The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Penalty Based Partly on Divorcing Wife's Destroying $1800 Bottle of Scotch
From last week's Ohio Court of Appeals decision in Edelstein v. Edelstein:
Father claimed that Mother denied him the opportunity to retrieve his personal items from the marital home. Father testified he had left behind familial memorabilia, religious heirlooms, and other personal items when he had moved out. Father explained that while he was given a brief opportunity to collect a few of his personal items from the home, Mother never gave him a sufficient opportunity to meaningfully collect his belongings. Mother told Father that she put the items he had left behind in storage and that he would be able to retrieve them the next time she was in Ohio.
Despite communicating to Father that his possessions were in storage and that he would be able to retrieve them, Mother testified that after she had determined that storage was too much of an inconvenience, she called a trash service and had Father's personal property destroyed. Mother admitted that she did not notify Father prior to having his belongings destroyed….
Mother takes issue with the court's $5,000 contempt penalty for having Father's items destroyed. This penalty, however, constitutes an equitable offset, given that Mother denied Father the opportunity to collect his equitable distribution of household goods and furnishings. This offset included all "remaining household goods, keepsakes, and furnishings," which would include the bottle of 1976 Glenrothes Single Malt Scotch. Thus, Mother's claim that the court failed to include the value of the bottle of scotch in the marital assets is without merit….
If you want to celebrate this decision, you can buy such a bottle yourself.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I once had a divorce client burn $50,000 in cash rather than share it with his spouse. It did not go well for him.
My ex waited until I'd refinanced my home to pay off her credit cards, then emptied all our joint accounts right after our tax refund was deposited, before letting me know she was going to divorce me. She did pretty well, the court didn't award her anything, but didn't do anything about her awarding herself all our easily portable joint assets, and leaving me all the debts, either.
I suspect that was the plan all along, because our marriage only lasted about a year.
I can't really say it ended well for her, though, because she became a cat lady, while I eventually remarried and now have a happy family.
During the debate on gay marriage, someone made the comment that of course gay people should be allowed to marry; why shouldn't they be just as unhappy as straight people?
Marriage, and raising children, is actually quite happy for most people; Indeed, I was quite happy in my first marriage until my ex announced her intention to end it. I'd go so far as to say that the experience convinced me that I was meant to be married, could never expect to be genuinely happy otherwise.
It's just not a sky diving and fireworks sort of happiness. It's more of a deep contentment and sense of security that gradually seeps into you. If you give it time to...
The problem with gay marriage is, how do you settle which party to the marriage gets the advantage of being treated as the "wife" in a divorce? Can't be both of them, and the courts don't seem to be capable of actual impartiality...
I've never handled a gay divorce but I would imagine that, as with any other divorce, the court would take a look at the assets, liabilities, earning capacity, and then enter an order for whatever he or she thought was fair. With the male grievance industry then complaining about it regardless. Come to think of it, maybe that's part of the opposition to gay marriage; the male grievance industry isn't quite sure what to do with it.
So you've never had a Gay Divorcee?
Yeah, imagine that, because it's not like you're going to see that any other way.
"as with any other divorce, the court would take a look at the assets, liabilities, earning capacity, and then enter an order for whatever he or she thought was fair."
But if both parties are men, what happens to the undistributed assets? And if both parties are women, who makes up the shortfall?
I guess maybe they can use the assets from the former to compensate for the latter.
Like I was saying about the male grievance industry. . .
Why not just say you burned it and keep it?
"If you want to celebrate this decision, you can buy such a bottle yourself."
What's to celebrate? It's a bitter divorce. I don't know how much blame each party has, just noting that it's a divorce and it's nasty.
I hope the child or children are resilient and manage to bounce back somehow. Likewise for the parents. Yikes.
This reminds me of Law and Order: Criminal Intent, season 3, episode 21, "Consumed". A bottle of expensive wine and a piano player's "fake book" are part of the denouement.
According to the link, the whisky has notes of "fudge, coconut, and apple strudel". I doubt a true Scotsman would have thus described it.
Well played, sir -- well played.
I tend to prefer Speysides, but don't really care for coconut. I'm sure I'd get over it if a bottle happened to cross my path.
The scotch in question also seems to fall a bit short on proof. Was there really a preponderance of the evidence?
I would suggest a corroboratory taste test to find out.
Just for the crime of destroying perfectly good scotch, the lady should serve a day or two in the slammer. And the fine. 😉
She should have drunk 1/2 of it and pissed in the bottle to fill it back up.
Sophistication: A can of Bud in one hand, a can of Scotch in the other.
https://www.planetwhiskies.com/scottish_spirits_whisky_in_a_can.html
Funny how it is that if you just add a bourbon to the mix rather than leaving thing as they are, you move from sophistication to destitution and a total case of the blues.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sDf0IwXoOmY&pp=0gcJCdgAo7VqN5tD
Everybody funny, now you funny too
It's wasn't divorce, but (fictional British) murder...
An episode of Midsomer Murders (Season 4 episode 2 "Destroying Angel") where a large cabinet containing a collection of expensive scotch was unscrewed from the wall and "fell" onto the solicitor handling probate of the estate of a previous murder victim, killing him but more significantly breaking all those bottles.
A crime against humanity.