All those dumb asses rioting for "Jo Pa" are going to be stomach-sick and butt hurt when the extent of what he truly knew come to light.

The man's 80+ years old. This is normal. Non-story.

ZAZ: Lawrence A. Frolik, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh who specializes in elder law, said that he had "never heard" of a husband selling his share of a house for $1 to his spouse for tax or government assistance purposes.

Transactions within a family are often recorded as $1, despite the real consideration being less or much more.

Larry doesn't seem to be up on PA real estate law. The law says you can't just *give* property away; you need to sell it for a nominal amount, usually $1. I'm sure that's so the municipalities, the state, and the IRS aren't cheated out of the the taxes they'd be due.

vinnybang: All those dumb asses rioting for "Jo Pa" are going to be stomach-sick and butt hurt when the extent of what he truly knew come to light.

speculation and stupidity. that is a dangerous combination you have there.

quickdraw: This is the way you transfer property title between family members.

Yes, and if you are essentially giving the property to one of your children or grandchildren, it makes sense. Giving to your wife, however, makes no sense unless it is being done as a personal liability shield. Paterno (or whoever was advising him) knew what was coming back in July.

vinnybang: All those dumb asses rioting for "Jo Pa" are going to be stomach-sick and butt hurt when the extent of what he truly knew come to light.

They should be already. The grand jury report is damning enough. If these idiots haven't faced the truth by now, then they never will.

There are many things to be outraged about regarding this story. This is not one of them.

Say it aint so Joe

I_C_Weener: Ok. So how does this constitute tax or estate planning? He is dying and his wife will get it now without going through probate? She pays less in taxes than he does? I don't get it.

He could be sick. Not knowing the intricacies of his personal life, he may want to make sure his wife has the house free & clear without having it challenged by other heirs. Alternatively, maybe doing this now will reduce any future inheritance tax.

A friend of mine set up an LP with his parents and had them put all their "stuff" into the ownership of the LP so that when they die, the LP still owns the stuff and there's no inheritance tax.

When he gets sued by a dozen 20-28yo males for aiding in the cover-up of sexual abuse along with Penn State, is the house now shielded from being taken from them?

vinnybang: All those dumb asses rioting for "Jo Pa" are going to be stomach-sick and butt hurt when the extent of what he truly knew come to light.

Seriously?

dletter: And to point out, his wife is 13 years younger than him

Some would say he's robbing the cradle, but I say that she's robbing the grave.

$1 intrafamily transactions are extremely commonplace. In my work I see them all the time, and they're done for all kinds of reasons. Frankly, I'm surprised Paterno had the house in his name all this time to begin with--most even moderately rich folks put them in trusts or someone else's name.

My Dad is talking about 'selling' me his house for $1 incase he has to go into the hospital or something along those lines. After the bank account goes dry, they won't be able to come after the house, but I would have to own it for a couple years first.

Warlordtrooper: Paterno did what he was legally required to do which is all you can really ask of him.

I find this statement ridiculous since Paterno spent 50 years talking about going above and beyond the minimum required standards and there was an element of honor in all parts of life.

If Paterno spent much of his life preaching the idea of fulfilling the most basic requirements and not really caring much past that, you'd totally have a point.

Please tell me that no one sat on this scandal until after #409. It's just coincidence that JoPa got the record win just before the scandal broke.

Right?

McQueary is changing his story now; three people have testified, consistently and independently, that what McQueery told them isn't what he told the grand jury and Sandusky was already looked at and then dismissed when a prosecutor decided there was no case to be made against him....

But, yea, let's keep pretending we know what happened, arbitrarily assume everyone involved is guilty without a trial and just excoriate everyone on rumor and assumptions before the jury trial.

/ I will laugh my ass off at you retards if not only does it turn out the university staff didn't have any actionable information but Sandusky walks on the charges as well
// in before defending the concept of "innocent until proven otherwise" is turned into "U R DEFNDING PATERNO AND CHILD RAPE!!!11"

babysealclubber: You can't be sued for what you don't own.

That's what people think and possibly what Paterno thought. Too bad there's the law of fraudulent conveyance (new window).

The Third Man: $1 intrafamily transactions are extremely commonplace. In my work I see them all the time, and they're done for all kinds of reasons. Frankly, I'm surprised Paterno had the house in his name all this time to begin with--most even moderately rich folks put them in trusts or someone else's name.

This. Dude is ancient, he should have done this years ago.

Sandusky's going to walk. No real legal reasoning, just a hunch.

iron_city_ap
If you do, it has to be at least three years before his death. Else, the state says it was done 'in anticipation of death' and will still tax his estate.

/at least here, in WV

ZAZ: Lawrence A. Frolik, a farking retard of a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh who specializes in elder law should be disbarred for attention-whoring and blatant lies, said that he had "never heard" of a husband selling his share of a house for $1 to his spouse for tax or government assistance purposes.

JoePa is scum, but this is a non-story. This is sensible for a man his age to do.

/Oh noes! He bought Geritol! That must mean he intends to rape a boy!

The important thing is that the house is very ugly.

EnviroDude: /Joe, if it had been one of your grandsons in the shower, would you have kept quiet?

I don't know. Can his grandson diagram a blitz?

GenePoolinWV: Please tell me that no one sat on this scandal until after #409. It's just coincidence that JoPa got the record win just before the scandal broke.

I guess it would depend on what the reasonable course for grand jury testimony, completion/release of the report, filing of charges would be. Personally, I never paid attention to the dates during the cut scenes of Law & Order, so I don't know what is realistic.

How soon do we find out whether McQueary is lying about having gone to the police?

someonelse: How soon do we find out whether McQueary is lying about having gone to the police?

I would guess that all parties involved (except Sandusky, apparently) are going to say as little as humanly possible until the trial.

iron_city_ap: My Dad is talking about 'selling' me his house for $1 incase he has to go into the hospital or something along those lines. After the bank account goes dry, they won't be able to come after the house, but I would have to own it for a couple years first.

Wouldn't you have to pay taxes based on a fairly assessed value (as it is a gift?). A much smarter way seems to be to either set up some sort of trust or slowly gift the house over (a couple can gift 26,000 a year, a single person 13,000).

Paterno is not guilty here. Had he known about the Grand Jury report 4 months ago, he would have retired prior to the season. Any attempt to correlate estate planning with expectation of possible lawsuit is WEAK at best.

I'm not saying that Paterno didn't know about Sandusky, but I do think that the assumptions people are making are WAY off base.

GenePoolinWV: Please tell me that no one sat on this scandal until after #409. It's just coincidence that JoPa got the record win just before the scandal broke.

Right?

The Grand Jury report accidentally was leaked earlier than this. We probably still are not meant to know about this.

bulldg4life: When he gets sued by a dozen 20-28yo males for aiding in the cover-up of sexual abuse along with Penn State, is the house now shielded from being taken from them?


yeah, that's the obvious angle i see but i don't know how PA law handles community property / the spousal estate.

to me it indicates that yeah, he's shielding his assets in the event of a civil suit (the victims could sue Joe but in theory, not be able to reach her assets) but I don't know.

alternately, and now we're getting into the somewhat deep end of the pool, while it kinda smells like a fraudulent conveyance (new window) I don't think it qualifies since Joe's not in bankruptcy. however, i dimly recall an exception in the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act that goes to, to paraphrase, "conveying property to an insider knowing a claim is pending".

dunno.

either way it looks bad. but i'm sure Joe had the best and brightest attorneys advise him not only was it legal, but he better act quickly.

murp0837: Paterno is not guilty here. Had he known about the Grand Jury report 4 months ago, he would have retired prior to the season. Any attempt to correlate estate planning with expectation of possible lawsuit is WEAK at best.

I'm not saying that Paterno didn't know about Sandusky, but I do think that the assumptions people are making are WAY off base.

The story broke seven months ago. But nobody listened then.

He could also be trying to avoid Medicare/Medicaid issues if he has a long term health problem Most nursing homes are pretty strict about liquidating assets.

I_C_Weener: Not if it was a fraudulent transaction designed to protect it.

rickythepenguin: alternately, and now we're getting into the somewhat deep end of the pool, while it kinda smells like a fraudulent conveyance


You and your precious 31 seconds. Big farking man, aren't you? Pretty proud of yourself, aren't you, you piece of shiat.

/dammit. me and my long winded post. now it looks like i copied you. dammit.