Man adopts 42 Year Old Girlfriend

[LSN80]

Well, this is certainly one Ive never seen before. I have heard cases of homosexual couples where one adopts the other in order to receive healthcare benefits, but adopting a girlfriend? New one to me!

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...-adopts-girlfriend-to-preserve-trust-assets/1

48 year old billionaire John Goodman, founder of Polo Club Palm Beach, is facing charges of DUI manslaughter, vehicular homicide, and leaving the scene of an accident after killing 23 year old Scott Wilson, a University of South Florida graduate student. Goodman is being sued by the parents of Wilson for wrongful death, and responded in October by adopting 42 year old girlfriend Laruso Hutchins.

Goodman had previously attempted to shield part of his assets from the civil suit filed by Wilson's parents by placing 95% of his assets into a trust for his two children. However, Judge Glenn Kelley ruled that because both of Goodman's children are under the age of 35, the money in the trust wouldn't be protected from the civil suit. However, because Hutchins is 38, she is immediately entitled to one third of Goodman's assets, meaning they could not be considered part of his financial worth. Obviously, this would shield them from any damages the Wilson family could receive in the civil suit against Goodman. Goodman's lawyer, Daniel Bachi, said the following regarding the case:

"The move is not illegal and was made with the intention to preserve and grow the assets of the Trust for his two minor children, even should he personally be unable to continue his historical role in achieving these goals."

I can see the point here, as Goodman is dead to rights on the criminal charges facing him. He ran a stop sign and killed Wilson while drunk, then fled the scene of the crime. Speculation amongst experts is that Goodman will get 15-25 years in prison, so his ability to manage his assets and continue to build them is highly unlikely. A provision in the trust assures that 95% of the money will go to his minor children. This still leaves 67% of his assets open season for the Wilson's in their civil case. Goodman's lawyer Daniel Bachi issued the following statement yesterday:

The adoption of Ms. Hutchins will have no effect on the civil proceedings as none of the assets of his children's Trust belong to Mr. Goodman. All of the assets of the Trust have been disclosed to all parties in the current civil proceedings, so any allegation of hiding or secreting of assets is totally false.

Mr. Goodman cannot have a beneficial interest in the Trust nor can he derive financial benefit from the Trust. The legal adoption of Ms. Hutchins does not change that in any way.

By making Ms. Hutchins a beneficiary of the trust, Mr. Goodman provided her with the status and ability to protect the closely held family assets that only this adoption could give her.

Judge Glenn Kelley, who made the initial ruling that his children couldn't be considered part of his trust, said the following:

"While not illegal, the legal twists in the case border on the surreal and take the Court into a legal twilight zone."

Finally, the Wilson's issued the following statement through their lawyer:

"The adoption is an attempt by Goodman to shield assets from potential lawsuit damages."

I don't think there's any doubt that Goodman is attempting to shield assets. But as a billionaire, and with 67% of his assets still available to be taken, I have no problem with this. His children shouldn't be punished for Goodman's mistakes. I have little empathy or sympathy for a billionaire or his children, but he did earn the money, and his children have a legal right to it. Personally, I feel 67% of his billion dollars is a perfectly acceptable sum to be open to the lawsuit. However, there's always the side that would argue the case of what should happen if he wasn't a billionaire. What if Goodman had, say $20,000 to his name? Would and should he be able to shield a third of that from the lawsuit? Honestly, I don't know. He, and the Wilson's, are afforded a "luxury" in that he is a billionaire, so they do have access to a large sum of money. And on the contrary, his children are still left with a tidy sum of money.

Should the Wilson's have the right to sue Goodman for all that he's worth? Or is the 67% enough?

Any other thoughts on this story are welcome and encouraged.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

The Wilson's should have the right to sue for 67%. The state should go after Dan Conner for fraud in regard to his adoption of his girlfriend (and possibly incest). If the state can freeze those assets and can convince a court that Conner made these decisions in an effort to avoid losing them to the Wilson's than 100% is fair game. With that said, the Wilson's don't deserve a billion dollars for this. I don't mind seeing Conner lose everything for his sin but I would rather the Wilson's get a reasonable piece and the rest go to charities of their choice or even the government.

As far Conner's kids, it's unfortunate but I don't care about Becky's, Darlene's and DJ inheritances.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Should the Wilson's have the right to sue Goodman for all that he's worth? Or is the 67% enough?

They can sue him for whatever amount they want, but aren't there some kind of precedents or statutes that define what a person can reasonably collect from this type of thing? After all, no amount of money is going to bring their son back, so isn't there some kind of limitation on the award? One place to start might be the liability insurance Goodman had on his auto policy. In most car accident cases, the damaged party uses their insurance company to contact his and finds out the extent of his insurance. Then, they sue for the maximum amount, and eventually settle on an amount. Protecting your assets is one of the big reasons auto liability insurance is required in almost all states.

Of course, even with liability insurance, some folks have policies that call for $100,000 per person while others are written for $1,000,000. If an injured person has extensive damages and the one who caused the accident only has a $100,000 policy, they have to file a bigger lawsuit, so yes, it can be done.

But if Goodman has over $600 million in assets subject to this lawsuit, does that mean the family of the deceased has a right to take it all, or a large chunk of it? How much is enough? Believe me, this isn't a matter of sympathy for Goodman or his children. If he was worried about protecting his children's legacy, he could have avoided driving drunk and leaving the scene of the accident. If a person has more, he has more to lose and has to work that much harder to protect it.

In the end, it probably doesn't go to court; Goodman's lawyers will offer a settlement that's far in excess of what is normally awarded for this type of accident, and everyone goes home.

*************

As to the issues raised by the adoption, I know of a bank that made a loan to a person for his business. The security on the loan was the personal guarantee of the borrower, whose chief asset was his home. When he saw his business failing, he transferred the title on his home to his children, so that when the bank sued, the home would be out of their reach. As it turned out, the bank challenged the conveyance of property as a fraudulent attempt to shield the borrower's assets from litigation. Since the borrower still resided in the house, the judge ruled for the bank and set aside the conveyance, leaving the home open for the lawsuit. In other words, the borrower didn't get away with it.

I don't know the law in this adoption case, but the same principle may apply. If the adoption was done strictly to shield Goodman's assets, I wonder if a court might either invalidate the adoption, or at least not allow assets to be transferred to her name. After all, adopting a 42-year-old person is hardly an everyday occurrence and courts often try to stop people from manufacturing fraudulent solutions to their problems.

 

[SavageTaker]

I think they should be allowed to sue for a maximum amount of money that would be defined by the court. So if the court says that they can sue for everything Goodman is worth then they should definitely go after that if they wished. After all, I don’t see why they wouldn’t. It’s not like they can put a price tag on their son and I don’t think the court would be able to either. However, if they do go that route then I don’t think they would be awarded everything. So really my main point here is that regardless of how much they sue for, they’re more than likely going to win a nice sum that a lot of us wish we had but I don’t think the court would rule that they get everything. And even if they did for some reason, it would take a long time for the Wilson family to see any of that after all of the appeals that are bound to happen.

As far as the adoption of his girlfriend, that’s definitely a new one I’ve heard and kind of weird. But I hope that if this is Goodman’s attempt to shield his assets that it fails. He’s at fault here and everyone knows it. He needs to take responsibility for his actions and pay the family however much they win. Like I said, you can’t put a price tag on their son but it’s not right to try to lower the amount of money they can get out of this because of Goodman’s mistake which could have been avoided 100%.