More unsavory news from Penn State...

[Rivka]

Apparently, four months ago Joe Paterno sold his house to his wife for $1.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/sports/ncaafootball/in-july-paterno-transferred-ownership-of-home-to-his-wife-for-1.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

 

His lawyer claims that it was just part of their estate planning and had nothing to do with the grand jury investigation that was then underway. Other lawyers interviewed have no idea how it would help someone's tax situation to sell his house to his own wife.

 

Hm.

[Starr]

The whole thing gets weirder and weirder. What about Sandusky's lawyer and the child bride?

[Dobela]

Friends of ours did this - she sold the house to him for $1. I don't remember all the details but they did it at the advice of an attorney or someone similar. The house had been in her family and was paid in full. She is also in worse health than him and wanted to make certain that if she died he would get to keep the house. I also know another couple that did this in a divorce - she sold her share of the business to him for $1. I think that by selling it this way the remaining family can avoid estate taxes, but I may be completely wrong.

[Liza Lee]

That could be a legitimate action as part of estate planning. If a married couple has a major imbalance in assets, it helps to get more of the assets put in the name of the spouse who doesn't own much. It's a very reasonable way to minimize estates taxes, IMO.

[Samiam]

hmm, this doesn't bother me. I'm not an estate attorney but this seems like a fairly common thing to do among the wealthy (and yes, JoeP is wealthy, he made over $500,000 per year!), and their real estate holdings.

 

I don't see how it has anything to do with Penn State, Sandusky or really any of our business.

 

See, now this is how it's going to play out...and it's America's sick media....start digging into every little aspect of the lives of the "side players". Drag them through the mud. In the last 48 hours, I've read an article about Joe P's pension, and now this. How does this affect the victims? What does this have to do with Sandusky?

 

Not sticking up for Joe P and his lack of effort in the Sandusky issue, not at all, but now we're digging into his finances? Ugh. For goodness sake, he's an 84 year old man, who's work for the last 60 odd years...let's stay out of his wallet.

[gingersmom]

I have no doubt that he did this to protect himself when he is sued. Who else knows what else he has transferred into his wife name only.

 

He's guilty and acting like a guilty person.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

hmm, this doesn't bother me. I'm not an estate attorney but this seems like a fairly common thing to do among the wealthy (and yes, JoeP is wealthy, he made over $500,000 per year!), and their real estate holdings.

 

I don't see how it has anything to do with Penn State, Sandusky or really any of our business.

 

See, now this is how it's going to play out...and it's America's sick media....start digging into every little aspect of the lives of the "side players". Drag them through the mud. In the last 48 hours, I've read an article about Joe P's pension, and now this. How does this affect the victims? What does this have to do with Sandusky?

 

Not sticking up for Joe P and his lack of effort in the Sandusky issue, not at all, but now we're digging into his finances? Ugh. For goodness sake, he's an 84 year old man, who's work for the last 60 odd years...let's stay out of his wallet.

 

His finances are news due to the likelihood of civil lawsuits directed against him personally. The pension became news when some were shocked how large his state pension was to be.

He is a public figure embroiled in a scandal, so details of his personal life will become subject to speculation and scrutiny.

[Trish]

hmm, this doesn't bother me. I'm not an estate attorney but this seems like a fairly common thing to do among the wealthy (and yes, JoeP is wealthy, he made over $500,000 per year!), and their real estate holdings.

 

I don't see how it has anything to do with Penn State, Sandusky or really any of our business.

 

See, now this is how it's going to play out...and it's America's sick media....start digging into every little aspect of the lives of the "side players". Drag them through the mud. In the last 48 hours, I've read an article about Joe P's pension, and now this. How does this affect the victims? What does this have to do with Sandusky?

 

Not sticking up for Joe P and his lack of effort in the Sandusky issue, not at all, but now we're digging into his finances? Ugh. For goodness sake, he's an 84 year old man, who's work for the last 60 odd years...let's stay out of his wallet.

 

The timing.

 

I mean, he could've done it when he was 80. Or 75.

 

I imagine a wide-ranging investigation will look at everything, not keep someone's wallet sacrosanct. Especially if this case turns out to hinge on "big donors."

[TravelingChris]

She was already a joint owner with him on the house. They would be no estate taxes on that house as long as she lived in it. I am sure it was done for avoiding losing the home in a liability case like I am sure will be filed sometime by the parents of the victims or the victims themselves.

[Margo out of lurking]

His lawyer claims that it was just part of their estate planning and had nothing to do with the grand jury investigation that was then underway.

 

During Grand Jury proceedings?

 

I believe the proper term for this is "criminal act."

 

Seriously.

[Samiam]

I have no doubt that he did this to protect himself when he is sued. Who else knows what else he has transferred into his wife name only.

 

He's guilty and acting like a guilty person.

 

Guilty of what?!!? He has not broke the law. The State police and D.A. have both said that. But you know otherwise? Should we all get our torches lit and start storming his house?

 

Did he fail morally? Absolutely. What does that have to do with his personal finances? Who cares what else he transferred to his wife's name. He's 84, she's probably close to that age. He's been married for what, probably 50 years. Perhaps he wants to protect his wife, if he gets sued. Is that really wrong? He's 84 years old. Will taking his house, in a civil lawsuit, right the moral wrongs he committed?

 

I know victims will need money for counseling, etc ,and I am not against that. If courts decide that Joe P should be held liable, so be it, but it is really wrong that he wants to make sure his wife is able to keep her home if that happens? And this is just assuming the "worst", that was his intent, for all we know, it was just normal estate planning.

[Trish]

Guilty of what?!!? He has not broke the law. The State police and D.A. have both said that. But you know otherwise? Should we all get our torches lit and start storming his house?

 

Did he fail morally? Absolutely. What does that have to do with his personal finances? Who cares what else he transferred to his wife's name. He's 84, she's probably close to that age. He's been married for what, probably 50 years. Perhaps he wants to protect his wife, if he gets sued. Is that really wrong? He's 84 years old. Will taking his house, in a civil lawsuit, right the moral wrongs he committed?

 

I know victims will need money for counseling, etc ,and I am not against that. If courts decide that Joe P should be held liable, so be it, but it is really wrong that he wants to make sure his wife is able to keep her home if that happens? And this is just assuming the "worst", that was his intent, for all we know, it was just normal estate planning.

 

Won't they have to get a "guilty" verdict in order to have Paterno lose a civil lawsuit? *If* he is deemed to have been partly responsible for these children being molested, and damages are awarded, why do you think his wife would be more deserving of the money than the victims?

[Cindyz]

What about the prosecutor who disappeared several years ago?

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/sandusky-investigator-center-mystery/story?id=14905668

[pdalley]

Won't they have to get a "guilty" verdict in order to have Paterno lose a civil lawsuit?

 

 

No, just like with OJ - if they can prove with a preponderance or 51% that Joe Paterno should have taken more steps to prevent the molestation/rape of children in the Penn State showers in a civil court he can be found liable. I'm not sure of the PA laws but I'm pretty sure he can be sued even if Sandusky if found not guilty.

 

 

 

OJ was acquitted in criminal court - proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil court is a different ball game.

 

Now Joe Paterno did not - as I understand it - deed over their expensive beach house.

[Starr]

I think they need an out of state judge with all this craziness.

[Cera]

I know a few people who have done this to move assets out of their name in case they are sued (doctors). If the house is only in the wife's name it can't be seized to satisfy a judgement against him.

[NittanyJen]

I would also add we have had neither a full investigation nor a trial.

 

We had a grand jury investigation, the only point of which was to see whether there is enough credible evidence to proceed with a trial. It was not a full investigation, nor was it a trial with all of the facts coming out. The point was not to reveal every detail of what was or was not known by whom, or when, and what they did or did not do about it. There are almost certainly more facts to be uncovered.

 

While everyone is busy taking standing broad-jumps to a conclusion, they are interpreting normal, human statements such as, "I wish I would have done more," and morphing them astonishingly into admissions of guilt. Who, in their right mind, no matter how much they did or how little they knew, would not wish that? Have you ever had a friend or family member depressed, in a bad relationship, or worse, and either missed the signs or not known about it? Might your reaction not be something along those same lines, even though you realistically bear no guilt? Might you not say, "I wish I had...". Would this make you liable?

 

Joe may actually be culpable in part for not doing more. But at this point, we don't really know that. The facts are not yet out. And actually faulting him, accusing him, for having human, heartfelt emotions is just sickness on the part of the American public, who have forgotten that we fought a war and we still have young men and women risking their lives for principals such as innocent until proven guilty.

 

As a PP pointed out, the monster here is (possibly) Jerry Sandusky. He, not Joe, was charged with a monstrous crime. nothing anybody does to Joe Paterno will help those young men.

 

All it takes for evil to exist is for good men to do nothing. Failing to stand up for American principals of justice for this American, if you are American, is inexplicable.

 

Please, let's wait for actual evidence, and be a civil society.

[Samiam]

I don't think that his wife is more deserving of money than the victims. I clearly stated I think that Joe failed morally and if the courts decide he should pay, via civil suit, so be it.

 

I think that there will be money coming from Penn State and if Joe P is held liable, then there is money coming from him, as well as the ex-President of Penn State (who was also the board of directors for a major company and thus is probably well off, just like Joe P.), as well as the other other people at Penn State who are under investigation.

 

Tell me why his 80 year old wife should be left without her home? What purpose will that serve? Will the victim's scars and nightmares go away because Mrs. Paterno has to move out of the home she has lived in for the past 50 years? Is she guilty of something now too? Do we want to punish her? What about Joe's adult children, should we start looking at them, and seeing how much they can pitch into the fund too?

 

I'm not sticking up for Joe. I do believe the victim's have a right to compensation to seek any help they need.

 

I'm just thinking about this as one who has a grandmother who is in her 80's. She can't start life over and build up savings and money again. What she has is what she has, and to take away something like a her home for something she was not involved in at all, just doesn't seem to be the solution to the issue. If someone can enlighten me and tell me how taking the home of a 80 year old woman can solve the issue at Penn State and heal the victim's scars, please enlighten me.

[NittanyJen]

Stupid iPad. I typed principles, both times :(

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I would also add we have had neither a full investigation nor a trial.

 

We had a grand jury investigation, the only point of which was to see whether there is enough credible evidence to proceed with a trial. It was not a full investigation, nor was it a trial with all of the facts coming out. The point was not to reveal every detail of what was or was not known by whom, or when, and what they did or did not do about it. There are almost certainly more facts to be uncovered.

 

While everyone is busy taking standing broad-jumps to a conclusion, they are interpreting normal, human statements such as, "I wish I would have done more," and morphing them astonishingly into admissions of guilt. Who, in their right mind, no matter how much they did or how little they knew, would not wish that? Have you ever had a friend or family member depressed, in a bad relationship, or worse, and either missed the signs or not known about it? Might your reaction not be something along those same lines, even though you realistically bear no guilt? Might you not say, "I wish I had...". Would this make you liable?

 

Joe may actually be culpable in part for not doing more. But at this point, we don't really know that. The facts are not yet out. And actually faulting him, accusing him, for having human, heartfelt emotions is just sickness on the part of the American public, who have forgotten that we fought a war and we still have young men and women risking their lives for principals such as innocent until proven guilty.

 

As a PP pointed out, the monster here is (possibly) Jerry Sandusky. He, not Joe, was charged with a monstrous crime. nothing anybody does to Joe Paterno will help those young men.

 

All it takes for evil to exist is for good men to do nothing. Failing to stand up for American principals of justice for this American, if you are American, is inexplicable.

 

Please, let's wait for actual evidence, and be a civil society.

 

What Joe admitted to knowing in the information through the grand jury is enough to indicate to me that he deserved to be fired, and I have absolutely no pity for him. None.

[cindergretta]

Won't they have to get a "guilty" verdict in order to have Paterno lose a civil lawsuit? *If* he is deemed to have been partly responsible for these children being molested, and damages are awarded, why do you think his wife would be more deserving of the money than the victims?

 

:confused: Who said anything about anyone being more deserving? The possibility that he did this to protect his wife should be seen a good thing. If he morally failed these victims, at least he can pay the price and not have his wife pay it. I would expect a husband (or a wife) to protect their spouse from the ills of life, particularly the failings of one another.

 

The whole situation is a stark tragedy and a monument to the ridiculous pedestal on which we place *sports* in this country. (I am a huge sports fan, but the prestige and money in sports - college and pro - makes me ill.)

[pdalley]

What Joe admitted to knowing in the information through the grand jury is enough to indicate to me that he deserved to be fired, and I have absolutely no pity for him. None.

 

 

I doubt anyone on that team or in that locker room did one thing without Joe knowing about it. Unless he didn't want to know. And had HE gone to the DA or any law enforcement I just cannot understand why it wouldn't have been investigated a lot sooner. If he is such an icon then his word would have been more than enough to start the ball rolling.

 

This happened in his locker room. For years and years. I find it very illogical to think he was clueless.

 

I am a Duke fan - actually a Coach K fan. If this was at Duke and K was in Paterno's shoes I would be hugely disappointed in him and expect him to be fired immediately. Nothing is more important than a child's safety - no college, no sports program, no legacy.

 

Sandusky - from his own words - is very seriously messed up. I know of no grown men that think showering with little boys and engaging in horseplay is 'normal'. That interview was highly disturbing.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

:confused: Who said anything about anyone being more deserving? The possibility that he did this to protect his wife should be seen a good thing. If he morally failed these victims, at least he can pay the price and not have his wife pay it. I would expect a husband (or a wife) to protect their spouse from the ills of life, particularly the failings of one another.

 

Of course, by "protecting" his wife, he is also protecting himself. I don't see the nobility in hiding assets.

[happypamama]

I agree -- regardless of what JoePa did or did not do, unless more comes out about his involvement in this fiasco, his finances are nobody's business. Also, I hardly think transferring his house to his wife constitutes "hiding his assets" -- he's made half a million dollars a year for how long? The house is, I believe, a fairly modest one. His wife is also, IIRC, quite a bit younger than he is (10 years, maybe?), and since he's had some injuries and such, maybe he was just concerned about what might happen to her if he died or was otherwise incapacitated. I suppose it does seem like an ominous coincidence, but we really do not know.

[Trish]

I don't think that his wife is more deserving of money than the victims. I clearly stated I think that Joe failed morally and if the courts decide he should pay, via civil suit, so be it.

 

I think that there will be money coming from Penn State and if Joe P is held liable, then there is money coming from him, as well as the ex-President of Penn State (who was also the board of directors for a major company and thus is probably well off, just like Joe P.), as well as the other other people at Penn State who are under investigation.

 

Tell me why his 80 year old wife should be left without her home? What purpose will that serve? Will the victim's scars and nightmares go away because Mrs. Paterno has to move out of the home she has lived in for the past 50 years? Is she guilty of something now too? Do we want to punish her? What about Joe's adult children, should we start looking at them, and seeing how much they can pitch into the fund too?

 

I'm not sticking up for Joe. I do believe the victim's have a right to compensation to seek any help they need.

 

I'm just thinking about this as one who has a grandmother who is in her 80's. She can't start life over and build up savings and money again. What she has is what she has, and to take away something like a her home for something she was not involved in at all, just doesn't seem to be the solution to the issue. If someone can enlighten me and tell me how taking the home of a 80 year old woman can solve the issue at Penn State and heal the victim's scars, please enlighten me.

 

Between "lighting the torches" and "taking the home of an 80-year-old woman" I think you're jumping to some pretty oddball scenarios. Especially as Joe has now "protected the home." Rest easy. Joe is not legally liable, she has a home to spend her retirement years in, and the victims' scars cannot be healed.

 

Just bear in mind that what Paterno knew, and when he knew it, IS a salient point. At whatever point he knew, and then allowed the Sandusky Showering Road Show to continue, then all the kids that followed DIDN'T HAVE TO HAPPEN.

[Samiam]

Between "lighting the torches" and "taking the home of an 80-year-old woman" I think you're jumping to some pretty oddball scenarios. Especially as Joe has now "protected the home." Rest easy. Joe is not legally liable, she has a home to spend her retirement years in, and the victims' scars cannot be healed.

 

Just bear in mind that what Paterno knew, and when he knew it, IS a salient point. At whatever point he knew, and then allowed the Sandusky Showering Road Show to continue, then all the kids that followed DIDN'T HAVE TO HAPPEN.

 

I think you are missing the point of the conversation, and the original post. What people are indicating is that 1. Joe is guilty legally, 2, He's should pay financially, and 3. He shouldn't be moving his assets around, in this particular case, the house, because those assets will potentially be given to the victims in the scenario that "guilty Joe" loses in a civil case.

 

It's not oddball scenarios. My "torch lighting" was an due to someone saying "Joe's guilty" and it's a done deal. No more questions asked, essentially he needs to give everything he has to the victims. My point was to calm down a bit and chill out. As far as the "80 year old lady losing her home"...isn't that the whole discussion? Why else would everyone care that he did that? It happens every day in the estate managament world. So who cares, right? People care because they are assuming the worst, that he did it to hide his assets in the case of a civil suit, and this move just shows another horn on his devilish head. It couldn't possibly be anything else, right? That's the tone that many insinuated. And what a horrible thing for him to have done!

 

I was simply pointing out that, 1. It's a perfectly legit move for someone his age, dealing with estate management issues, and 2. Even if he was doing it to ensure the house was not taken in a civil suit, who cares. It's one piece of property, there's going to be millions given to the victims. Let the old lady keep her house.

 

Your "salient" point is noted, well noted, and everyone here agrees on it. Really doesn't need to be discussed anymore. Was there ever a disagreement about that? That was never the issue. The issue is what does it matter if he made a legal move to keep from losing his home in a civil suit. Why does that make him the devil and how is that going to hurt the victims any further? I'm resting easy on this point.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

It's not oddball scenarios. My "torch lighting" was an due to someone saying "Joe's guilty" and it's a done deal. No more questions asked, essentially he needs to give everything he has to the victims. My point was to calm down a bit and chill out. As far as the "80 year old lady losing her home"...isn't that the whole discussion? Why else would everyone care that he did that? It happens every day in the estate managament world. So who cares, right? People care because they are assuming the worst, that he did it to hide his assets in the case of a civil suit, and this move just shows another horn on his devilish head. It couldn't possibly be anything else, right? That's the tone that many insinuated. And what a horrible thing for him to have done!

 

The timing is suspicious. Joe is 84, and fairly wealthy. It seems strange that an estate planner would have waited this long to suggest this move if it was for tax benefits. Considering it seems to have limited value under PA law, questions will be raised.

 

I was simply pointing out that, 1. It's a perfectly legit move for someone his age, dealing with estate management issues, and 2. Even if he was doing it to ensure the house was not taken in a civil suit, who cares. It's one piece of property, there's going to be millions given to the victims. Let the old lady keep her house.

 

1.) It doesn't seem to be under PA law. 2.) If he *is* moving assets, then it does look like he is concerned about his liability.

 

Your "salient" point is noted, well noted, and everyone here agrees on it. Really doesn't need to be discussed anymore. Was there ever a disagreement about that? That was never the issue. The issue is what does it matter if he made a legal move to keep from losing his home in a civil suit. Why does that make him the devil and how is that going to hurt the victims any further? I'm resting easy on this point.

 

Would you say the same thing if Sandusky made the same move?

[Trish]

I think you are missing the point of the conversation, and the original post. What people are indicating is that 1. Joe is guilty legally, 2, He's should pay financially, and 3. He shouldn't be moving his assets around, in this particular case, the house, because those assets will potentially be given to the victims in the scenario that "guilty Joe" loses in a civil case.

 

It's not oddball scenarios. My "torch lighting" was an due to someone saying "Joe's guilty" and it's a done deal. No more questions asked, essentially he needs to give everything he has to the victims. My point was to calm down a bit and chill out. As far as the "80 year old lady losing her home"...isn't that the whole discussion? Why else would everyone care that he did that? It happens every day in the estate managament world. So who cares, right? People care because they are assuming the worst, that he did it to hide his assets in the case of a civil suit, and this move just shows another horn on his devilish head. It couldn't possibly be anything else, right? That's the tone that many insinuated. And what a horrible thing for him to have done!

 

I was simply pointing out that, 1. It's a perfectly legit move for someone his age, dealing with estate management issues, and 2. Even if he was doing it to ensure the house was not taken in a civil suit, who cares. It's one piece of property, there's going to be millions given to the victims. Let the old lady keep her house.

 

Your "salient" point is noted, well noted, and everyone here agrees on it. Really doesn't need to be discussed anymore. Was there ever a disagreement about that? That was never the issue. The issue is what does it matter if he made a legal move to keep from losing his home in a civil suit. Why does that make him the devil and how is that going to hurt the victims any further? I'm resting easy on this point.

 

So who should be on the hook, taxpayers? :confused: