Muhammad Ali Jr. abandons family upon receiving inheritance

[JSt0rm]

In this case, remember, the inheritance is not part of marital property thus the judge cannot consider it in spousal/child support. So no.

That seems weird

 

[BUTCH1]

In this case, remember, the inheritance is not part of marital property thus the judge cannot consider it in spousal/child support. So no.

I disagree. yes, since the law states that an inheritance is not "community property" she would not get anything in the divorce but that does not stop a judge from setting the level of child support at what he/she wants it at. Just because she is not entitled to half in a divorce does not mean he can't be slapped with hefty child support/alimony amounts. He can't stand in front of the court and say "I'm broke", that's not gonna fly.

 

[madoka]

What a class act.

'All I know is that I came home and everything was gone. Just like that. No warning call, "I'm leaving. I'm gone".

'I really don't know what's going on and I do care for him. He's the father of my kids and right now he's just lost his dad and I'm sure he's still hurting over that. But the way it looks, it looks bad.'

According to Shaakira's mother, Raheema, who looked on as her daughter spoke, Muhammad Jr 'punched holes in the wall, tore the doors off' the couple's apartment and 'took what little there was' when he left two weeks ago.

Shaakira admitted: 'He just blows up like that sometimes.'

Since he walked out on his life and apartment in Chicago's notorious Southside, Muhammad Jr, 44, had not returned any of his wife's desperate telephone calls until the very day that Shaakira sat down with Daily Mail Online.

Daily Mail Online was present when Shaakira received the call during which Muhammad Jr screamed at his wife incoherently leaving her distraught and bewildered.

After the call she said: 'I just don't know what's going on. I don't know where he is. I haven't heard from his family - nothing.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...illions-says-d-forgive-him.html#ixzz4GDbniLty

 

[blackangst1]

I disagree. yes, since the law states that an inheritance is not "community property" she would not get anything in the divorce but that does not stop a judge from setting the level of child support at what he/she wants it at. Just because she is not entitled to half in a divorce does not mean he can't be slapped with hefty child support/alimony amounts. He can't stand in front of the court and say "I'm broke", that's not gonna fly.

It would, though. Alimony is considered by the incomes of both parties, assets of both (inheritance EXCLUDED), and the current lifestyle of the receiving party.

That said, there was a recent appellate court decision that states in effect the inheritance itself cannot be considered for alimony terms, but the income generated from the inheritance can.

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a5989-05.pdfOverbay vs. Overbay

 

[blackangst1]

What a class act.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...illions-says-d-forgive-him.html#ixzz4GDbniLty

What a douche.

Reminds me of a saying a wealthy guy I knew years ago told me: Money makes good people better and bad people worse.

 

[Sonikku]

Too bad daddy didn't give the 9 mil to his step daughter instead of Jr.

 

[Linux23]

He even looks like a douchnozzle

 

[Linux23]

Then again there are two sides to every story.

 

[Exterous]

That said, there was a recent appellate court decision that states in effect the inheritance itself cannot be considered for alimony terms, but the income generated from the inheritance can.

IANAL but, form that link, it looks like that would only apply to situations where the inheritance would be used to keep the spouses standard of living comparable to what they became accustomed during their marriage.

Also a good read to show the downsides of letting a court determine what your reasonable rate of return on investments should be

Citing to Miller v. Miller, 160 N.J. 408, 734 A.2d 752 (1999), the trial judge imputed an annual income of $80,000 to defendant based upon a 7.4 percent rate of return on her inheritance assets.   The trial judge explained his decision to impute additional investment income to defendant as follows:

It is because of the potential for extreme volatility in the stock market that the Court in Miller determined that the fairest and most appropriate measure for imputing income would be to take a five-year average yield for long-term A-rated corporate bonds as determined by Moody's [Composite Index].   That yield is 7.4%.

D:

The trial judge did not refer to the testimony from the two financial planners, except to acknowledge that defendant's expert,  Mr. Donovan, testified that if he were advising the defendant he would not recommend that she invest in long-term A-rated corporate bonds.   Mr. Donovan also testified that the corporate bond market was negatively affected by the Enron and WorldCom scandals and he did not “know of any investments today that would be of the same quality as an A-rated bond that would be paying a 7.4 percent yield.”

This testimony was not disputed by plaintiff or his expert, and the record does not reflect why the trial judge rejected it.

 

[madoka]

Then again there are two sides to every story.

What reasons would allow you to inherit millions of dollars and then promptly abandon your two daughters?

 

[BUTCH1]

What reasons would allow you to inherit millions of dollars and then promptly abandon your two daughters?

So he can go hide and get high. I hope he OD's so she gets the cash and I doubt he's much of a father-figure, POS who couldn't hold a job, gee, I wonder why...