From the conduct of the court case it seems like it was open to the court to decide in his favour if he was able to marshal sufficient convincing evidence, even if the original ticket was lost, ie he was still a winner without the chicken dinner.
Yes, basically a ticket that can be redeemed for $1M is worth $1M. Whether it is redeemed or not, or burned, or lost in the wind, it was an asset worth $1M at the time the draw for the prize was made.
One can argue that the moment it was bought, based on community propetty or equitable division or whatever, half the $1 spent was the spouse’s. Therefore, if the ticket appreciates in value, half that value is the spouse’s.
If the ticket is burned then the one spouse is destroying the value of that ticket. If he knows it is worth $1M (if redeemed) then he is delberately destroying $1M. Similarly, like the case in California, if the spouse hides the ticket and redeems it after the divorce, they are hiding from the courts and asset division the $1M, not $1.
Once in a while you read in the news where an irate spouse takes a chainsaw to the house and cuts it in half. He may think he’s giving her half, but what is really happening is he is causing damage to seriously devalue a common asset, not too unlike burning a winning ticket. If a $300,000 house is now a $50,000 salvage job, then the perp has done $250,000 of damage to an asset that was half his spouse’s. Odds are the court will not simply overlook this when it comes time to divvy up the assets.
There’s a difference between income and assets. For tax purposes the lottery winnings are income. For practical purposes it’s an asset since lotteries aren’t reliable sources of income.
Income can be imputed. You are expected to provide support at the level you are capable of earning income. So no lowballing income out of spite.
Lottery winnings are often distributed over a period of years. Any such winning would likely be treated as income and considered the same as above.
I can’t speak to asset destruction. I will say that while lawyers love the fees from divorce cases, courts generally hate divorce cases and will do everything to stay out of the issue. Allowing asset destruction would increase the cases that come to court, so I’m guessing any rulings would penalize the person destroying the asset to the extent possible.
Ownership of an entitlement to a long term source of income is essentailly an asset - hence the discussion above about “splitting pensions”. Yes, each time the asset delivers as promised, that is income.
But can one spouse unilaterally extinguish the rights of their spouse? If as a couple WE have a right to a $1M settlement, can I say, “Naw, were good.” without her consent?
That raises a different point already touched on but not explored in this thread; does burning the ticket in fact extinguish the right to claim the prize?
Suppose you hold the sole winning ticket in a $1bn draw. You are dancing around in joy waving the ticket in the air and I, consumed with jealousy, snatch it from your hand and destroy it. Obviously you have a legal remedy against me but — to my lasting regret — that will not net you $1bn. So, can you claim $1bn from the lottery organisers with other evidence that the winning ticket was yours, even though the physical ticket was destroyed? Much is going to depend on the precise terms of the law govenring lotteries in the jurisdiction where this happens and/or on the exact terms of the contract between the lottery organiser and the players. But, for the sum involved, it will be worth your while to see them in court. And, when you do, we’ll get a conclusive answer to the question of whether destroying the ticket extinguishes the right to the prize.
If the answer is “no” then, in the divorce case, the court will no doubt find a way to direct that a claim is to be made for the prize, and will award the spouse her share of whatever that claim yields.
However if the answer is “yes” then the asset has been destroyed as effectively as if the husband had burned an extremely valuable (and uninsured) painting or destroyed some other valuable physical object. If there’s no asset to divide, the court cannot divide the asset. All it can do, within the context of the divorce proceedings, is signal its displeasure with the husband’s conduct in the way it divides the assets that do exist.
There’s a complicating factor in that you can argue about whether the ticket was the husband’s property or joint property, and the answer to that will depend on the facts of the case and/or the law about the property of married persons in the jurisdiction concerned. But I think ultimately it’s likely to be a red herring. If me destroying your ticket, in which I have no ownership at all, leads to the loss of your entitlement, then husband destroying a ticket is not likely to lead to a different outcome on the basis that he owns either a half-share or a whole share in the ticket and the rights which it represents.
(Of course, depending on the exact facts and circumstances, there might be other legal sanctions for the husband, like a prosecution for wilful destruction of property or for lighting a fire during a time of total fire ban. But none of those sanctions are going to magic up $500m for the spouse.)
I can’t sell title to our jointly owned house without the consent - and active participation - of my wife. Why would a billion dollars be any different?
I would imagine if something happened to the ticket that was not deliberate, it would fall under the category of “shit happens”. If I parked my car under a tree and the wind blows the tree down on it, or if the neighbour torches it (without my instigation) I wouldn’t owe my wife half the value in divorce proceedings. it’s deliberate intent that matters - did I willfully destroy her half?
(She would, I assume, be entitled to half the insurance payout?)
When is that value calculated, though? Are you dividing the assets that the couple had at the moment the divorce was filed, when the settlement discussion is taking place, or at some other time?
I was thinking something similar. Suppose the husband burns the lottery ticket before filing for divorce. If one spouse can have a windfall and it belongs to both of them, why can’t one spouse lose a fortune (deliberately or otherwise) and it becomes a joint loss?
The magic word is “deliberately”. Both are equally exposed to random luck; does the stock market go up or down this month? Does the tree fall on their car or next to it? Married or mid-divorce they share equally in that fortune, good or bad.
But one or another partner vandalizing their joint assets out of spite is generally frowned upon. IOW, at least in many jurisdictions the idea becomes that the spiteful spouse is free to wreck their half, but only their half. The spiteful spouse will pay dollar for dollar to offset any wrecking of the other spouse’s half.
Obviously the upper limit of guaranteed spousal indemnity comes at half the total assets. The spiteful one can wreck up to half, at which point they individually are impoverished and the other spouse is individually unharmed. If the wrecking continues, the other spouse’s half is now being injured and only future income from the spiteful spouse could potentially offset that.
Which may not be enough, and especially not in windfall hypotheticals involving lottery wins.
Determining when “ordinary financial decision-making” becomes “spite” deserving offset is sometimes tricky. Everyone has made a bad investment decision at least once in their lives. But usually spiteful spouses are not subtle; what they are doing is so egregiously obvious and so utterly unilateral that judges have no problem recognizing it as conscious vandalism.
This is generally referred to as dissipation of marital assets. By way of example, one court defined “dissipation” as “the frivolous, unjustified spending of marital assets” and “includes the concealment and misuse of marital property.” Dissipation can be things like using marital assets to sustain a mistress or one spouse stealing from a jointly owned business but I’m reasonably confident every state is going to agree that burning an asset worth $1 billion to spite your spouse in divorce is some form of dissipation or the equivalent under that state law.
I’m sure there are subtle differences in how every one of the 50 states would handle it but, under the facts presented, the gist is going to be that the court will offset the distribution of property to the husband by the amount dissipated. In this case, it could mean that the court will give all of the spouse’s joint property to the innocent spouse with possibly nothing to the malefactor. Play stupid games, get stupid prizes.
Also as I read, the law in California is that any assets you hide from the court during the divorce process are automatically forfeit 100% to the other spouse, if/when discovered.