pinkpuddytat
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2009
- Messages
- 602
- Reaction score
- 1
There has been no court ruling on the division of assets (since the petition for dissolution has only recently been filed & a divorce decree has not yet been granted), therefore TH has the legal right to any accounts & assets, regardless of whose name (hers or KH's) they're in, or regardless of whether or not she contributed to them, according to this web site. Of course, it's entirely possible that KH may have withdrawn all funds from any and all accounts, in order to prevent her from accessing funds. Who knows?
However, once a divorce filing has been made, all sorts of related motions and orders may follow quickly, or even be simultaneous. And very likely in this case, that includes significant restrictions on Terri incurring debts to lawyers or withdrawing funds from joint accounts or encumbering marital assets such as the home.
This wouldn't need to be done in anything but an equitable manner either. Kaine could request and be granted an order that places equal limits on spending and debt incurrence on both himself and Terri. But since he doesn't have any apparent need for a team of pricey criminal defense lawyers, this would likely only have an impact on Terri's plans. For example, the request/order could prohibit either of them from using their home equity as collateral for a loan, pending a court hearing -- he wasn't planning to anyway, so no problem for him, but Terri's would-be lawyers who were telling her she'd have to borrow against the home to pay their upfront retainer fees, are now telling her "Sorry, we're not interested in taking your case without upfront payment". He could also build in a modest, equal amount for each of them to be allowed to spend for the initial payments to retain divorce lawyers, being perfectly equitable, but still preventing her from draining large chunks of marital assets for her personal benefit. Under the circumstances, I don't think any court would hesitate to approve such a request. The court rightly considers not only the fairness to each party to the dissolving marriage, but also the need for the child(ren) to continue to be supported during and after the dissolution of the marriage. Allowing one spouse to wipe out all the assets for her sole, personal benefit, is not equitable.