Who can forget Bill Gates deposition 1998…
When the father of my daughter-in-law passed away, he owed more than $10k on each of five credit cards. But his name was the only name on the cards, so the debt died with him. His widow paid nothing.
So maybe it’s a good idea for spouses to have separate credit cards?
Generally, you don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.
This is something I’ve wondered about in the past. I guess I have two questions.
Is a deposition part of the public record?
Can the person being deposed refuse to answer a personal question because they believe it’s meant to be gathering embarrassing personal information, rather than information relevant to the lawsuit?
I suppose I’m thinking of an analogous situation where an actor is being sued for breach of contract for a film, and he’s asked in a deposition about an affair with a past co-star who has nothing to do with the film. Can the actor or his attorney state that the question has no relevance to the lawsuit and therefore he refuses to answer it?
Also, I guess I should double-check a presumption. If someone lies during a deposition, they can be prosecuted for criminal perjury, correct?
Um, me, for one?
No (at least not in the states where I practice). However, it is also not confidential, so there is nothing stopping the opposing party or counsel from releasing the transcript.
The short answer is no. The longer answer is it depends on how sure your attorney is that the question is beyond the pale. The standard is “reasonably calculated to lead to to the discovery of admissible evidence,” which gives the attorney taking the deposition incredibly wide latitude to ask almost anything. That being said, if the case is about a broken lease, and the attorney is asking about my client’s herpes medication (true story), I am going to tell my client not to answer, and let opposing counsel file a Motion to Compel, which I will respond to with a Motion for Protective Order, along with opposing motions for sanctions.
I would say the likelihood of that happening is so low as to be non-existent, at least in any case I have any experience with. The real penalties are what the judge does to you in the case. The judge will award sanctions, can refuse to permit your evidence on the issue, and can decide that your testimony cannot be trusted on any issue at trial.
Are you thinking of Bill Clinton? (“…that depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is…”)
mjmartin, thank you for your answers.
OK, so here’s the scenario.
You hate some other person and also have money to pay for lawyers. So you sue the guy for something in which you allege something relating to embarressing matters - e.g. you sue for some sex abuse in which you allege that the guy has various creepy fetishes, and you use that as a basis for forcing the guy to describe intimate details of his entire sex history, which you then publicize as widely as you can.
Does that work?
First thing the defense lawyer would do is file a Motion to Dismiss. Assuming that is not successful, the lawyer could file a motion to prohibit the dissemination of the discovery responses pending the outcome of a Motion for Summary Judgment. Given the nature of the topic, I believe many judges would be sympathetic. If the MSJ were granted, asking for a permanent injunction on dissemination would be reasonable.
But say that someone wants to sue Bill Cosby for sexual abuse, and then publish the deposition transcript (assuming he was forced to sit for a deposition), I would be surprised if a court would prevent it.
Many cases settle to prevent depositions from being taken. The potential embarrassment is often a motivating force.
With regards to wills and estates, lots of assets can have beneficiaries assigned so they are disposed of without going through your estate and probate. You can typically have beneficiaries listed on bank and investment accounts to automatically direct the money to certain people after you die. You can do something similar with real estate by filing a Transfer on Death Deed, which transfers the property to the beneficiary(-ies) after you die. These things can be setup or changed by yourself without a lawyer at anytime. They will greatly simplify managing your estate, as it won’t have to deal with these major assets. This allows your estate to just be the leftover stuff like miscellaneous personal property.
One other thing people may not realize is that each state has their own rules of how to distribute the estate if there is no will. People commonly think that the spouse gets everything, but that’s not always the case. In some states, other relatives may get a share, like 25% to be split among the children. It’s called Intestate. If you don’t have a will, look up the intestate rules for your state. You may be surprised to find out something like your estranged sibling would get a share of your estate. But you can easily avoid any intestate issues by having a will.
Me for two.
I’ve heard lawyers give much more advice about not answering confusing questions during their objections. It sounded more like, “Objection as to form and relevance. How is my client supposed to understand or answer a question like that?” Sometimes the complaint would drag on to buy time.
It got so bad in one protracted commercial case, the judge issued an order that counsel could object only by saying, “Objection. Form.” No other words were allowed and any other words from the lawyers could have led to sanctions.
Me for three, so I looked it up.
Gates gave a deposition in response the the antitrust suit brought by the government against Microsoft. Here’s the wikipedia article.
If you run over someone with your car, it’s best to back up and run over them again if you see they’re still alive, or even just for good measure.
Or is that just for Thailand?
Thanks this is interesting. How would a widow, for example, prove to a bank that her husband who owned the account died?
I am recently thinking about how to transfer my foreign assets to my wife or child when I die. I don’t want to use a will because the damn attorneys will suck out at least 40,000 for the costs of doing simple paper work. I would like to avoid that.
Wouldn’t his death certificate mention not just his name but also his Date Of Birth and Tax ID Number, all of which should match what the bank presumably has on file?
Listing beneficiaries would have to be done while the account holder is alive. They can go into their account profile and list beneficiaries who will get the money after they die. But if they die before doing that, then the account is considered part of the person’s estate and has to go through probate. It will be distributed according to the will or the default rules of the state if there is no will.
For the situation you mention of a widow proving that the account was her husband’s, that would typically be done by the executor of the estate. The executor would go to the bank with one document from the state which says they are the executor along with the death certificate. The bank would then assign the account to whoever the executor says. The wife might not automatically get the account. If there are no beneficiaries listed, then the account would need to be distributed as an asset of the estate. Depending on how the estate is distributed, she may get all or just part of the account.
I’m not sure if any of this applies to foreign accounts. I would guess those accounts are under the legal umbrella of whatever country the account is in.
I have an aunt who has been purportedly paying off my (still living, but in his nineties and recently placed in hospice care) grandfather’s condo. She asked me a few weeks ago if I could help her pay off the last of it so g-pa could have the warm feels of knowing it’s paid off (the sort of “quaint” sense of accomplishment that generation gets from having a mortgage “paid in full”, contrasted against my generations much more common sentiment of “it sure would be nice to be able to have a home I might own some day…”). She’s already been helping with the mortgage payments. So many questions ran through my mind, like…
- Why?
- Is there a provision in the will or some other contract that you, my dear aunt, are going to get your money back when he dies, before the estate gets divided up between siblings?
- If I were to help, who am I helping? You or the estate?
- What are the odds there’s going to be a written contract or other documentary evidence laying out the terms of this transaction? (Nill, right?)
- If you or I are the ones paying it off, then he’s not really “accomplishing” anything, is he?
- Seriously?
Needless to say, I found a way to politely rephrase my gut reaction of “not with a ten foot pole.”
Anyway, it’s one of those things where it has more to do with not wanting to be involved in the very ugly dispute over the money my aunt has already paid in herself than it is about the few thousand she asked me to contribute. I mean, it’d be one thing if g-pa asked me directly or if it was my aunt’s condo (in which case, I actually would say, “okay, but I’ll have to insist on a contract on general principle, you understand, right?”). Or honestly, even if my aunt had paid no money whatsoever into the condo already (in which case, I’d either insist on doing the contract with g-pa or just give the money over, assume I’ll never get it back, and be pleasantly surprised if I do).
But I DO NOT want to have any stake (even if it’s a stake I personally would gladly give up) in the dispute between aunt, uncle, and parent when g-pa dies. I don’t want my aunt saying “It’s not just me who is owed, ASL_v2.0 is in this too!”
Nope. Leave me out of it. Divide up the estate as you will (if there is one, what with how much they charge for assisted living care these days), but leave me out of it.