paterno sells to wife their home for 1 dollar back in july

[retro44]

i

 

[MadNY3]

Or, you know, smart estate planning.

 

[Avatusstone28]

Or, you know, smart estate planning.

Not according to the article. More like ...

“It sounds like an attempt to avoid personal liability in having assets in his wife’s name.”

 

[texascpa]

I guess PA is not a community property state

 

[44PRIDE]

Or, you know, smart estate planning.

I would bet this is it. Transferring ownership via sale is something that is standard practice when settling an estate. Anyone trying to read anything more into this beyond estate planning is nuts.

 

[SmilinBob]

How much younger is his wife? I would think he would have put it under his kid(s) names.

 

[Stern]

don't read anything into this.

 

[Millhouse]

that house isn't worth much more than that

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Dude. All deeds cite consideration as one dollar. It is boiler plate language unrelated to price
It was actually likely a gift as they set up their asssets for individual ownership for estate tax planning

Sent from my Vortex using Tapatalk

 

[arbitragegls]

...agreed...nothing should be read into this...

 

[xc84]

Why should "nothing" be read into this? Transferring ownership to his elderly wife serves little purpose unless JoPa is known to be ill or they are trying to shield assets for other reasons. It's entirely possible Paterno's lawyer saw the potential civil lawsuit coming as soon as the investigation began ...and had Paterno make the move.

 

[pfister1]

He didn't actually transfer ownership to his wife. The articles say he transferred it to her "as trustee" which means he transferred to a trust over which she serves as the Trustee. The article also says the the house was held jointly, but doesn't say whether she joined in the transfer or not.

Pretty surprising that the NY Times ran with this as a story without something more to indicate that his intent in making the transfer was something other than following the long term Estate plan that the attorney suggested was the motivation, because it does sound like Estate Planning.

 

[xc84]

He didn't actually transfer ownership to his wife. The articles say he transferred it to her "as trustee" which means he transferred to a trust over which she serves as the Trustee. The article also says the the house was held jointly, but doesn't say whether she joined in the transfer or not.

Pretty surprising that the NY Times ran with this as a story without something more to indicate that his intent in making the transfer was something other than following the long term Estate plan that the attorney suggested was the motivation, because it does sound like Estate Planning.

"was turned over to “Suzanne P. Paterno, trustee” for a dollar plus “love and affection.” The couple had previously held joint ownership of the house, which they bought in 1969 for $58,000."

So what was the $1 for if Joe still owns it? They were obviously protecting it from something. The question is, what? It is certainly plausible this was done to shield assets from potential lawsuits.