Tag: divorce waste

Are TikTok Gifts Divorce Dissipation or Just Good Business

TikTok allows you to make monetary gifts. After one husband made over $300,000 in marital gifts to others on TikTok during his divorce, a court must decide if it is wasteful dissipation or just good business. It is easier than you think to spend and hide marital assets online as one New York trial court discovers.

Tik Tok Divorce

New York State of Mind

Social Media “gifts” allow a social influencer online to earn real money from followers. TikTok revolutionized online content monetization for creators, and now offers an array of over 100 different gifts. For example, an “I Love You” gift is valued at 49 coins and is worth approximately 65¢. On the other end of the spectrum, a “TikTok Universe” gift has a value of 44,999 coins which is worth about $562.

On April 9, 2025, a couple filed for divorce in New York after eight years of marriage. There are three children of the marriage. Most notably, the Husband and Wife are both attorneys licensed to practice law in the State of New York.

At a recent hearing, the Wife asked the court to appoint a guardian ad litem over her Husband, not the children. In New York, a guardian ad litem can be appointed for a litigant if the litigant appears to be in an “apparently chronic irrational and agitated state” resulting in the individual’s inability to effectively litigate their case without assistance.

To prove a guardian was appropriate, she alleged her Husband had become increasingly paranoid, erratic and aggressive on his TikTok “live streams” and was actively dissipating marital assets.

The court heard evidence of the Husband’s recordings on TikTok some of which were filmed right outside the courtroom:

“CJB [the husband] got Court tomorrow. Ain’t no mother fucking judge check me. CJB is vibing right now. Don’t worry about the consequences.”

In his defense, the Husband characterized his TikTok expenditures as investments rather than gifts. He confirmed that he spent at least $300,000.00 on TikTok, approximately $275,000.00 after the divorce was filed: “So, Judge, when it comes to give away money, I don’t — I can’t affirmatively say I have given away money. Have I made — these are marketing and business expenses.”

Florida Dissipation

I’ve written about dissipation of marital assets before. In a divorce proceeding, when distributing the marital assets between spouses, a family court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors.

One factor is whether one of the parties intentionally dissipated, wasted, depleted, or destroyed any of the marital assets after the filing of the petition or within two years prior to the filing of the petition.

For an expenditure to be considered dissipation, there must be evidence of intentional misconduct. This means that the spending spouse must have intentionally used marital funds for their own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage. Simple mismanagement or squandering of an asset, even if the other spouse disapproves, does not constitute dissipation.

It’s up to you New York

In the New York case, the court appointed a guardian ad litem for the Husband as the Wife met the criteria. The Husband was found to have engaged in dishonest conduct. He represented to the court he was represented by legal counsel, and then admitted he had not yet retained counsel.

Additionally, the Husband was in violation of New York’s Automatic Orders by failing to file a statement of net worth. Moreover, the Husband admitted to the judge that he had been spending approximately $275,000.00 on TikTok after the commencement of this action.

The New York decision is available here.

Divorce, Dissipation and an $1,800 Scotch

The dissipation of marital assets in divorce is always something to watch for, especially when the marital asset is a $1,800 bottle of 1976 The Glenrothes Single Cask Single Malt Scotch Whisky. An Ohio court recently had to decide what to do when an expensive bottle of Scotch turned up missing.

Dissipation Divorce

The Shot

If, as they say, ‘all happy families are alike, and each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way’ the case of the missing scotch is proof. In the recent Ohio matter the Mother and Father had been married over twenty years. Together, they raised three children, two now-adult children and one minor child. The Mother, Father, and child lived together in a house located in Blue Ash, Ohio outside of Cincinnati.

Then in April 2022, ongoing marital problems caused the couple to separate, and the Father moved out of their Blue Ash home. Following their separation, the relationship between the parties continued to deteriorate. Father eventually asked for an received a domestic violence injunction against Mother.

During the final hearing in their dissolution of the marriage, among the many claims, the Father argued that the Mother had denied him the opportunity to retrieve his personal items from the Blue Ash home. During the trial, the Father testified he had left behind his family memorabilia, some religious heirlooms, and most importantly, a bottle of 1976 Glenrothes Single Malt Scotch before he had moved out of the marital home.

The Father explained to the court that while he was given a brief opportunity to collect a few of his personal items from the home, the Mother never gave him a sufficient opportunity to meaningfully collect his belongings. He testified the Mother told him that she put the items he had left behind in storage and that he would be able to retrieve them the next time she was in Ohio.

Despite the Mother’s telling him that his personal possessions were in storage, and that he would be able to retrieve them, it was just not so. In fact, the Mother would later testify that she called a trash service and had all of the Father’s personal property (his heirlooms, religious mementos, and of course, the Scotch) destroyed. She also admitted that she did not tell the Father before tossing his personal belongings in the municipal dump.

At the trial, the court ruled that because of the Mother’s destruction of Father’s bottle of 1976 Glenrothes Single Malt Scotch and his other personal effects, she was to pay him $5,000. The Mother appealed.

Florida Dissipation

I’ve written about dissipation of marital assets before. In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, when distributing the marital assets between spouses, a family court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors.

Some of the factors to justify an unequal distribution of the property include things like the financial situation the parties, the length of the marriage, whether someone has interrupted their career or an educational opportunity, or how much one spouse contributed to the other’s career or education.

Another important factor is whether one of the parties intentionally dissipated, wasted, depleted, or destroyed any of the marital assets after the filing of the petition or within two years prior to the filing of the petition.

Dissipation of marital assets, such as spending marital funds on extramarital relationships, excessive gambling, and drug use, are examples which happens a lot. Less common is gifting your husband’s $1,800 bottle of scotch whiskey to trash collectors. Misconduct may serve as a basis for assigning the dissipated asset to the spending spouse when calculating equitable distribution.

When considering whether the dissipation of an asset resulted from misconduct, courts look to see if a spouse used marital funds for his or her own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown. Merely mismanaging or simple squandering of marital assets is not enough. There has to be evidence of intentional dissipation or destruction.

The Chaser

On appeal, the Mother took issue with the court’s $5,000 contempt penalty for having Father’s items destroyed. The appellate court found that the penalty constituted an equitable offset because the Mother had denied Father the opportunity to collect his equitable distribution of household goods and furnishings.

This offset included all “remaining household goods, keepsakes, and furnishings,” which would include the bottle of 1976 Glenrothes Single Malt Scotch.  Accordingly, the appellate court rule the Mother’s claim that the family court failed to include the value of the bottle of scotch in the marital assets was without merit.

The Ohio Court of Appeal opinion is here.

Another Case of Fraud and Divorce

A 77-year old Tampa businessman filed to divorce his 26-year-old wife who may have tried to steal $1,000,000.00 from him. Is this yet another case of divorce fraud, and if so, what can be done? The Husband’s divorce attorneys at Sessums Black Caballero Ficarrotta will have to find out.

Divorce Fraud 3

A Tampa Bay Buccaneer

Court records show that 77-year old Richard Rappaport’s attorney filed an action for dissolution of marriage against his 26-year old wife, Lin Halfon, on Friday, Jan. 10. The couple was married in Sarasota in August.

Halfon won’t have an easy time getting to divorce court because she’s been incarcerated for a month at the Hillsborough County Jail on Falkenburg Road.

She is facing charges of money laundering, organized fraud, exploitation of the elderly and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

His wife, Ms. Halfon, has been charged with money-laundering, organized fraud and exploitation of an elderly person after being arrested at Tampa international airport in Florida.

Florida Divorce Fraud

I’ve written about various aspects of divorce fraud before. In Florida, courts distribute the marital assets, such as bank accounts, between parties under the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution.

Some of the factors to justify an unequal distribution of the property include things like the financial situation the parties, the length of the marriage, whether someone has interrupted their career or an educational opportunity, or how much one spouse contributed to the other’s career or education.

Another important factor is whether one of the parties intentionally dissipated, wasted, depleted, or destroyed any of the marital assets after the filing of the petition or within 2 years prior to the filing of the petition.

Dissipation of marital assets, such as taking money from a joint bank account, happens a lot. Trying to cash a million dollar check at a payday loan store . . . less so. In both cases, the misconduct may serve as a basis for assigning the dissipated asset to the spending spouse when calculating equitable distribution.

Misconduct, for purposes of dissipation, does not mean mismanagement or simple squandering of marital assets in a manner of which the other spouse disapproves. There has to be evidence of intentional dissipation or destruction.

When it’s Friday and Payday!

This divorce fraud case may also get entered into the world’s dumbest criminal’s museum. She’ll join a trio of drug thieves who broke into a Florida home, snorted the contents of three jars – which were in fact urns – only to discovery they’d inhaled the remains of two cherished dogs.

The Wife went to a payday loan company called, Amscot, and tried to cash a $1 million check with both of their names on it. Court documents said Rappaport’s wife returned to the bank with three checks in the amount of $333,000. The police investigation began after an employee refused to cash the checks.

After being notified by investigators, Rappaport said he wanted to give his new wife the benefit of the doubt and did not want her to be deported. When asked later if he felt he was the victim of fraud, Rappaport told investigators, “yes.”.

The Wife’s defense attorney Todd Foster said he plans to file motions asking for bond and evidentiary hearings and asked:

“Can a wife steal from her husband? Is that a crime? We’re looking at that.”

Rappaport’s daughter said in an arrest affidavit that his family members were unaware of the marriage and believed Halfon was ‘conning’ Rappaport due to his age” according to the arrest affidavit.

The Wife’s attorney claims it “was a valid marriage” and that they loved each other.

Tampa’s Channel 8 article is here.

Divorce Waste and Property Division

An English ex-husband has ‘come under fire’ after he admitted to burning down his marital home out of anger over his divorce. This sad event raises the issue of waste in divorce, and how courts can order an unequal property division when assets are destroyed.

Divorce Waste

‘Great Balls of Fire’

According to the Mirror, Paul Duffy appeared at Leicester Magistrates’ Court to admit to a charge of arson at his home in England. Emergency services were called to a ferocious blaze at his address in the early hours of Tuesday morning.

The house is almost completely destroyed due to arson. An investigation into the blaze found 27 individual seats of fire, two jerry cans and evidence of flammable substances and petrol.

The fire caused an explosion at the property and the house next door was damaged, although no-one was inside the address. Duffy left, but later returned to the scene, where he gave himself up to police officers and was arrested.

In interview he made a full and frank admission of his role in starting the fire.

Florida Divorce Waste

In Florida divorces, courts distribute the marital assets and liabilities between the parties every day. Judges have to start with the premise that the distribution should be equal. But is there a way ‘to fight fire with fire’ if a spouse destroys marital property?

In Florida, courts are allowed to distribute property unequally if there is a justification for an unequal distribution. I’ve written about this concept of waste, and other aspects of property division before.

One of the relevant factors courts look to is whether one of the parties intentionally dissipated, wasted, depleted, or destroyed any of the marital assets after the filing of the petition or within 2 years prior to the filing of the petition.

There are many examples, besides arson, of spouses dissipating or wasting assets. Other instances of people ‘pouring gasoline on the fire’ include spending money buying a girlfriend jewelry or lingerie, gambling losses, and drug usage.

Some people get ‘fired up’ over their divorce, and would rather lose the money outright than split it with their spouses.  Where this kind of marital misconduct results in a waste of marital assets, it can serve as a basis for unequal division of marital property.

‘Burning down the house’, one of the largest assets in a marriage, would be a good reason to justify an unequal distribution of the property in divorce. It’s Florida’s way of saying: ‘if you play with fire you’re gonna get burnt.’

‘Fire Away’

According to reports in England, the husband had left the area after starting the fire but later returned to the scene, where he gave himself up to police officers and was arrested.

The house was not insured. The house was ruled to be unsafe and had to be demolished later that day. The husband is now facing jail. Clearly, the husband has jumped ‘out of the frying pan into the fire.’

The Mirror article is here.