Goldman's or The Brown's to enforce the Judgment against OJ's heirs to get the Judgment paid. That's where it has come up, "Will Fred? Won't Fred?"

JMO and MOO!!
Wouldn't they be considered creditors of the Estate? The judgment was entered against a living O.J. and upon his death, his will would have to go through probate. At that time, anyone wishing to file a claim against his estate would have to step forward. I don't think a judgment against the estate would be automatically entered.

I've read so many different articles that I may be confusing probate with bankruptcy.

[2L8 4A D8]

<snipped>

I haven't heard anywhere that OJ has filed bankruptcy and I'm not suggesting he has. I only have related what I found out about the laws and how they may or may not apply to a civil judgment.

ALL ~ as OJNUT and Martin like to say:

OJ has not filed Bankruptcy, trust me! OJ is an idiot, but he is not stupid! I firmly believe that if OJ thought that he could ever get the Judgment off of his back through Bankruptcy, he would have filed Bankruptcy the day after the Judgment was rendered against him ~ post haste!

As has been discussed, filing BANRUPTCY will not and never will absolve anyone who has a CIVIL JUDGMENT filed against them. Period! As I have previously stated, it is an anvil around your neck forever and ever (with interest accruing daily) ~ until it is paid off!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Wouldn't they be considered creditors of the Estate? The judgment was entered against a living O.J. and upon his death, his will would have to go through probate. At that time, anyone wishing to file a claim against his estate would have to step forward. I don't think a judgment against the estate would be automatically entered.

I've read so many different articles that I may be confusing probate with bankruptcy.

I don't know what anyone is talking about anymore. I should have started a separate Thread for my question because it really doesn't relate to "Goldmans Sue."

Probate, Trusts and Bankruptcy are three different things. I don't care what WA or Martin say. I will believe Diva's Brother over them anyway, any day!

No. Again, just because OJ dies doesn't mean that the Judgment will go "poof!" Nobody, but nobody would be that lucky, OJ included. I am sure that it is nationwide because if it wasn't, everybody would be living in a State that does not honor Judgments. To me, it's insane to think that one State would honor a Judgment, but another State wouldn't. It's crazy and I will never believe it!

Again, the Judgment is not an Asset; it is not a Creditor ~ it is a Liability and will pass from heirs, to heirs, to heirs ~ until it is paid off!

Just trying to keep the record straight, if that's possible. Nothing against you personally!

JMO and MOO!!

[fbgweezer]

Prior to the new Bankruptcy Laws, credit card debt was dischargeable. However, that's why the Laws were changed. Too many people were running up massive credit card debt and then would file Bankruptcy to get rid of it. Not anymore. Ain't going to happen!

JMO and MOO!!

So, looks like orenthal's 'legacy' for his heirs is that they will have to pay his Dish Network (is this the stolen cable?) and American Express (maybe johnnie wanted his money up front?).

[jotun]

All:
Sassylassy posted a 9 page complaint by Goldigger on topic.You all simply ignored it.

Now this thread has gone into a tangent.
2 pages of IRREVELENT posts.

O.J. has NEVER filed for bankruptcy!!!!!

MOOT!!!!!!

jotun

[jotun]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1219061oj1.html :read:

the 9 pg complaint filed by Frederic Goldman.

Sassy:

Thank you!
For a most interesting totally on topic link.Seems some here don't want to acknowledge this.[Reason for the irrevelent tangent imo]

To all who didn't want to believe old Fred would go after the kids assets.
This proves you WRONG.

jotun

[2L8 4A D8]

So, looks like orenthal's 'legacy' for his heirs is that they will have to pay his Dish Network (is this the stolen cable?) and American Express (maybe johnnie wanted his money up front?).

They would be considered Creditors and would have one year to file a claim for payment against OJ's Estate. If the cable company received a Judgment against OJ, then it would also become a Liability to his heirs to ultimately pay off!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Sassy:

Thank you!
For a most interesting totally on topic link.Seems some here don't want to acknowledge this.[Reason for the irrevelent tangent imo]

To all who didn't want to believe old Fred would go after the kids assets.
This proves you WRONG.

jotun

No, you're wrong! The title of this Thread is Goldmans Sue. Sue for what? Sue for the Judgment that's what! And that's is what we are talking about is the Judgment and what happens to it when OJ dies! Don't like it? Then just pass over the posts that you feel are irrelevant until you come to one that you don't and then respond to it with your ridiculous and assinine posts! Duh! Pretty simple IMO!

JMO and MOO!!

[deputydi]

Sassy:

Thank you!
For a most interesting totally on topic link.Seems some here don't want to acknowledge this.[Reason for the irrevelent tangent imo]

To all who didn't want to believe old Fred would go after the kids assets.
This proves you WRONG.

jotun
Is there a reason most of your posts are either sarcastic or downright nasty?

[deputydi]

They would be considered Creditors and would have one year to file a claim for payment against OJ's Estate. If the cable company received a Judgment against OJ, then it would also become a Liability to his heirs to ultimately pay off!

JMO and MOO!!
I understand most of what you are saying (honest -- I'm trying really hard).

Are you saying that if OJ leaves an estate valued at $10mil and Fred's outstanding judgment is $20mil the kids would have to liquidate ALL of OJ's assets in order to pay half of what is left on the judgment and would still be responsible for the remaining half? Please be patient with me :confused: but that hardly seems fair.

[fbgweezer]

I understand most of what you are saying (honest -- I'm trying really hard).

Are you saying that if OJ leaves an estate valued at $10mil and Fred's outstanding judgment is $20mil the kids would have to liquidate ALL of OJ's assets in order to pay half of what is left on the judgment and would still be responsible for the remaining half? Please be patient with me :confused: but that hardly seems fair.

I've been on both ends of this -- it is my belief that once all assets of the deceased are liquidated and those monies disbursed to satisfy outstanding debts, then the judgment would end. Heirs to the estate do not assume his 'bills' -- the estate is responsible in as much as what can be sold/disbursed. The heirs receive whatever assets/monies are left after all outstanding debts are satisfied to whatever extent the assets allow before being depleted. IMO

[deputydi]

I've been on both ends of this -- it is my belief that once all assets of the deceased are liquidated and those monies disbursed to satisfy outstanding debts, then the judgment would end. Heirs to the estate do not assume his 'bills' -- the estate is responsible in as much as what can be sold/disbursed. The heirs receive whatever assets/monies are left after all outstanding debts are satisfied to whatever extent the assets allow before being depleted. IMO
Thanks. That makes more sense to me. I just couldn't understand how this judgment could pass on in perpetuity (sp?).

[martin II]

Thanks. That makes more sense to me. I just couldn't understand how this judgment could pass on in perpetuity (sp?).

I think that it is the trustee that decides who is intitled to get how much or nothing.
martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

I've been on both ends of this -- it is my belief that once all assets of the deceased are liquidated and those monies disbursed to satisfy outstanding debts, then the judgment would end. Heirs to the estate do not assume his 'bills' -- the estate is responsible in as much as what can be sold/disbursed. The heirs receive whatever assets/monies are left after all outstanding debts are satisfied to whatever extent the assets allow before being depleted. IMO

Again, FBG, you're talking about assets. The Judgment is not an asset. It is a liability and will NEVER end as you state, until it is completely, down to the penny, paid off.

All of the Creditors will be paid off first, through the assets of OJ's Estate. After that, if there are no assets left in OJ's Estate to even remotely cover the Judgment, the heirs are still liable for full payment of the Judgment. As I have previously stated, if OJ's heirs decide not to pay a penny of the Judgment just like OJ did, the Judgment just keeps accruing interest daily and will keep on reverting to his heirs' Estate(s), their heirs' Estate(s), their heirs' Estate(s) ~ up to and including infinity.

Since OJ has refused to pay the Judgment, he has placed an enormous anvil around the necks of all of his heirs, their heirs and their heirs. Such a GR8 guy and Father too, right?

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

Sassy:

Thank you!
For a most interesting totally on topic link.Seems some here don't want to acknowledge this.[Reason for the irrevelent tangent imo]

To all who didn't want to believe old Fred would go after the kids assets.
This proves you WRONG.

jotun

jotun

considering what the suite ask for., i would agree.

martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

I understand most of what you are saying (honest -- I'm trying really hard).

Are you saying that if OJ leaves an estate valued at $10mil and Fred's outstanding judgment is $20mil the kids would have to liquidate ALL of OJ's assets in order to pay half of what is left on the judgment and would still be responsible for the remaining half? Please be patient with me :confused: but that hardly seems fair.

As you well know, nothing in life is fair. The heirs only have OJ to blame for their predicament and OJ's refusal to not pay off the Judgment while he was alive. OJ has/had a better chance of paying off the Judgment as much as he could than his heirs do/did. Unless, of course, they wake up one day and win the Lotto for $500,000,000 or become Rock Stars or become Box Office Big Bucks Mega Stars!

The Judgment was for $33,500,000 divided equally between the Brown's and the Goldman's, or $16,750,000 each (accruing interest daily). We are assuming that the Brown's won't sue the heirs of OJ's Estate for their half of the Judgment, but it will still be considered an outstanding Liability against the heirs. It will remain to be seen if Fred will sue the heirs for his half. I am pretty sure that he will, but I am just speculating as we all are.

I hope this helps!

JMO and MOO!!

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*Again, FBG, you're talking about assets. The Judgment is not an asset. It is a liability and will NEVER end as you state, until it is completely, down to the penny, paid off.

I'm only referring to assets with regard to liquidating to satisfy debts (liabilities) against the estate. If what you say, then I can expect ken lay's heirs to personally pay me back? I don't think so.

[sassylassy]

Sassy:

Thank you!
For a most interesting totally on topic link.Seems some here don't want to acknowledge this.[Reason for the irrevelent tangent imo]

jotun


:beer:thanks Jotun- :beer:

[deputydi]

Again, FBG, you're talking about assets. The Judgment is not an asset. It is a liability and will NEVER end as you state, until it is completely, down to the penny, paid off.

All of the Creditors will be paid off first, through the assets of OJ's Estate. After that, if there are no assets left in OJ's Estate to even remotely cover the Judgment, the heirs are still liable for full payment of the Judgment. As I have previously stated, if OJ's heirs decide not to pay a penny of the Judgment just like OJ did, the Judgment just keeps accruing interest daily and will keep on reverting to his heirs' Estate(s), their heirs' Estate(s), their heirs' Estate(s) ~ up to and including infinity.

Since OJ has refused to pay the Judgment, he has placed an enormous anvil around the necks of all of his heirs, their heirs and their heirs. Such a GR8 guy and Father too, right?

JMO and MOO!!
When links aren't provided, I try to do my own research. I do this routinely because I believe very little of what I read on a message board. I have been looking (unsuccessfully) for verification of what you are saying about these never-ending judgments. As Judge Judy says "If it doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true". This concept you are talking about makes no sense to me whatsoever. Since I can't find a link to support it, would you please supply one?

I am an accountant, not a lawyer. It is quite possible that in the legal world the terms debtor and the way you are interpreting a "liability" are different. Someone who owes you money is a debtor (that would be OJ) and that debt is a liability on your balance sheet. The liability decreases as payments are made and the balance is carried until the debt is satisfied. If the debtor (OJ) dies prior to the liability being satisfied, you can file a claim against the estate and possibly get a percentage of what you are owed when the assets are divided among the creditors (the Browns, the Goldmans and everyone else to whom money is owed). Once this distribution is made, that's it. You have to take what you can get -- you can't go after his children, his grandchildren or greatgrandchildren individually for the balance of the debt. It is possible that it works differently when a civil judgment is owed but I doubt it.

[martin II]

When links aren't provided, I try to do my own research. I do this routinely because I believe very little of what I read on a message board. I have been looking (unsuccessfully) for verification of what you are saying about these never-ending judgments. As Judge Judy says "If it doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true". This concept you are talking about makes no sense to me whatsoever. Since I can't find a link to support it, would you please supply one?

I am an accountant, not a lawyer. It is quite possible that in the legal world the terms debtor and the way you are interpreting a "liability" are different. Someone who owes you money is a debtor (that would be OJ) and that debt is a liability on your balance sheet. The liability decreases as payments are made and the balance is carried until the debt is satisfied. If the debtor (OJ) dies prior to the liability being satisfied, you can file a claim against the estate and possibly get a percentage of what you are owed when the assets are divided among the creditors (the Browns, the Goldmans and everyone else to whom money is owed). Once this distribution is made, that's it. You have to take what you can get -- you can't go after his children, his grandchildren or greatgrandchildren individually for the balance of the debt. It is possible that it works differently when a civil judgment is owed but I doubt it.

deputy

Thanks

one more question. It is the trustee that decides which debts has priority over others and this may mean that there may not be EQUAL distribution of the assets. How this decision is made i have no idea.
martin II

[deputydi]

deputy

Thanks

one more question. It is the trustee that decides which debts has priority over others and this may mean that there may not be EQUAL distribution of the assets. How this decision is made i have no idea.
martin II
As I said, I am not an attorney. It is my understanding that it is the duty of the Executor (when there is a will) and if no will has been executed, an Administrator will be appointed to distribute the assets. When the debt of an estate exceeds the assets, I am not sure how the distribution is decided. I would imagine an attorney would have to step in but it could be at the sole discretion of the Executor. I also believe that (like in a bankruptcy) there are some debts that come right off the top -- like Fed and State taxes -- but, again, I don't know this for certain.

[fbgweezer]

I had WorldCom and Enron stock. There were judgments against both. Settlement on those judgments are by percentage. This means that pay-offs start with the largest debt and works its way down. I was a little fish in a big pond so I don't expect to receive any of my money back.

I think the larger question is whether orenthal's Homestead exemption protects his home from being sold to satisfy his debts after his death. In Texas, having a Homestead Exemption keeps creditors from seizing your property to satisfy debts. However, when my folks died, their home had to be sold and the money used to pay expenses. I just don't know if Florida's Homestead Law is the same. orenthal must believe his home is protected since he said he used the book money to pay off his mortgage.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I am an accountant, not a lawyer.
In addition to my brother that is a lawyer, another brother is an accountant. Too darn bad they don't post here. :D

[2L8 4A D8]

*Snipped*

I'm only referring to assets with regard to liquidating to satisfy debts (liabilities) against the estate. If what you say, then I can expect ken lay's heirs to personally pay me back? I don't think so.

I have tried to be helpful. You may think what you want. You obviously don't agree with anything that I have said.

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

When links aren't provided, I try to do my own research. I do this routinely because I believe very little of what I read on a message board. I have been looking (unsuccessfully) for verification of what you are saying about these never-ending judgments. As Judge Judy says "If it doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true". This concept you are talking about makes no sense to me whatsoever. Since I can't find a link to support it, would you please supply one?

I am an accountant, not a lawyer. It is quite possible that in the legal world the terms debtor and the way you are interpreting a "liability" are different. Someone who owes you money is a debtor (that would be OJ) and that debt is a liability on your balance sheet. The liability decreases as payments are made and the balance is carried until the debt is satisfied. If the debtor (OJ) dies prior to the liability being satisfied, you can file a claim against the estate and possibly get a percentage of what you are owed when the assets are divided among the creditors (the Browns, the Goldmans and everyone else to whom money is owed). Once this distribution is made, that's it. You have to take what you can get -- you can't go after his children, his grandchildren or greatgrandchildren individually for the balance of the debt. It is possible that it works differently when a civil judgment is owed but I doubt it.

All of my information comes from job experience and the department that I worked in. Maybe the procedures for Civil Judgments have changed since 2001, but I very much doubt it! I have just tried to be helpful.

One more time and the last time: In a Civil Judgment, OJ is not a Debtor and the Brown's/Goldman's are not Creditors. OJ is the Defendant and the Brown's/Goldman's are the Plaintiffs. The Jury found in favor of the Plaintiffs and a Judgment was rendered against the Defendant.

Now, if OJ borrowed money from the Brown's/Goldman's and never repaid it, then OJ would be the Debtor and the Brown's/Goldman's would be the Creditors and would have one year to file a claim against OJ's Estate to get paid. Depending on the assets left in the Estate and the pecking order of who gets paid first, the Brown's/Goldman's might not get paid anything for their Creditor claims.

As I have previously stated ~ wouldn't it be a wonderful, wonderful World if you could have a Civil Judgment(s) against you and just because you die, all of your Judgment(s) go "poof", just like that, just like they didn't exist and your heirs are now off "scott free" and the Plaintiff(s) who hold all of the Judgment(s) are just "out of luck!" Does that really make sense to you? It doesn't to me and I will never believe it!

I am sorry this is so long, but there's no other way to explain it. If you do find a link that will show that I am incorrect, then please post it. Thanks!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

deputy

Thanks

one more question. It is the trustee that decides which debts has priority over others and this may mean that there may not be EQUAL distribution of the assets. How this decision is made i have no idea.
martin II

Trustee? This is NOT a Bankruptcy matter. It is an Estate matter, with Heirs and Executors/Executrixs. Let us all know when you are going to "finally get it!" Geez! GMAB!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

I had WorldCom and Enron stock. There were judgments against both. Settlement on those judgments are by percentage. This means that pay-offs start with the largest debt and works its way down. I was a little fish in a big pond so I don't expect to receive any of my money back.

I think the larger question is whether orenthal's Homestead exemption protects his home from being sold to satisfy his debts after his death. In Texas, having a Homestead Exemption keeps creditors from seizing your property to satisfy debts. However, when my folks died, their home had to be sold and the money used to pay expenses. I just don't know if Florida's Homestead Law is the same. orenthal must believe his home is protected since he said he used the book money to pay off his mortgage.

Yes, OJ's Homestead Exemption protects his home in Florida. IIRC, that is why he moved to Florida. If he would have bought another home in California, the Brown's and the Goldman's could put an Abstract of Judgment (lien) on the new house. That means if OJ ever tried to refinance it or sell it, the Brown's and the Goldman's would get all of the proceeds, split equally, of course. I guess no one can touch his house in Florida and that is why he moved there.

My poor Nana was forced to go on MediCal when she ended up in a nursing home and she ran out of money to pay the bills. When that happens, MediCal then puts a lien on your home. When she died, the house had to be sold to pay MediCal and whatever proceeds were left was divided between her 4 children. Her kids didn't want to sell the house. They wanted to keep it in the Family, but all 4 of them didn't have the money to pay off MediCal, so they had to sell it. Whenever I am in the area, I drive by my Nana's house and it makes me cry. She (and my Popa until he died) lived in that house for over 60 years!

JMO and MOO!!

[limakey]

I don't understand why people are so upset that OJ moved to Florida, even if his primary goal was not to pay the judgement. I have hard time believing that any us, regardless of being G or NG would pay off a civil suit judgement before we would ensure the security of our children.

Another very real problem, IMO, is that while the Goldmans want to make sure the public knows that Simpson has paid very little of the judgement, they also want to make it clear that anyone who gives Simpson the chance to make a lot of money will be smeared as well.

I don't think Simpson would pay the judgement even it was $100.00 and I don't think the Godmans would believe a billion million dollar judgement paid off will ever be enough.

I think DeputyDi has it, it is a cat and mouse game being played by Simpson and the Goldmans and IMO, there will be no winners, only losers. IMO.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally Posted by limakey

I don't understand why people are so upset that OJ moved to Florida, even if his primary goal was not to pay the judgement. I have hard time believing that any us, regardless of being G or NG would pay off a civil suit judgement before we would ensure the security of our children.

Just because OJ moved to Florida doesn't absolve him of the Judgment. Yeah, OJ sure did ensure the security of his kids. After he dies, THEY will be responsible for the payment of HIS Judgment ~ and their heirs, and their heirs, and their heirs ~ to infinity!

<snipped>

I don't think Simpson would pay the judgement even it was $100.00 and I don't think the Godmans would believe a billion million dollar judgement paid off will ever be enough.

OJ should have thought about that when he murdered Nicole and Ron. If OJ murdered your son or daughter, would a billion dollar judgment ever be a enough to you? I doubt it! So, you are no better than Fred Goldman IMO!

<snipped>

JMO and MOO!!

[deputydi]

<snip>As I have previously stated ~ wouldn't it be a wonderful, wonderful World if you could have a Civil Judgment(s) against you and just because you die, all of your Judgment(s) go "poof", just like that, just like they didn't exist and your heirs are now off "scott free" and the Plaintiff(s) who hold all of the Judgment(s) are just "out of luck!" Does that really make sense to you? It doesn't to me and I will never believe it!

I am sorry this is so long, but there's no other way to explain it. If you do find a link that will show that I am incorrect, then please post it. Thanks!

JMO and MOO!!
I give up. I'll keep looking because it makes no sense to me that OJs greatgrandchildren can be held personally responsible for this debt (and no matter what you believe it is called, it is still a DEBT owed) 20 or 30 years from now.

[martin II]

I give up. I'll keep looking because it makes no sense to me that OJs greatgrandchildren can be held personally responsible for this debt (and no matter what you believe it is called, it is still a DEBT owed) 20 or 30 years from now.

deputy
In contracts there is always and beginning and a END to every agreement/contract.
martin II

[deputydi]

deputy
In contracts there is always and beginning and a END to every agreement/contract.
martin II
. . . AND judgments. It is my firm belief that this debt will end when OJ dies and his will is probated. Until I can find something that says otherwise, I will hold to that belief.

Also, 2L8 has been insisting that the judgment is a liability and not a debt (there really is no difference), the term "judgment debtor" is used consistently.

[martin II]

. . . AND judgments. It is my firm belief that this debt will end when OJ dies and his will is probated. Until I can find something that says otherwise, I will hold to that belief.

Also, 2L8 has been insisting that the judgment is a liability and not a debt (there really is no difference), the term "judgment debtor" is used consistently.

deputy
correct.

for the person holding the judgement, the judgement can be seen as a asset on the assets side of his balance sheet (if collectable) for the debitor it is a liability (debt) on the libiilty side of his balalce sheet.
martin II

[martin II]

I had WorldCom and Enron stock. There were judgments against both. Settlement on those judgments are by percentage. This means that pay-offs start with the largest debt and works its way down. I was a little fish in a big pond so I don't expect to receive any of my money back.

I think the larger question is whether orenthal's Homestead exemption protects his home from being sold to satisfy his debts after his death. In Texas, having a Homestead Exemption keeps creditors from seizing your property to satisfy debts. However, when my folks died, their home had to be sold and the money used to pay expenses. I just don't know if Florida's Homestead Law is the same. orenthal must believe his home is protected since he said he used the book money to pay off his mortgage.

enron
The effort to take skillings money is on befalf of stockholders/employees. Right? or does this include outside stockholders.

martin II

[deputydi]

I know this isn't from CA but it's all I can find at the moment. I'm still looking. Please read #4 -- it clearly says a Judgment Debt is treated the same as any other debt on the estate.

28-20-06. Judgments - Collection from property of decedent. If judgment has been
rendered against a person who thereafter dies:
1. The judgment may be enforced by execution against any real property of the
decedent upon which it had become a lien prior to the decedent's death, but no such
execution may issue until after the expiration of one year from the death of the
judgment debtor;
2. If execution was actually levied prior to the decedent's death upon personal property,
such property may be sold to satisfy the execution, and the officer making the sale
shall account to the personal representative for any surplus remaining in the officer's
hands;
3. If the judgment is for the recovery of real or personal property or for the enforcement
of a lien thereon, execution may issue for the enforcement of such judgment; and
4. If the judgment is for the recovery of money, it may be presented as any other claim
against the estate of the decedent.
http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t28c20.pdf

[martin II]

florida homestead info

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_exemption_in_Florida

martin II

[martin II]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_exemption_in_Florida



Exceptions for certain creditors
Three types of creditors can still force the sale of a homestead to collect debts owed to them. These are:

The State of Florida and its counties or municipalities, to collect past due property taxes;
Parties to whom the property was specifically pledged as credit for a mortgage;
Mechanics who are owed money for work performed in repairing or improving the property.
Because the homestead exemption is state law, it can also be over-ridden by the United States federal government, to satisfy federal income tax debts for example, although this has rarely occurred.

martin II

[martin II]

GENERAL INFORMAITON AND OPINIONS.
OJ SIMPSON

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns220.htm



Bankruptcy

Simpson could declare bankruptcy, which would exempt him from having to post the bond and might stave off his creditors. But some experts say the strategy might not wipe out the $8.5 million in compensatory damages. Although such damages often are excused by a bankruptcy, some experts say that probably wouldn't apply in a case in which the jury found that the defendant acted maliciously.

And even if the compensatory damages were forgiven by a bankruptcy action, Simpson still would have to pay the $25 million in punitive damages.

Moreover, a bankruptcy would force Simpson to subject all his holdings and income to the scrutiny of a federal judge, severely limiting other moves he may want to make.

"The power of a federal bankruptcy judge is much stronger than that of a state judge and extends to the entire nation . . . a far more serious proceeding than a state court proceeding," says Richard Share, a Los Angeles lawyer specializing in collections.

Exile

Simpson could flee the country. Places likes Switzerland and Gibraltar don't recognize civil judgments from other nations. Simpson could invest there and protect himself against any seizure.

Even if he picks a country that does recognize a U.S. judgment, "It's virtually impossible to find out what assets a person has in any foreign country," civil lawyer Art Rutledge says.

The families are entitled to take up to 25% of Simpson's future earnings. Although a civil creditor legally can pursue the collection process in most foreign nations, it can take years. And once a business employing Simpson gets the garnishment order, Simpson could shift his work to a different company based in a different country without even having to move.

The families then would have to start the collection process over again.

Simpson could move to Texas or Florida, where 100% of a home's value is protected against a civil judgment. Terrell says Simpson's sister, Shirley Baker, is begging him to leave southern California.

For that matter, a civil court can't touch any home anywhere in the nation if it's liened to another creditor. That's the situation with Simpson's Rockingham estate. It is valued at $3.7 million by Simpson, and $2.3 million is mortgaged to a bank. Some analysts believe he may simply walk away and let the banks foreclose.

Children's trusts

Simpson could put assets in trust for his children. Technically, the plaintiffs could invade that fund, but few expect they would. "There's going to be public scorn if they do that," jury consultant Robert Hirschhorn says. "They'll win the battle but lose the war . . . in the court of public opinion."

In effect, Simpson could end up paying himself. He was ordered to pay $12.5 million in punitive damages to the Goldmans and $12.5 million to Nicole's heirs, the two children who live with him.

Although Lou Brown, Nicole's father, is executor of the estate, the money almost certainly will be held in trust by an independent guardian appointed by the court. And as the children's primary custodian, Simpson could use some of that money to cover the family's living expenses. Usually that is done on a prorated basis, meaning Simpson could pay two-thirds of the household bills from the children's trusts.

Grandparents Lou Brown and his wife, Juditha, have vowed to continue fighting for custody of the children. The judge who awarded Simpson custody in December indicated that the civil verdict, however it turned out, would not make her change her mind.

The kids are entitled to live in the style to which they are accustomed, guardianship lawyer Susan Cooley says. That means private school tuition (theoretically, even a Swiss boarding school), designer clothing and vacations on the ski slopes in the Alps.

Simpson could enjoy benefits from the children's money until they turn 18 and take over their own trusts. Sydney, 11, turns 18 in 2003, and Justin, 8, turns 18 in 2006.

Moreover, in just over five years, Simpson's $4.1 million in pension and retirement incomes kick in. And few analysts say the families can touch that money.

Simpson does surrender some equity rights for a long time. He can keep only $75,000 in home equity for himself and $1,900 in car equity. His limit on art and jewelry is $5,000. But his Rockingham estate houses the children and his $64,000 Chevy Suburban transports the children. Theoretically, he could turn over the jewelry and art to the children.

The families then could face a legal challenge to take those. More important is this question: Would they really take such things from the children?

Pay up

None of this is to suggest that Simpson will do anything to hide his assets. He could decide to avoid the hassle and simply agree to a 25% wage garnishment. He'll still have 75% of his earnings, plus the retirement money.

The families would have 20 years to collect their debt, so Simpson, 49, could live with this arrangement until he's almost 70.

By Richard Price and Gale Holland, USA TODAY

[socaldiva]

*snip*
But his Rockingham estate houses the children and his $64,000 Chevy Suburban transports the children.


The article is from 1997 & was speculative.I don't know why you felt the need to post this lengthy article. The link would have sufficed.

[2L8 4A D8]

I know this isn't from CA but it's all I can find at the moment. I'm still looking. Please read #4 -- it clearly says a Judgment Debt is treated the same as any other debt on the estate.

http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t28c20.pdf

Well, #4 pretty much puts the kabosh on your "firm belief that this debt will end when OJ dies!"

Originally Posted by deputydi
. . . AND judgments. It is my firm belief that this debt will end when OJ dies and his will is probated. Until I can find something that says otherwise, I will hold to that belief.

<snipped>

I will continue to believe that the Brown's/Goldman's are NOT Judgment Creditors. Court Judgments are NOT Creditor debt, such as: credit card debt; car loan debt; furniture store debt; personal loan debt, etc., etc. Until I see it with my own eyes (through a link), I will also "hold to that belief."

I also think that your post dated 12-29-06 at 4:22 p.m. is pretty much moot! Thus, we will just have to agree to disagree on this matter!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

The article is from 1997 & was speculative.I don't know why you felt the need to post this lengthy article. The link would have sufficed.

As usual, the lights are on, but nobody's home! LOL! He's like a small child, "Look at me? Look what I found!" GMAB! Just consider the source!

JMO and MOO!!

[fbgweezer]

enron
The effort to take skillings money is on befalf of stockholders/employees. Right? or does this include outside stockholders.

martin II

skilling and lay were both found guilty. The recovery of monies is on behalf of everyone that held stock as well as creditors -- not just employees.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*Yes, OJ's Homestead Exemption protects his home in Florida. IIRC, that is why he moved to Florida. If he would have bought another home in California, the Brown's and the Goldman's could put an Abstract of Judgment (lien) on the new house. That means if OJ ever tried to refinance it or sell it, the Brown's and the Goldman's would get all of the proceeds, split equally, of course. I guess no one can touch his house in Florida and that is why he moved there.


I understand that his home is protected now -- my question was whether or not it would still be protected at his death.

http://floridaassetprotection.blogs.com/alperlaw/creditor_rights/index.html
How Long Does A Judgment Last?
I received a call from a doctor who had his checking account garnished by a creditor who obtained a judgment over 10 years ago. The caller had found by his own research that judgement liens expire in 10 years, and he asked how the creditor could apply his judgement which is now over 10 years old to garnish a bank account.

The caller confused judgments and judgment liens. A judgment lien is the recording of a certified judgment with the Florida registry. The recording gives the judgment holder priority over judgments subsequently recorded. Any proceeds from the forced sale of debtor’s property subject to the judgment will go to pay priority judgment liens first, and money left over, if any, is applied to the junior liens. Property such as homestead is not subject to judgment liens. After 10 years the first recorded judgment lien loses its priority standing

Judgments which are not recorded as liens, or are recorded as junior liens, are still valid judgments which can be executed against the debtor’s property. A judgment creditor may garnish the debtor’s bank accounts even if the creditor has not recorded its judgment or has recorded in second place. Florida Statute 55.081 states that judgments are good for 20 years. Therefore, 10 years after this caller’s creditor had obtained a judgment and recorded the judgment the creditor may have lost the priority of his recorded lien, but the judgment was still in effect and could be used to obtain a writ of garnishment.
posted by Jonathan Alper, asset protection and bankruptcy attorney, Orlando, Florida

[fbgweezer]

I have tried to be helpful. You may think what you want. You obviously don't agree with anything that I have said.

JMO and MOO!!

I appreciate the help and sorry if I came across otherwise. I don't disagree with what you have said -- I am simply trying to have it make sense to me and my own personal experiences and limited knowledge.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*. . .If he would have bought another home in California, the Brown's and the Goldman's could put an Abstract of Judgment (lien) on the new house. That means if OJ ever tried to refinance it or sell it, the Brown's and the Goldman's would get all of the proceeds, split equally, of course.

http://www.alperlaw.com/constitutional_protection.html
"What makes Florida’s homestead protection such a powerful asset protection tool is its unlimited monetary protection. A Florida resident can invest millions of dollars in large estate homes and farms and protect the full value of these luxury residences under Florida’s homestead law. Under a Florida Supreme Court ruling, a person can transfer unprotected, non-exempt assets to his homestead at any time by either buying a new home or reducing the principal balance of an existing mortgage and protect this money under the homestead umbrella, even if the asset transfer was clearly designed to hide money from creditor claims."

[martin II]

skilling and lay were both found guilty. The recovery of monies is on behalf of everyone that held stock as well as creditors -- not just employees.


fbg
maby you will be lucky.

a sister company sold many of the worldcom very large generators at liquidatioion sale. They were some of the largest i had even seen.
martin II

[martin II]

*Snipped*

http://www.alperlaw.com/constitutional_protection.html
"What makes Florida’s homestead protection such a powerful asset protection tool is its unlimited monetary protection. A Florida resident can invest millions of dollars in large estate homes and farms and protect the full value of these luxury residences under Florida’s homestead law. Under a Florida Supreme Court ruling, a person can transfer unprotected, non-exempt assets to his homestead at any time by either buying a new home or reducing the principal balance of an existing mortgage and protect this money under the homestead umbrella, even if the asset transfer was clearly designed to hide money from creditor claims."


this sounds very reasonable

maby oj read that last sentance.
martin II

[Results]

This is a quote from FW and the reason I am using her quote it shows you where the forum for Roxanne is, "The aunt of Roxanne Paltauf an Austin teenager missing since July is posting as aperry58 on the "Missing/Found" forum in the Missing Children's section. Renee's family has been helping them and I am certain they could use whatever support is possible for all of you."

Roxanne's Mother has informed us that Roxanne's Birthday is January 3rd and she would be turning 19 years old. If at all possible please go to the thread and wish Roxanne a Happy Birthday. Roxanne's Mothers post was heart breaking to read. Lets show her what the Crime Library Family is all about please post Happy Birthday January 3rd! Thanks! Please pass the word around. Thank you and sorry to get off topic here. Sincerely, Results

[fbgweezer]

this sounds very reasonable

maby oj read that last sentance.
martin II

LOL -- you think? I have a hard time picturing that! LOL

[2L8 4A D8]

*Snipped*

I understand that his home is protected now -- my question was whether or not it would still be protected at his death.

<snipped>

Again, I am only familiar with California Probate Laws and Procedures. I would venture to say "yes" that OJ's home would still be proctected at his death, but I could be wrong.

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

*Snipped*

http://www.alperlaw.com/constitutional_protection.html
"What makes Florida’s homestead protection such a powerful asset protection tool is its unlimited monetary protection. A Florida resident can invest millions of dollars in large estate homes and farms and protect the full value of these luxury residences under Florida’s homestead law. Under a Florida Supreme Court ruling, a person can transfer unprotected, non-exempt assets to his homestead at any time by either buying a new home or reducing the principal balance of an existing mortgage and protect this money under the homestead umbrella, even if the asset transfer was clearly designed to hide money from creditor claims."

This sounds reasonable, for assets and Creditor's Claims. However, the Brown/Goldman Judgment is NOT a Creditor's Claim, so it wouldn't even enter into the picture of what the above link states.

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

LOL -- you think? I have a hard time picturing that! LOL



If true then i guess he would have to have a gost READER for the book.
martin II

[William Anthony]

This sounds reasonable, for assets and Creditor's Claims. However, the Brown/Goldman Judgment is NOT a Creditor's Claim, so it wouldn't even enter into the picture of what the above link states.

JMO and MOO!!

If I may, the judgment is a creditor claim. A creditor is someone to whom a debt is owed. If they were not creditors, they had no claim for money or real estate.

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

I understand that his home is protected now -- my question was whether or not it would still be protected at his death.

http://floridaassetprotection.blogs.com/alperlaw/creditor_rights/index.html
How Long Does A Judgment Last?
I received a call from a doctor who had his checking account garnished by a creditor who obtained a judgment over 10 years ago. The caller had found by his own research that judgement liens expire in 10 years, and he asked how the creditor could apply his judgement which is now over 10 years old to garnish a bank account.

The caller confused judgments and judgment liens. A judgment lien is the recording of a certified judgment with the Florida registry. The recording gives the judgment holder priority over judgments subsequently recorded. Any proceeds from the forced sale of debtor’s property subject to the judgment will go to pay priority judgment liens first, and money left over, if any, is applied to the junior liens. Property such as homestead is not subject to judgment liens. After 10 years the first recorded judgment lien loses its priority standing

Judgments which are not recorded as liens, or are recorded as junior liens, are still valid judgments which can be executed against the debtor’s property. A judgment creditor may garnish the debtor’s bank accounts even if the creditor has not recorded its judgment or has recorded in second place. Florida Statute 55.081 states that judgments are good for 20 years. Therefore, 10 years after this caller’s creditor had obtained a judgment and recorded the judgment the creditor may have lost the priority of his recorded lien, but the judgment was still in effect and could be used to obtain a writ of garnishment.
posted by Jonathan Alper, asset protection and bankruptcy attorney, Orlando, Florida

The recording of the jugment would be, imo, called perfection. However, this sill leaves open the establishment of a trust and how the trust would protect the assests contained in the trust .

[William Anthony]

Well, #4 pretty much puts the kabosh on your "firm belief that this debt will end when OJ dies!"



I will continue to believe that the Brown's/Goldman's are NOT Judgment Creditors. Court Judgments are NOT Creditor debt, such as: credit card debt; car loan debt; furniture store debt; personal loan debt, etc., etc. Until I see it with my own eyes (through a link), I will also "hold to that belief."

I also think that your post dated 12-29-06 at 4:22 p.m. is pretty much moot! Thus, we will just have to agree to disagree on this matter!

JMO and MOO!!

If I may, there seems to be a mixing of Bankruptcy law and the Florida Statutes.

[William Anthony]

This banter has NOTHING to do with this forum. This is the stuff PM's are for.

Diva,

Please, pardon our momentary digression?

[William Anthony]

Prior to the new Bankruptcy Laws, credit card debt was dischargeable. However, that's why the Laws were changed. Too many people were running up massive credit card debt and then would file Bankruptcy to get rid of it. Not anymore. Ain't going to happen!

JMO and MOO!!

I beg to differ, it all depends on what is called a means calculation as to whether they will be paid or not, although this is O/T, imo.

[William Anthony]

ALL ~ as OJNUT and Martin like to say:

OJ has not filed Bankruptcy, trust me! OJ is an idiot, but he is not stupid! I firmly believe that if OJ thought that he could ever get the Judgment off of his back through Bankruptcy, he would have filed Bankruptcy the day after the Judgment was rendered against him ~ post haste!

As has been discussed, filing BANRUPTCY will not and never will absolve anyone who has a CIVIL JUDGMENT filed against them. Period! As I have previously stated, it is an anvil around your neck forever and ever (with interest accruing daily) ~ until it is paid off!

JMO and MOO!!

I woulld like to disagree in that, if a Chapter 7 bankruptcy is filled and the trustee determines there are no assets and the court orders the bankruptcy discharged under those terms, then the judgment is moot.

[martin II]

if Fred Goldman's status is NOT that of a judgment creditor then what is his status?
martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

I woulld like to disagree in that, if a Chapter 7 bankruptcy is filled and the trustee determines there are no assets and the court orders the bankruptcy discharged under those terms, then the judgment is moot.

Sorry, I disagree. No Court Judgment(s) can ever be erased by a Bankruptcy. If that were the case, what part of "OJ would have filed Bankruptcy, post haste, to absolve himself of the Civil Judgment" don't you get?

I also don't think that people who unfortunately have a catastrophic illness and no insurance can get rid of the debt through Bankruptcy. Haven't you heard of people losing everything they have just because of a catastrophic illness? Even if they have insurance, depending on the policy, some pay 100%, some pay 90% and some pay 80%. If you have medical bills over one million dollars, your 10% and 20% could wipe you out and sometimes it does. You read about it all of the time!

JMO and MOO!!

[deputydi]

Well, #4 pretty much puts the kabosh on your "firm belief that this debt will end when OJ dies!"
Please tell me HOW??? Number 4 very clearly states that a judgment is treated like any other claim against an estate. Where on earth does that "put the kabosh" on what I have been saying? Where on earth does it say that this liability is passed on in petpetuity?

I have spent considerable time looking for links to confirm your belief and have come up totally empty handed. Do you think ALL debts transfer personally to a decedent's children, grandchildren, greatgrandchildren until they are paid in full? Of course not! If this judgment is to be treated as any other debt in probate, it will end when the estate has been settled.

It is beginning to seem to me that you are so hellbent on being right that you are ignoring all reasonable discussion.

I didn't go back to read my post of 12/29 so I have no idea what the "moot" point is.

I gave you and socal kudos for making sense in some posts earlier. I found links supporting what you were saying then. I can find nothing to support this "belief". If that's all it is, your "belief" is wrong.

[martin II]

Please tell me HOW??? Number 4 very clearly states that a judgment is treated like any other claim against an estate. Where on earth does that "put the kabosh" on what I have been saying? Where on earth does it say that this liability is passed on in petpetuity?

I have spent considerable time looking for links to confirm your belief and have come up totally empty handed. Do you think ALL debts transfer personally to a decedent's children, grandchildren, greatgrandchildren until they are paid in full? Of course not! If this judgment is to be treated as any other debt in probate, it will end when the estate has been settled.

It is beginning to seem to me that you are so hellbent on being right that you are ignoring all reasonable discussion.

I didn't go back to read my post of 12/29 so I have no idea what the "moot" point is.

I gave you and socal kudos for making sense in some posts earlier. I found links supporting what you were saying then. I can find nothing to support this "belief". If that's all it is, your "belief" is wrong.

deputy di
i do thank you for your efforts to bring clearity and real facts to this issue.

Usually when a idea goes against everything you already know to be fact, the idea is most likely wrong. imo
martin II

[deputydi]

if Fred Goldman's status is NOT that of a judgment creditor then what is his status?
martin II
I'm going to direct this post to you because I think you will read it. I don't think 2L8 will and, if she does, she will find some reason to tell me it's wrong.
A judgment is an order entered by a judge at the
end of a lawsuit. A creditor who obtains a judgment
against you is called a judgment creditor.
http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/Attachments/177A008349924EDF85256B29004BD514/$FILE/12-%20Debtors%20Rights%20in%20Florida%20(Eng).pdf?Ope nElement

This is from an online pamphlet called "Debtor's Rights in Florida". Can this definition BE ANY CLEARER?

[martin II]

I'm going to direct this post to you because I think you will read it. I don't think 2L8 will and, if she does, she will find some reason to tell me it's wrong.

http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/Attachments/177A008349924EDF85256B29004BD514/$FILE/12-%20Debtors%20Rights%20in%20Florida%20(Eng).pdf?Ope nElement

This is from an online pamphlet called "Debtor's Rights in Florida". Can this definition BE ANY CLEARER?

deputy

it has been clear to me from the beginning. It could not be made more clearer
after your post.imo
martin II

[martin II]

I don't understand why people are so upset that OJ moved to Florida, even if his primary goal was not to pay the judgement. I have hard time believing that any us, regardless of being G or NG would pay off a civil suit judgement before we would ensure the security of our children.

Another very real problem, IMO, is that while the Goldmans want to make sure the public knows that Simpson has paid very little of the judgement, they also want to make it clear that anyone who gives Simpson the chance to make a lot of money will be smeared as well.

I don't think Simpson would pay the judgement even it was $100.00 and I don't think the Godmans would believe a billion million dollar judgement paid off will ever be enough.

I think DeputyDi has it, it is a cat and mouse game being played by Simpson and the Goldmans and IMO, there will be no winners, only losers. IMO.


limakey
i have said this before. freds attack on oj has influenced corporate america to black ball oj from any meaningful employment or business. yet he requested and received one of the largest civil judgements in the history of america.
i see no way that oj can work or do anything to secure the level of income necessary to pay off a $38,000,000 judgement to him.

fred has helped to make it impossible for oj to pay him even if he wanted to do so. Yet fred *****es that 'OJ HAS NOT PAID ME"
MARTIN ii

[2L8 4A D8]

Please tell me HOW??? Number 4 very clearly states that a judgment is treated like any other claim against an estate. Where on earth does that "put the kabosh" on what I have been saying? Where on earth does it say that this liability is passed on in petpetuity?

I have spent considerable time looking for links to confirm your belief and have come up totally empty handed. Do you think ALL debts transfer personally to a decedent's children, grandchildren, greatgrandchildren until they are paid in full? Of course not! If this judgment is to be treated as any other debt in probate, it will end when the estate has been settled.

It is beginning to seem to me that you are so hellbent on being right that you are ignoring all reasonable discussion.

I didn't go back to read my post of 12/29 so I have no idea what the "moot" point is.

I gave you and socal kudos for making sense in some posts earlier. I found links supporting what you were saying then. I can find nothing to support this "belief". If that's all it is, your "belief" is wrong.

I am not going to get into a pizzing contest over this with you. I tried to help, you don't believe me. What gives you the right to tell me that my "belief" is wrong and your's isn't? That's why I end all my posts with JMO and MOO because of posters like yourself and the NG's!

You don't want to have a reasonable discussion. You have already made up your mind that I am wrong. It's either your way, or the highway! I will not discuss this with you any further. You can post ad nauseum for all that I care!

I am just sorry now that I even brought up the question of what happens to the Judgment after OJ dies!

End of Story. Buh Bye!

JMO and MOO!!

[deputydi]

I am not going to get into a pizzing contest over this with you. I tried to help, you don't believe me. What gives you the right to tell me that my "belief" is wrong and your's isn't? That's why I end all my posts with JMO and MOO because of posters like yourself and the NG's!

You don't want to have a reasonable discussion. You have already made up your mind that I am wrong. It's either your way, or the highway! I will not discuss this with you any further. You can post ad nauseum for all that I care!

I am just sorry now that I even brought up the question of what happens to the Judgment after OJ dies!

End of Story. Buh Bye!

JMO and MOO!!
I have provided links to back up what I'm saying -- what have you provided to substantiate your "beliefs"? I am trying to have a reasonable discussion, but it's kind of hard when you refuse to believe any of the links and steadfastly maintain you are right despite evidence to the contrary.

[martin II]

deputy
the law dictionery agree with your post 100%



http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1058&bold=


judgment creditor
n. the winning plaintiff in a lawsuit to whom the court decides the defendant owes money. A judgment creditor can use various means to collect the judgment. The judgment is good for a specified number of years and then may be renewed by a filed request. If the defendant debtor files for bankruptcy, the judgment creditor will have priority (the right to share in assets) ahead of general creditors who are not secured by mortgages or deeds of trust and do not have judgments. However, if the bankrupt person has no assets, this becomes an empty advantage.
See also: creditor's rights judgment prevailing party
martin II

[deputydi]

deputy
the law dictionery agree with your post 100%



http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1058&bold=


judgment creditor
n. the winning plaintiff in a lawsuit to whom the court decides the defendant owes money. A judgment creditor can use various means to collect the judgment. The judgment is good for a specified number of years and then may be renewed by a filed request. If the defendant debtor files for bankruptcy, the judgment creditor will have priority (the right to share in assets) ahead of general creditors who are not secured by mortgages or deeds of trust and do not have judgments. However, if the bankrupt person has no assets, this becomes an empty advantage.
See also: creditor's rights judgment prevailing party
martin II
Thanks. I really don't understand posters who are so desperate to be "right" they simply ignore everything else. 2L8 is just being hardheaded. I don't really believe she is that dense -- just determined that she is NOT WRONG and it doesn't seem to matter to her that she has been provided proof that she is.

[limakey]

Here is my take on this:

IMO, Simpson will ensure that when he dies, the judgement will die with him. He has made it clear why he will not pay the judgement, I'm sure he has asked the questions on how to ensure that his children will not have to pay that judgement either.

And while we all talk about the money Simpson has earned since the civil trial, people forget that there are quite a few people and/or agencies that are ahead of the Goldmans' and Browns' because that is what the law says.

Hey, lawyers gotta make sure they get their chunk of change as well. The IRS/Taxman plays second to no one--including the victim and or victim's family.

[2L8 4A D8]

You can go with what you "believe" & I'll go with what my brother said, even though he was answering in a general sense. I can't imagine that Fred didn't create a will & cover his bases in that regard. Fred isn't stupid, nor were his lawyers.

Be damned what your Brother said Diva! Since you and I didn't post any links, we don't know what we are talking about and neither does your Brother, even though he has been an attorney for over 30 years! Again, just consider the sources! It's the only way to get through this Board and Threads with your sanity intact!

JMO and MOO!!

[William Anthony]

Sorry, I disagree. No Court Judgment(s) can ever be erased by a Bankruptcy. If that were the case, what part of "OJ would have filed Bankruptcy, post haste, to absolve himself of the Civil Judgment" don't you get?

I also don't think that people who unfortunately have a catastrophic illness and no insurance can get rid of the debt through Bankruptcy. Haven't you heard of people losing everything they have just because of a catastrophic illness? Even if they have insurance, depending on the policy, some pay 100%, some pay 90% and some pay 80%. If you have medical bills over one million dollars, your 10% and 20% could wipe you out and sometimes it does. You read about it all of the time!

JMO and MOO!!

You do not need to apologize for disagreeing. However, as I stated in a Chapter 7 case, where it is determined that there are no assets, and the case is ultimately discharged by court order and closed without a right to reopen, all debts, regardless of the type are wiped out. In asset cases the trustee has to make a report of distribution and final report of distribution, stating the creditors and the percentage of the debt each creditor was/will be paid. I would assume in the cases you are talking about that there were assets found, which enabled a full or partial distribution.

[martin II]

You do not need to apologize for disagreeing. However, as I stated in a Chapter 7 case, where it is determined that there are no assets, and the case is ultimately discharged by court order and closed without a right to reopen, all debts, regardless of the type are wiped out. In asset cases the trustee has to make a report of distribution and final report of distribution, stating the creditors and the percentage of the debt each creditor was/will be paid. I would assume in the cases you are talking about that there were assets found, which enabled a full or partial distribution.

william
Rather than spend time apologizing this poster may need to simply post a link to some authority on the subject of judment creditor for all to see if she is right or wrong.

just one link would do it.
imo jmo
martin II

[martin II]

Here is my take on this:

IMO, Simpson will ensure that when he dies, the judgement will die with him. He has made it clear why he will not pay the judgement, I'm sure he has asked the questions on how to ensure that his children will not have to pay that judgement either.

And while we all talk about the money Simpson has earned since the civil trial, people forget that there are quite a few people and/or agencies that are ahead of the Goldmans' and Browns' because that is what the law says.

Hey, lawyers gotta make sure they get their chunk of change as well. The IRS/Taxman plays second to no one--including the victim and or victim's family.

There are just too many off shore bank account setups available for any lawyer not to take advantage of if he is preventing his clients assets from attack. some within 2-3 hours of miami.

martin II

[William Anthony]

william
Rather than spend time apologizing this poster may need to simply post a link to some authority on the subject of judment creditor for all to see if she is right or wrong.

just one link would do it.
imo jmo
martin II

Machismo Martin,

I have vowed that this new year will not find me in the sorted debates of the past year, and will attempt to follow the leads of Lovely Limakey, Classy
Sassy, and Kenetic Kate.

[martin II]

Machismo Martin,

I have vowed that this new year will not find me in the sorted debates of the past year, and will attempt to follow the leads of Lovely Limakey, Classy
Sassy, and Kenetic Kate.

wiliam

check you pm

martin II

[deputydi]

Be damned what your Brother said Diva! Since you and I didn't post any links, we don't know what we are talking about and neither does your Brother, even though he has been an attorney for over 30 years! Again, just consider the sources! It's the only way to get through this Board and Threads with your sanity intact!

JMO and MOO!!
I believe socal's posts about what may happen when FRED dies, but we have been discussing what happens to the judgment when OJ dies. Whole different ball of wax.

[2L8 4A D8]

I just got off the phone with my oldest brother. He obtained his law degree about 30 yrs ago (he's 23 yrs older than me)& specialized in real estate & corporate law. He said that if Orenthal died, the judgement would go against his estate & if Fred Goldman died, the judgement that was awarded would become part of his estate. He basically said there is no time limit on a judgement.

I believe socal's posts about what may happen when FRED dies, but we have been discussing what happens to the judgment when OJ dies. Whole different ball of wax.

IMO, SD's post looks like her Brother pretty much stated what happens to the Judgment when Fred dies and what happens to the Judgment when OJ dies.

[deputydi]

IMO, SD's post looks like her Brother pretty much stated what happens to the Judgment when Fred dies and what happens to the Judgment when OJ dies.
Isn't that EXACTLY what I've been saying? One more time -- the judgment would be levied against OJ's ESTATE. What part of that is in dispute? You keep insisting that the judgment would remain (if not paid in full) as part of Arnelle's estate, Justin's estate, Sidney's estate, etc, etc, etc. It would NOT. If there are not enough assets in OJs estate to cover the full amount of the judgment, Fred CANNOT hold ANY OF OJ's CHILDREN PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for the balance. Got it now?

[2L8 4A D8]

I just got off the phone with my oldest brother. He obtained his law degree about 30 yrs ago (he's 23 yrs older than me)& specialized in real estate & corporate law. He said that if Orenthal died, the judgement would go against his estate & if Fred Goldman died, the judgement that was awarded would become part of his estate. He basically said there is no time limit on a judgement.

Isn't that EXACTLY what I've been saying? One more time -- the judgment would be levied against OJ's ESTATE. What part of that is in dispute? You keep insisting that the judgment would remain (if not paid in full) as part of Arnelle's estate, Justin's estate, Sidney's estate, etc, etc, etc. It would NOT. If there are not enough assets in OJs estate to cover the full amount of the judgment, Fred CANNOT hold ANY OF OJ's CHILDREN PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for the balance. Got it now?

No. I believe SD's Brother. He's an attorney and you're not. End of Story!

JMO and MOO!!

[jotun]

There are just too many off shore bank account setups available for any lawyer not to take advantage of if he is preventing his clients assets from attack. some within 2-3 hours of miami.

martin II

Martin-All

Would assume O.J.has protected his assets for himself and his children in the event of his death.

O.J. has sucessfully kept his money out of the Goldman's hands for almost 10 years. Mrs.Rufo sent her lawyer to the hotel where O.J. was signing helmets and jerseys.She got nothing.

O.J. has a lawyer and golfing buddies who are lawyers.

Just heard on tv,that a judge has issued a restraining order for O.J. not to transfer any more money.
And anyone who owes O.J. any money to turn it over to Golddigger instead.

But Yale said last month that O.J. has been paid in full.And his name is NOT on any contract.

jotun

[deputydi]

No. I believe SD's Brother. He's an attorney and you're not. End of Story!

JMO and MOO!!
What in heaven's name is wrong with you? Please point out where any part of socal's post supports what you are trying your best to make me believe. Either you can't read or you're too dense to understand the written word. I am NOT disputing what socal's brother said -- I totally agree with it. You have no idea what you're talking about and are just trying to be obtuse. Well, guess what -- you've succeeded. THE END.

[martin II]

Martin-All

Would assume O.J.has protected his assets for himself and his children in the event of his death.

O.J. has sucessfully kept his money out of the Goldman's hands for almost 10 years. Mrs.Rufo sent her lawyer to the hotel where O.J. was signing helmets and jerseys.She got nothing.

O.J. has a lawyer and golfing buddies who are lawyers.

Just heard on tv,that a judge has issued a restraining order for O.J. not to transfer any more money.
And anyone who owes O.J. any money to turn it over to Golddigger instead.

But Yale said last month that O.J. has been paid in full.And his name is NOT on any contract.

jotun


jotun
i guess you mean money from the book.
what jurisdiction was the order made in?

how could oj transfer money from a company that he is not a principal in?
(childrens company) he can only receive money and he has said all if gone poof.

"anybody that owes oj money"?? how can a judge order "anybody" that owes oj money without diecting a specific company/person to do so. imo
martin II

[limakey]

DeputyDi,

Another thing to consider about the money Simpson has "earned". I would assume the IRS would be all over him, auditing him left and right to see if they could nail him for tax evasion.

[martin II]

DeputyDi,

Another thing to consider about the money Simpson has "earned". I would assume the IRS would be all over him, auditing him left and right to see if they could nail him for tax evasion.

limakey
Money earned from selling autographs at those shows is knida hard to follow even for the irs. I am sure he records some of it as income and pays taxes but maby not all of it. If the childrens company paid him in money for the rights to the story, he will have to pay taxes on that income. imo jmo
martin II

[Suzee10]

OJ SIMPSONS ASSETS FROZEN.... to read on click on the link below
(If the link doesn't work, please copy and paste the URL in your web
browser)

URL to article:
http://contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/oj%20simpsons%20assets%20frozen_1017937


Suzee10:beer:

[sassylassy]

--snip--

*Would assume O.J.has protected his assets for himself and his children in the event of his death.

**Just heard on tv,that a judge has issued a restraining order for O.J. not to transfer any more money.
And anyone who owes O.J. any money to turn it over to Golddigger instead.

But Yale said last month that O.J. has been paid in full.And his name is NOT on any contract.

jotun

*I do agree w/ u jotun -O.J.has protected his assets-thus far-

**it will be interesting to see how this plays out---

http://au.news.yahoo.com/070105/2/11yvh.html

[sassylassy]

wiliam

check you pm

martin II

and martin ples check yours :seeya:

[socaldiva]

Great news! I didn't see a date on the article, but I'm assuming it's new as Nancy Grace is going to be discussing this topic on her show tonight. Fabulous :D

[sassylassy]

OJ SIMPSONS ASSETS FROZEN.... to read on click on the link below
(If the link doesn't work, please copy and paste the URL in your web
browser)

URL to article:
http://contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/oj%20simpsons%20assets%20frozen_1017937


Suzee10:beer:


Hi Suzee

I am not sure if noticed- but there an active 5 pg thread- discussing the goldman lawsuit :read: you can join in on the discussion there if you like.
:seeya:

[Suzee10]

Hi Suzee

I am not sure if noticed- but there an active 5 pg thread- discussing the goldman lawsuit :read: you can join in on the discussion there if you like.
:seeya:


Thanks Sassy I would have loved to join in but I was so busy today I just had time to stop buy and pass on the great news. I hope Goldman never lets simpson off the hook.

[Kate Sachel]

You do not need to apologize for disagreeing. However, as I stated in a Chapter 7 case, where it is determined that there are no assets, and the case is ultimately discharged by court order and closed without a right to reopen, all debts, regardless of the type are wiped out. In asset cases the trustee has to make a report of distribution and final report of distribution, stating the creditors and the percentage of the debt each creditor was/will be paid. I would assume in the cases you are talking about that there were assets found, which enabled a full or partial distribution.

Actually in a Chapter 7 case, regardless of the presence of assets, there are several types of debt that are not eligible for discharge. Examples of such debts that are exempted from discharge are student loan obligations, child support obligations, taxes and tax liens, and alimony.

Civil judgments can indeed be discharged, but it not an "automatic". In a wrongful death judgment the bankruptcy court will discharge negligence damages but generally any damages in a civil judgment that are the result of gross negligence, recklessness, or malice will generally be deemed non-dischargeable if the creditor objects.

Because OJ's Simpson's judgment came from a verdict of " ... with malice aforethought ..." his judgment would more than likely be deemed non-dischargeable, since we obviusly know that Fred Goldman as a creditor would object.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Actually in a Chapter 7 case, regardless of the presence of assets, there are several types of debt that are not eligible for discharge. Examples of such debts that are exempted from discharge are student loan obligations, child support obligations, taxes and tax liens, and alimony.

Civil judgments can indeed be discharged, but it not an "automatic". In a wrongful death judgment the bankruptcy court will discharge negligence damages but generally any damages in a civil judgment that are the result of gross negligence, recklessness, or malice will generally be deemed non-dischargeable if the creditor objects.

Because OJ's Simpson's judgment came from a verdict of " ... with malice aforethought ..." his judgment would more than likely be deemed non-dischargeable, since we obviusly know that Fred Goldman as a creditor would object.

Kate


Kinetic Kate, until I find something more appropriate

I would like to disagree, in a Chapter7 bankruptcy that has been closed as a no asset case and the court has ordered the case closed as such, and then those debts are dischargeable, unless there has been some type of prior agreement between the creditor and debtor. Here is a link that I found on the subject. If the debtor has no assets and no means of repaying the debt, then the notion of bankruptcy would be moot. Of course, there are legal conditions to be met. Here is the link.

http://www.credit-card-faq.com/bankruptcy/non-rechargable-debt.htm

[martin II]

*I do agree w/ u jotun -O.J.has protected his assets-thus far-

**it will be interesting to see how this plays out---

http://au.news.yahoo.com/070105/2/11yvh.html


general information on

martin II

In the widely publicized 1996 case of O.J. Simpson, although a losing defendant in a lawsuit, he still got to keep $25,000 a month in spending money. Despite the fact that he lost all assets held in his own name, he was able to keep all income from money he had placed in trust years before the lawsuits were filed.



http://www.ptshamrock.com/apot.html

[Kate Sachel]

Kinetic Kate, until I find something more appropriate

I would like to disagree, in a Chapter7 bankruptcy that has been closed as a no asset case and the court has ordered the case closed as such, and then those debts are dischargeable, unless there has been some type of prior agreement between the creditor and debtor. Here is a link that I found on the subject. If the debtor has no assets and no means of repaying the debt, then the notion of bankruptcy would be moot. Of course, there are legal conditions to be met. Here is the link.

http://www.credit-card-faq.com/bankruptcy/non-rechargable-debt.htm

Good Morning,

Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases will never discharge the obligations that I mentioned.

For example, section 523(a)(8) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code was amended in 1998 to exempt student loan debt from discharge in bankruptcy, regardless of the amount of time the loan has been in repayment. Prior to this amendment, a student loan debt had to be in repayment for a minimum period of seven years in order for the obligation to be forgiven.

In order to discharge a student loan debt, the debtor would have to initiate a seperate lawsuit, referred to as an Adversary Proceeding, against the creditor in which financial discovery would take place and a judge would determine whether or not meeting the student loan obligation would cause the debtor undue financial hardship.

In the absence of an Adversary brought forth by the debtor however, a student loan debt is automatically non-dischargeable regardless of the bankruptcy chapter filed or the assets available from the estate.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Good Morning,

Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases will never discharge the obligations that I mentioned.

For example, section 523(a)(8) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code was amended in 1998 to exempt student loan debt from discharge in bankruptcy, regardless of the amount of time the loan has been in repayment. Prior to this amendment, a student loan debt had to be in repayment for a minimum period of seven years in order for the obligation to be forgiven.

In order to discharge a student loan debt, the debtor would have to initiate a seperate lawsuit, referred to as an Adversary Proceeding, against the creditor in which financial discovery would take place and a judge would determine whether or not meeting the student loan obligation would cause the debtor undue financial hardship.

In the absence of an Adversary brought forth by the debtor however, a student loan debt is automatically non-dischargeable regardless of the bankruptcy chapter filed or the assets available from the estate.

Kate

Good morning Kinetic Kate,

I think we have said the same thing. In other words, there are circumstances that may allow the discharge of the debts. I did not say, or. at least mean to say that the debts were automatically dischargeable. What I was referring to was the claim that they can never be discharged. We may have a difference of opinion as to what an adversary proceeding is. The adversary proceeding takes place in the Bankruptcy Court, imho. If it did not it would constitute a possible conflict between the rulings of two different courts.

[Kate Sachel]

Good morning Kinetic Kate,

I think we have said the same thing. In other words, there are circumstances that may allow the discharge of the debts. I did not say, or. at least mean to say that the debts were automatically dischargeable. What I was referring to was the claim that they can never be discharged. We may have a difference of opinion as to what an adversary proceeding is. The adversary proceeding takes place in the Bankruptcy Court, imho. If it did not it would constitute a possible conflict between the rulings of two different courts.

The Adversay does take place in the bankruptcy court because it must be filed in conjunction with an active bankruptcy case. However, it is a completely separate filing from the bankruptcy filing itself, with separate case numbers and procedures.

Therefore, it is still correct to say that a bankruptcy filing in itself will never discharge the obligations that I mentioned.

Kate

[William Anthony]

The Adversay does take place in the bankruptcy court because it must be filed in conjunction with an active bankruptcy case. However, it is a completely separate filing from the bankruptcy filing itself, with separate case numbers and procedures.

Therefore, it is still correct to say that a bankruptcy filing in itself will never discharge the obligations that I mentioned.

Kate

KInetic Kate,

I must again disagree, given your agreement that it does take place in a Bankruptcy Court, which rules on bankruptcy matters, and the bankruptcy begins with the filing of a petition and subsequent assignment of a bankruptcy trustee, which in all likelihood, the proceeding would be against the determination of the trustee, over which the bankruptcy court/judge, has jurisdiction and original jurisdiction over the petition, the proceeding, while having separate numbers and filing, still is part of the bankruptcy, and, as such, can be discharged by the bankruptcy court, who files an order of discharge in bankruptcy cases. I do not believe that I stated the filing of a petition would automatically discharge a debt, and, therefore, I agree with your last sentence. I was referring to the discharge and the conditions under which the discharge is granted and/or denied.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
In the widely publicized 1996 case of O.J. Simpson, although a losing defendant in a lawsuit, he still got to keep $25,000 a month in spending money.

OMG this information is so old. What on earth is your point??

p.s. Orenthal now claims that he only gets about $1,700.00 a month now IIRC. Seems he overspent on the principal. :rolleyes:

[2L8 4A D8]

OMG this information is so old. What on earth is your point??

p.s. Orenthal now claims that he only gets about $1,700.00 a month now IIRC. Seems he overspent on the principal. :rolleyes:

:beer: That's what I heard too, Diva. That OJ is now having to dip into the principal in order to live. Too bad. So sad!

Hey OJ, keep on living beyond your means and pretty soon, before you know it, it's all going to be gone and you will have to "get a job" like all the NG's expected Nicole to do with young children at home! Boo Hoo!

JMO and MOO!!

[socaldiva]

*snip*
you will have to "get a job" like all the NG's (expected Nicole to do with young children at home!

And it's especially pathetic coming from those who's only "job" seems to be posting on this board. :rolleyes:

[deputydi]

<SNIP>Hey OJ, keep on living beyond your means and pretty soon, before you know it, it's all going to be gone and you will have to "get a job" like all the NG's expected Nicole to do with young children at home! Boo Hoo!

JMO and MOO!!
If OJ is forced to get a menial job in order to survive, that might be sweet justice but your comment about Nicole seems a little insulting to the millions of women who have to work in order to pay the bills. Nicole's children were not babies and I'm sure she would have done what she had to do if she been given the opportunity. There is no shame in working for a living whether by choice or by necessity.:no:

[socaldiva]

*snip*
your comment about Nicole seems a little insulting to the millions of women who have to work in order to pay the bills.

I didn't take it as the least bit insulting. There's nothing wrong with a mom wanting to stay home with her school age children. :shrug:

[deputydi]

I didn't take it as the least bit insulting. There's nothing wrong with a mom wanting to stay home with her school age children. :shrug:
There's nothing wrong with wanting to stay home, and I bet most of the working mothers WANT to stay home with their children. Unfortunately, circumstances don't always allow for it. 2l8's post seemed kind of a slam to anyone who even suggested a mother with young children might have to work.

My daughter is a single mom of two and gets NO child support from her dead beat ex-husband. She didn't get anything close to a half million in her divorce settlement and had to go to work ASAP in order to pay the bills. It hasn't been easy and she didn't get the luxury of staying home with her second child (she did with the first until he was 10). When her second was born, the marriage had already started falling apart and they separated once before the baby was born and, after a brief reconciliation, they separated and divorced when he was 3 mths old. Her only education/training was 1 year of college and was prepared to do nothing. It hasn't been easy, but she's making it.

I do have a certain amount of sympathy for Nicole's situation, and I'm sure she would have liked to stay at home with her children. My only point is that sometimes it isn't possible. Sometimes the responsible adult needs to pull herself/himself up by the bootstraps and get out there and pound the pavement. You do what you have to do.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I do have a certain amount of sympathy for Nicole's situation, and I'm sure she would have liked to stay at home with her children. My only point is that sometimes it isn't possible. Sometimes the responsible adult needs to pull herself/himself up by the bootstraps and get out there and pound the pavement. You do what you have to do.

I understand fully what you are saying, but I still don't think 2L8 was slamming anyone in that regard. IMO some think they "need" to work, but truly are working to keep up with "extras" & a certain lifestyle. Clearly with some, there is no choice.

In this case, OJ seems to have married Nicole young & precluded her from getting an education or career. I think it's part of the abuse cycle. If you are independent & self supporting, you are far more likely to leave....if you are battered & supressed you are less likely to be able to "pull yourself up by the bootstraps". JMO

[deputydi]

I understand fully what you are saying, but I still don't think 2L8 was slamming anyone in that regard. IMO some think they "need" to work, but truly are working to keep up with "extras" & a certain lifestyle. Clearly with some, there is no choice.

In this case, OJ seems to have married Nicole young & precluded her from getting an education or career. I think it's part of the abuse cycle. If you are independent & self supporting, you are far more likely to leave....if you are battered & supressed you are less likely to be able to "pull yourself up by the bootstraps". JMO
Thanks. Maybe I took her remark a little too personally. I completely agree with this being part of the abuse cycle. Although my dtr wasn't physically abused, over the 13 years they were married he eroded her self esteem to the point where she believed she was dumb and worthless. Nothing could have been farther from the truth and she is slowly beginning to believe in herself again. This is why she has refused to go to court and enforce the support order. She likes knowing she can do it on her own. I don't agree with this mindset, but I don't argue with her.

It had to have been mindboggling for Nicole to leave a beautiful mansion and a star studded lifestyle and find herself "making do" on a limited income. I believe it might have taken some time, but she would have eventually found her independent side. Nicole didn't impress me as some blonde "bimbo" or a clingy, needy individual. If she had been given a chance at life, I think she would have developed into an amazing woman. That's what I want to believe anyway.

[2L8 4A D8]

:beer: That's what I heard too, Diva. That OJ is now having to dip into the principal in order to live. Too bad. So sad!

Hey OJ, keep on living beyond your means and pretty soon, before you know it, it's all going to be gone and you will have to "get a job" like all the NG's expected Nicole to do with young children at home! Boo Hoo!

JMO and MOO!!

If OJ is forced to get a menial job in order to survive, that might be sweet justice but your comment about Nicole seems a little insulting to the millions of women who have to work in order to pay the bills. Nicole's children were not babies and I'm sure she would have done what she had to do if she been given the opportunity. There is no shame in working for a living whether by choice or by necessity.:no:

What part of my post didn't you understand? Obviously, the part that I said, "get a job" like all the NG's (Not Guilties) expected Nicole to do with young children at home!" How is that "insulting to the millions of women who have to work in order to pay the bills?" It doesn't and you need to reread my post! Nicole didn't want to work; she wanted to be home with her kids and that's her perrogative and I agree with her perrogative. I am sorry that you don't. And where does it say that "young children" equate to "babies?"

You are not even reading my posts correctly. You also need to do a Search of Martin's posts. If anybody is insulting Nicole, it is he. He's the one who posted that since Nicole got a $300,000/$400,000 divorce settlement that she should have been happy with that. And, if she wasn't, then she should have gone out and got a job like so many other single/divorced women do! I don't agree, sorry!

I think that you need to put me on Ignore and then push yourself away from the computer. That's what I am going to do if I receive another post from you ~ CLICK!

JMO and MOO!!

[deputydi]

What part of my post didn't you understand? Obviously, the part that I said, "get a job" like all the NG's (Not Guilties) expected Nicole to do with young children at home!" How is that "insulting to the millions of women who have to work in order to pay the bills?" It doesn't and you need to reread my post! Nicole didn't want to work; she wanted to be home with her kids and that's her perrogative and I agree with her perrogative. I am sorry that you don't. And where does it say that "young children" equate to "babies?"

You are not even reading my posts correctly. You also need to do a Search of Martin's posts. If anybody is insulting Nicole, it is he. He's the one who posted that since Nicole got a $300,000/$400,000 divorce settlement that she should have been happy with that. And, if she wasn't, then she should have gone out and got a job like so many other single/divorced women do! I don't agree, sorry!

I think that you need to put me on Ignore and then push yourself away from the computer. That's what I am going to do if I receive another post from you ~ CLICK!

JMO and MOO!!
Is it your nature to be so nasty? I just meant that your post sounded like it would have been unheard of to expect a mother with young children at home to get a job. If I misunderstood your meaning I am sorry. My point about them not being babies was the children were in school and were of an age where they didn't need constant care. Calm down and stop taking everything posted to you as an insult.

I don't have time to post on the board 24/7 like you do and I don't want to spend my time in a pointless argument with you or anyone else.

[2L8 4A D8]

I understand fully what you are saying, but I still don't think 2L8 was slamming anyone in that regard. IMO some think they "need" to work, but truly are working to keep up with "extras" & a certain lifestyle. Clearly with some, there is no choice.

In this case, OJ seems to have married Nicole young & precluded her from getting an education or career. I think it's part of the abuse cycle. If you are independent & self supporting, you are far more likely to leave....if you are battered & supressed you are less likely to be able to "pull yourself up by the bootstraps". JMO

Thanks. Maybe I took her remark a little too personally.

<snipped>

Is it your nature to be so nasty? I just meant that your post sounded like it would have been unheard of to expect a mother with young children at home to get a job. If I misunderstood your meaning I am sorry. My point about them not being babies was the children were in school and were of an age where they didn't need constant care. Calm down and stop taking everything posted to you as an insult.

I don't have time to post on the board 24/7 like you do and I don't want to spend my time in a pointless argument with you or anyone else.

Who's nasty? Who's dense? Who started it? Not me! Oh now, "If I misunderstood your meaning, I am sorry!" Then you continue to bash me! How can I "calm down and stop taking everything posted to me as an insult?" You have done nothing but insult me since you (unfortunately) wondered in here a few months ago! If you don't want to spend your time in pointless arguments, then don't start arguments with posters! Duh!

William Anthony = 14.04 posts per day
Martin II = 13.60 posts per day
2L8 4A D8 = 11.42 posts per day

Yeah, I certainly spend 24/7 on these Boards! :rolleyes: CLICK!!!!!

JMO and MOO!!

[deputydi]

<snip>
William Anthony = 14.04 posts per day
Martin II = 13.60 posts per day
2L8 4A D8 = 11.42 posts per day
<snip>
deputydi = 3.32 posts per day

If you don't already have me on ignore, I'd like to offer a truce. You know, we really are on the same side and there is no reason for either of us to be hostile to the other. I don't happen to agree with every single thing the G's post and I don't disagree with everything the NG's post. I consider myself an independent thinker and nothing is all black or all white. If I question or disagree with something you say, please don't take it personally. It is my nature to look at all sides of an issue. I will try my best to do the same.

I took personal offense (because of my dtr) to your comment about "working mothers". It is very possible -- even likely -- that you didn't mean it the way it read (to me).

Now, can we start over?

[limakey]

DeputyDi,

IMO, I think the worst thing that has ever happened to the American Family is the "No Fault Divorce". While I truly believe that no person should stay in an abusive marriage or stay in a marriage where they are truly unhappy, I think if there consequences to their behavior during the marriage, it might help to lessen the bitterness, the anger and hopefully keep the focus on the children. In my experience, I have always given the advice that before you say something or do something you regret, try to remember that at one time you loved this person and if you try to remember that your children were a product of that love, then your children will feel much more secure.

Also, IMO, I believe many woman truly believe that as the laws are written, their ex's "have to" keep their children in a lifestyle for which they have become accoustomed to, however, that hardly ever happens.

If you think about it, judge's in these type of cases have to do the same as a civil jury---they have to decided what this woman is capable of doing and how much money can she earn in the future. I still don't know how woman can earn thousands and thousands of dollars less their ex but still have to pay a 40% to the ex's 60%'s.

[martin II]

If OJ is forced to get a menial job in order to survive, that might be sweet justice but your comment about Nicole seems a little insulting to the millions of women who have to work in order to pay the bills. Nicole's children were not babies and I'm sure she would have done what she had to do if she been given the opportunity. There is no shame in working for a living whether by choice or by necessity.:no:

deputy

Your post reflects my opinion exactly. Nicole may have been used to a life of ease but when she got her divoice she had to know that the free flow on money from oj would stop. Now if it is true that she was receiving $10,000 per month child support from oj had a condo, two cars and support from her family and friends , i find it strange that she could not make ends meet. How may single mothers have this kind of cushion at divoice?

There are many mothers with 2-3 children on welfare that somehow make ends meet.

If oj did give her one of the condos for rental income and she decided to sell it then that is another decision she made and if this is what caused the IRS situation then oj had no reason to support this scam. imo jmo
martin II

[William Anthony]

Who's nasty? Who's dense? Who started it? Not me! Oh now, "If I misunderstood your meaning, I am sorry!" Then you continue to bash me! How can I "calm down and stop taking everything posted to me as an insult?" You have done nothing but insult me since you (unfortunately) wondered in here a few months ago! If you don't want to spend your time in pointless arguments, then don't start arguments with posters! Duh!

William Anthony = 14.04 posts per day
Martin II = 13.60 posts per day
2L8 4A D8 = 11.42 posts per day

Yeah, I certainly spend 24/7 on these Boards! :rolleyes: CLICK!!!!!

JMO and MOO!!

Dear Diva,

I do not have a nickle in this dime, so, please refrain from using my name.

[deputydi]

DeputyDi,

IMO, I think the worst thing that has ever happened to the American Family is the "No Fault Divorce". While I truly believe that no person should stay in an abusive marriage or stay in a marriage where they are truly unhappy, I think if there consequences to their behavior during the marriage, it might help to lessen the bitterness, the anger and hopefully keep the focus on the children. In my experience, I have always given the advice that before you say something or do something you regret, try to remember that at one time you loved this person and if you try to remember that your children were a product of that love, then your children will feel much more secure.

Also, IMO, I believe many woman truly believe that as the laws are written, their ex's "have to" keep their children in a lifestyle for which they have become accoustomed to, however, that hardly ever happens.

If you think about it, judge's in these type of cases have to do the same as a civil jury---they have to decided what this woman is capable of doing and how much money can she earn in the future. I still don't know how woman can earn thousands and thousands of dollars less their ex but still have to pay a 40% to the ex's 60%'s.
No fault divorce does make it easier for a couple to split (not a good thing) but it lessens the stigma and bitterness of having to assign blame to one or the other (good thing). As with many other issues there are pros and cons. Divorce is a painful process for the adults, but it is heartbreaking when children are involved and feel the need to take sides. The kids need to understand that mom and dad may no longer love each other but they will never stop loving them.

I don't know what Nicole's child support order was, but I am pretty sure it wasn't going to afford the kind of lifestyle Justin and Sydney were used to. In my eyes, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes access to huge sums of money creates an attitude of "the world owes me". Nicole never had the kind of earning power OJ had but it seems to me that she walked away with enough to start a new life for herself. I think she eventually would have but they had only been divorced for about two years and OJ was still in her life (somewhat) even after the divorce. It takes longer than two years to get over a 17 year marriage. Unfortunately, she never got the chance to see what she could be.

[sassylassy]

In this case, OJ seems to have married Nicole young & precluded her from getting an education or career. I think it's part of the abuse cycle. If you are independent & self supporting, you are far more likely to leave....if you are battered & supressed you are less likely to be able to "pull yourself up by the bootstraps". JMO


actually thats incorrect-

ojs helped Nicole start up her own Interior design business-oj hired & paid Nicole to renovate their home. OJ also encou