No sole ownership of properties acquired during a marriage. Buying a house
in my name won't make it so. Same for a car or a boat. Wish it were
different.

Wrong again dimwit. Check with your insurance co. It's well known that
married couples who own 2 cars should put them in each other's names instead of
co-ownership. If a car that's owned by both is in an accident the other party
can sue both and win the house. Can't happen if the car is only in one of the
married couples names.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
Trains are a winter sport

Wrong again dimwit. Check with your insurance co. It's well known that
married couples who own 2 cars should put them in each other's names instead of
co-ownership.

Can't keep track can you, Loco? I already said the boat in her name had to do
with insurance.

RB

I only commented after you posted you'll
be puting the "new" boat in daddy's name.

Yup. Indeed. And for good reason.

RB

You've
already paid the taxes and the other person can make off with the assets. If
you retain enough control the transfer will be disregarded. Try again, boy.

Skitchy, please explain how my wife "can make off" with the boat. Our agreement
specifically lists any items brought into our marriage as co-owned. So let me
know...maybe I can make off with her new jewelry!

RB

BFD. Does doing this protect said assets from creditors? Generally not,
though there is a loophole..... as Bondy knew. I believe Ritchie Rich
used a variant of it recently as well, but his might come unstuck.

PDW

In article , Capetanios Oz
wrote:

On 13 Nov 2003 01:00:45 GMT, (SkitchNYC) wrote:

That's right. There is no viable asset protection scheme that involves
putting
your assets in another individual's name.

Really?
Here it's quite legal to place assets in another name providing the
appropriate taxes are paid during the transfer.


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

That's right. There is no viable asset protection scheme that involves
putting
your assets in another individual's name.

Really?
Here it's quite legal to place assets in another name providing the
appropriate taxes are paid during the transfer.

Sure, Alfie, you can do that anywhere, but why would you want to? You've
already paid the taxes and the other person can make off with the assets.
If
you retain enough control the transfer will be disregarded. Try again, boy.

Try again? Why?
I'm happy with my arrangements and I believe Bubbles is with his.
My boats are owned by companies that pay me, my cars are company
owned, my home is owned by my wife,the real estate..company, hell even
my share portfolio is owned by my investment company, they all pay me
a wage and I get directors benefits.
Good deal and no-one can take off with anything..except my wife and
she's not looking to that.
Come to think of it, I don't actually own much more than the clothes
in my wardrobe and the money in my pocket.
Try agai...nah, don't think so!

Bwahahahahaha OK, joker. Your investment company pays you a wage? What a
laugh. You better try again, cause that ain't gonna work. And pray tell, why
the home is in the name of your "wife the real estate . . .company" whatever
that is. Look, even if you had this setup (which you do not), it would be
about the most ass-backwards way to hold assets, particularly income-producing
ones as you describe them. It is certainly the case in the US, and according
to my AAR friends it is in Oz also. And, to top it off, you still haven't
explained why you or Boobs could gain any advantage by having an individual
(like a wife) hold assets. Please get back to the question at hand (but thanks
for the laugh anyway).

You've
already paid the taxes and the other person can make off with the assets. If
you retain enough control the transfer will be disregarded. Try again,
boy.

Skitchy, please explain how my wife "can make off" with the boat. Our
agreement
specifically lists any items brought into our marriage as co-owned.

This is the non-prenup, pre-nup (actually sounds like the opposite of one -
weird)? Methinks you got bad advice, my friend. What benefit are you getting
from this arrangment? Be honest with me, and I'll help you. If you have an
agreement that provides that despite her having title you co-own things, then
the agreement removes the benefit of not owning it - you own it. On top of
that, the agreement may not be enforceable - leaving you high and dry. Just
don't get divorced, or fix it first.

On top of
that, the agreement may not be enforceable - leaving you high and dry. Just
don't get divorced, or fix it first.

Our marriage agreement is quite standard and it was well researched. It
overides titles, deeds and even "gifts." The boat and the next boat are not in
my name due to insurance issues that are specific to me.If we ever divorced I
wouldn't want this boat...or the next one anyway.

RB

Bwahahahahaha OK, joker. Your investment company pays you a wage? What a
laugh. You better try again, cause that ain't gonna work.

Skitchy....seems to me that it IS working. Why are you so frustrated when
others have found a viable system, even if unconventional?

RB

why you or Boobs could gain any advantage by having an individual
(like a wife) hold assets. Please get back to the question at hand (but thanks
for the laugh anyway).

In my case it had to do with insurance. Taxes were a minimal factor. In the
case of the 34XL, it's about financing. My father's credit union is 0% interest
along with other nice terms.

RB