Gitana, I'm trying to understand this and I don't. Maybe I'm just slow, but you indicated that each party would have to disclose funds they had "access to". TH had no access to these funds, they went from a 3rd party to Houze, who is not even her divorce attorney. I asked this up thread, and I'll ask here again, if TH got a traffic ticket and someone paid it for her, would KH have the right to know who paid it? What would that have to do with joint assets? It's not like she's hiding assets, they weren't hers and they never will be, they (the money) now belongs to Houze and before that they belonged to someone else. Please help me understand.
I do understand your solution should the court require the source to be disclosed and I'll bet you're right if that happens! Thanks.
Okay, I'm speaking in lawyer speak I think and not being clear enough! I apologize for that. Really, when I say funds she has access to, that has zero to do with marital or joint assets or debts. That's another argument for why she would have to disclose the source of the funds.
Here's what I'm trying to say. Sometimes we have a case where dad, let's say, claims to be unemployed. And he in fact is, unemployed. But mom is asking for child and spousal support. Well, support orders are issued based on certain formulas which generally, in OR and CA, are determined based on income, percentage of time with the kid, etc. But that formula can be veered away from by the judge, in certain situations. So let's say that in my scenario, dad is unemployed but his expenses are being paid by a friend, or relative. Rent is paid directly to the landlord, cell phone is provided for, etc.
Well, in that situation, mom has an argument that it is in the best interests of the minor child for the court to veer from the guideline support calculation and consider dad's access to funds that otherwise would not be considered income or an asset to him.
There are other scenarios that similarly come into play in attorney's fees arguments. For example, let's say mom is requesting that dad pay her attorney's fees. But dad thinks mom is hiding "access" she has to outside funds, even though she has no income or assets of her own. In other words, she really is getting money from someone else, or is getting someone else to pay her bills on a regular basis. Dad has the right to know that so he can argue (maybe not successfully, but he can try), that mom has access to outside funds and thus he should not pay her fees.
In the Horman case, KH could argue that TH has access to funds from her parents. That she asked that those funds be used for her criminal defense expenses and not her disso attorney's fees. So, depending on the amount that was paid, she made a choice of where those funds would go and KH should not have to pay for her attorney's fees. He could also argue that because a third party essentially gifted her a large sum, she is in a better position financially than him, after all the assets and debts are divided, and thus she should pay his fees.
But he has to know how much and from where in order to make those arguments.
I could go on with other examples of why this info is relevant to the disso case, regardless of whether or not the fees came from a marital asset or debt but basically, we don't have to like these potential arguments, they don't have to winnable and KH does not even have to ultimately make these arguments. But he has the right to determine what arguments he may have and he can't do that until he knows exactly what is going on.
The bottom line is that both parties to a disso have the right to all sorts of information regarding the other person's income, assets, debts, loans, gifts, expenses paid by third parties, etc. And they have the right to that information in the "discovery" process, via detailed. responses under oath or via subpoena. In essence, KH has the right to go on a fishing expedition
to determine anything he wants regarding every aspect of TH's finances.
