Are Rolexes Considered Community Property?

[BristolCavendish]

Case in point. A work colleague is currently separated and divorce proceedings underway. Two of his three Rolexes (an SS Datejust, SS Submariner and SS GMT) were purchased during the course of his 8-year marriage to a now 40-something woman who has recently taken up with a Millennial-aged lover. As per her divorce attorney, she is now staking claim to both the Submariner and GMT (one of which she intends to pass on to her current boyfriend) and the other to be sold. While this planned endeavor is a 'slap in the face' to any hardworking and devoted Rolex WIS, the eventual dispersal of joint (community-based assets) is apparently legal and on the horizon for the soon-to-be divorced couple. As an afterthought, is it maybe best to keep some personal purchases and belongings 'secret' from spouses given that domestic changes can occur at any time?

[tomchicago]

very sad situation. sorry to hear about it. your question is sad too.

[crowncollection]

Secrets in a marriage are not part of a healthy relationship IMHO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sickened1]

I keep all my Rolex purchases secret away my spouse for fear of personal injury!

[Chewbacca]

its an asset.

simple as that, and she's likely entitled to any claim her counsel sees as reasonable under local common law or spousal laws under assets acquired during the duration. she could even claim the one that wasn't purchased during the duration.

hence, the "must sell, getting divorced" ads.

but even those require the cash for assets be included so... #lawyers

[Meme-Dweller]

Pretty screwed up.

[Valkyrie]

I'm not a lawyer but yes I believe the Rolexes purchased during the marriage would be considered community property.

If however your friend can show that the wife was unfaithful and is having an affair, even though the watches are community property the wife may have no claim on them since her actions were the cause for the divorce. The down side for this logic though is that the legal fees incurred in winning the divorce may significantly exceed the value of the watches.

Personally I would just sell them for a couple hundred each and split the proceeds with the wife (or perhaps take a hammer to them) because there is no way I would allow her new lover to ever wear my watch!

[joli160]

Originally Posted by Valkyrie

I'm not a lawyer but yes I believe the Rolexes purchased during the marriage would be considered community property.

If however your friend can show that the wife was unfaithful and is having an affair, even though the watches are community property the wife may have no claim on them since her actions were the cause for the divorce. The down side for this logic though is that the legal fees incurred in winning the divorce may significantly exceed the value of the watches.
!

Here in my place it does not matter who is to blame or whatever the reason for a divorce is. You just have to handover half your assets and a nice alimony on top.

[MonBK]

Originally Posted by joli160

Here in my place it does not matter who is to blame or whatever the reason for a divorce is. You just have to handover half your assets and a nice alimony on top.

Alimony is short for: All the money.

[uansari1]

I am a lawyer, and I would always advise people to have a prenup. I don't care how in love you are, or what societal or cultural pressures dictate...have a freakin prenup!

[uansari1]

Originally Posted by Valkyrie

I'm not a lawyer but yes I believe the Rolexes purchased during the marriage would be considered community property.

If however your friend can show that the wife was unfaithful and is having an affair, even though the watches are community property the wife may have no claim on them since her actions were the cause for the divorce. The down side for this logic though is that the legal fees incurred in winning the divorce may significantly exceed the value of the watches.

Personally I would just sell them for a couple hundred each and split the proceeds with the wife (or perhaps take a hammer to them) because there is no way I would allow her new lover to ever wear my watch!

If you were to sell them for an unreasonably low value, you would still be on the hook for 1/2 of the market value. This rationale is adopted from tax law, which we all know is notoriously difficult to skirt.

He doesn't have to give her the actual watches...just the value in dollars that she is claiming.

[datejust24]

Wow...she's giving some low blows for sure...no pun intended...but damn! I myself could'nt really keep the purchase of any new watch a secret as my wife knows my addiction is strong and actually takes notice to what timepiece i'm wearing on any given day....For example, last week I bought my GMT...she knew about that piece bc I told her I had been wanting a PM Rolex...well it just so happened the next day my watchmaker called me about a NOS SD he had in....so I stopped down on my lunch break to give it a look aaaand just so happened I bought it....that evening when she got home from the gym she literally noticed it within minutes of getting there....I was like um...yea babe I couldn't pass this up...she wasn't happy but diamonds make things better...

[azguy]

One more reason to be a life long bachelor, thank God no women would ever have me

[Rolex addict]

What if they were sold to a "buddy" for say $100 bucks before the divorce papers were filed? It may not be ethical, but I'd do it for one of my close friends. There are many ways to hide assets if you're creative enough.

[Avud Bazmon]

Prenuptial agreements are for people who love each other. TRULY.

[Duey]

What Rolex ? I don't see a Rolex ?

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by Rolex addict

What if they were sold to a "buddy" for say $100 bucks before the divorce papers were filed? It may not be ethical, but I'd do it for one of my close friends. There are many ways to hide assets if you're creative enough.

thats dissipation. so youd get charged with the difference.

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by BristolCavendish

Case in point. A work colleague is currently separated and divorce proceedings underway. Two of his three Rolexes (an SS Datejust, SS Submariner and SS GMT) were purchased during the course of his 8-year marriage to a now 40-something woman who has recently taken up with a Millennial-aged lover. As per her divorce attorney, she is now staking claim to both the Submariner and GMT (one of which she intends to pass on to her current boyfriend) and the other to be sold. While this planned endeavor is a 'slap in the face' to any hardworking and devoted Rolex WIS, the eventual dispersal of joint (community-based assets) is apparently legal and on the horizon for the soon-to-be divorced couple. As an afterthought, is it maybe best to keep some personal purchases and belongings 'secret' from spouses given that domestic changes can occur at any time?

if he acquired it during the marriage then it would be. the one owned prior or after would not be (unless after was purchased with community property funds).

[TimeRookie]

The guy should be asking for half the value of all of her jewelry and personal assets to be included as well. Pretty nasty stuff. I hope I never have to go through it.....

[cferrel]

crap another reason ill be forever single. On the bright side ill have more money for watches.

[Onikage]

What's mine's my own. Ouch what a story... Not sure what the law is here (I don't plan on getting married, unless it's to someone with at least equal 'community property') I always thought watches and luxury items were safe from this, just half the house and bank accounts would go. Certainly worth a read up it seems.

[LuminousMaximus]

That is so sad!

My wife embezzled over $200,000 when I finally found out. It also cost me an E39 BMW M5, couple of cars, a very nice camping trailer, and a Zodiac RIB.

Oh and lest not forget the $350,000 I left in upgrades on her house. And the appreciation in value.

Now I tell you this story because I can understand the above, but to take a Mans Rolex is just incomprehensible..!

[Rolex addict]

Originally Posted by Etschell

thats dissipation. so youd get charged with the difference.

Maybe not state a number, but say the watches were sold before the divorce papers were filed. I've had my share of court experiences and it would be her word against his. She would have to prove the watches were NOT sold. I've been completely on the right side of the law and lost court cases. Just one example not related to divorce, but a dog ran out in the road and hit me while on my bicycle. Destroyed a $1000 wheel. It's fur was stuck in the spokes and the bike was not rideable. I took pictures at the scene of the bike, but the guy took the dog inside quickly. The sheriff deputy came, filled out a report, and the guy actually claimed ownership of the dog. In court, I couldn't "prove" that it was "that" dog that did the damage. The owner said the dog never left the yard. I'm out $1000. So, I say again, prove the Rolex(es) weren't sold before the divorce papers were filed. He said/she said doesn't work in a courtroom. Now, I ride with a helmet cam.

[Rolex addict]

Originally Posted by LuminousMaximus

That is so sad!

My wife embezzled over $200,000 when I finally found out. It also cost me an E39 BMW M5, couple of cars, a very nice camping trailer, and a Zodiac RIB.

Oh and lest not forget the $350,000 I left in upgrades on her house. And the appreciation in value.

Now I tell you this story because I can understand the above, but to take a Mans Rolex is just incomprehensible..!

Stories like this make me so happy I never got married. It has to be an absolutely horrible thing to go through.

[Livermoron]

In California inherited property is not community property unless it's co mingled. Did he inherit the watches ? I inherited cash and it never touched a joint account and I bought my Rolex with it. All bets are off in a nasty divorce but I doubt my wife would be that petty as to want it. God forbid it ever came to that.

If he bought with community assets he may be screwed. Just give her the cash difference.

[MonBK]

Originally Posted by LuminousMaximus

That is so sad!

My wife embezzled over $200,000 when I finally found out. It also cost me an E39 BMW M5, couple of cars, a very nice camping trailer, and a Zodiac RIB.

Oh and lest not forget the $350,000 I left in upgrades on her house. And the appreciation in value.

Now I tell you this story because I can understand the above, but to take a Mans Rolex is just incomprehensible..!

I guess you came out cheap considering your latest win?

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by LuminousMaximus

That is so sad!

My wife embezzled over $200,000 when I finally found out. It also cost me an E39 BMW M5, couple of cars, a very nice camping trailer, and a Zodiac RIB.

Oh and lest not forget the $350,000 I left in upgrades on her house. And the appreciation in value.

Now I tell you this story because I can understand the above, but to take a Mans Rolex is just incomprehensible..!

she made up for it by telling you to get the ticket.

[motoikkyu]

Just to respectfully disagree with Valkyrie, I found out (to my surprise) that divorce law and practice have changed greatly in the last couple of decades. Infidelity or other factors that are clearly the "fault" of one of the parties have ZERO influence on the division of assets. The courts are not even remotely interested in assignment of blame, unless grievous bodily injury occurred, in which case, a monetary figure can be assigned to said disfigurement, and then figured into the equitable division of assets. My watches were part of my divorce proceedings: I was able to get them out of consideration only by letting ex choose the five she liked best/wanted most. She was prepared to let the others, even their financial value, go BECAUSE during our togetherness, she frequently opted for expensive holidays overseas with communal money, while I would take "my share" and buy a watch. So, mine are bought and paid for, twice over.

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by Rolex addict

Maybe not state a number, but say the watches were sold before the divorce papers were filed. I've had my share of court experiences and it would be her word against his. She would have to prove the watches were NOT sold. I've been completely on the right side of the law and lost court cases. Just one example not related to divorce, but a dog ran out in the road and hit me while on my bicycle. Destroyed a $1000 wheel. It's fur was stuck in the spokes and the bike was not rideable. I took pictures at the scene of the bike, but the guy took the dog inside quickly. The sheriff deputy came, filled out a report, and the guy actually claimed ownership of the dog. In court, I couldn't "prove" that it was "that" dog that did the damage. The owner said the dog never left the yard. I'm out $1000. So, I say again, prove the Rolex(es) weren't sold before the divorce papers were filed. He said/she said doesn't work in a courtroom. Now, I ride with a helmet cam.

i do divorce for a living. it is no different than buying a girlfriend jewelry watch prior to filing. in any state, community or equitable distribution, its dissipation. the only way it wouldnt be is if you used inherited funds that were not commingled with other funds.

if anyone needs advice just PM me.

[slickrick68]

"Whats mine is mine and what's yours is mine". Heard similar phrases many times from people who work in that area.