How do you protect your assets from divorce, government confiscation, lawsuits, garnishments, or seizure?
Best way: own nothing. The government (in all its forms) cannot seize from you that which you do not own.
Downside: when you own nothing, you control nothing. If your wife, for example, owns the car you drive and the house in which you live, there’s no guarantee she and the car and the house will always be around for you.
You may have heard about creating an irrevocable trust or family partnership as a means of protecting your assets from creditors, and depending upon your situation and the laws of the jurisdiction that governs you and your assets, that may be a viable option. To know that, however, you would need to inquire with an attorney who knows and understands the laws of your jurisdiction.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
I do not see any ostensible sound public policy basis behind wanting to deem more and more court records “private”.
I understand the desire for privacy, but privacy is not an unquestionable good in all situations.
The details of litigation in taxpayer-funded courts whose proceedings are public record and open to the public are, with rare exception, subject to public access and scrutiny to ensure that the courts operate in the clear light of day A) as a check on corruption of: the legal process, of judges and court personnel, of lawyers, and of litigants and B) to maintain a real and substantive connection between the public/taxpayer and the administration of justice in society. When any branch of government operates in secret (and/or seeks to operate in secret more) that does nothing to foster or sustain public confidence in it.
The information this rule amendment would make private does not strike me as information that has done significant, if any, harm or any noticeable harm as a result of being public to this point. This proposal appears to be a solution that is not only in search of a problem, but a poorly analyzed and conceived “solution” at that.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
Part 1: can you legally record phone calls (or an in-person conversation)?
ANSWER: It depends on the jurisdiction. Some states won’t allow you to record a conversation (whether on the phone or in person) without you obtain the consent of the other party or parties to the conversation.
But other states are “single-party consent” jurisdictions, meaning (usually) that they allow you to record a phone call or conversation, 1) as long as you are a party to the conversation (you are a party to the conversation, so you can give consent without having to get the consent of any other party or parties to the conversation); and 2) you’re not recording for the purpose of committing a tort or a crime . Otherwise stated, you cannot secretly record a conversation between other people if you are not a party to the conversation yourself.
For example, in Utah, where I practice law, this is the law (Don’t let the “not acting under color of law” language worry you; “not acting under color of law” simply means, in this context, essentially acting under government authority)
(7)(b) A person not acting under color of law may intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication if that person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of state or federal laws.
So what if you live in a single party consent state, but you are calling someone who lives in a state where that person’s consent must be given before you can record a phone call? I don’t know. But if you’re living in a state that is a single-party state placing a phone call to or receiving a phone call from someone in the same state or in a state where it too is a single-party consent state, you’re probably in the clear. Make sure you get competent legal advice before you start recording phone calls.
Part 2: What kind of evidence is admissible?
ANSWER: Lawfully obtained evidence, whether a recorded phone call or live conversation, is admissible in court, as long as it’s material and relevant to the issues to be decided, as well as competent. Evidence is material if it has some logical connection with the facts of the case or the legal issues presented (Black’s law dictionary 11th ed. 2019). Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and the fact is of consequence in determining the action. Evidence is “competent” if it complies with certain traditional notions of reliability.
So, for example, if you are being sued in small claims court by someone who contends you owe him $1,000 for painting your house and you have recorded telephone calls in which he calls you a liar and a cheat and a bunch of vulgar names, that recorded phone call is probably not material or relevant to the issue of whether you owe the plaintiff any money. On the other hand, if you go into court claiming that you never agreed to pay the guy $1,000 to paint your house, and he has recordings of phone calls between you and him in which you state something like, “I know you painted my house, I know I agreed to pay you $1000, but you don’t have anything in writing and it’s your word against mine, and no one will believe you, Ahhhahhhah!,” then the recordings would be highly material and relevant to the case.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277