The cases deal with external fraud which occurs when a partner in a marriage does not give all the details in relation to properties they controlled during their marriage. On the other hand, community property refers to any property owned and controlled by one spouse during marriage. It is considered community property because both spouses contribute to acquisition of the property. In most cases it is revealed by the controlling spouse and the court shares it out according to the stipulated legal process.
Similarities between the two cases
In Modnick’s case, Mr. Modnick failed to disclose some of the bank accounts he had while they were still married. Furthermore, he even went ahead to transfer the ownership of the accounts to some of his relatives so as to avoid being caught. On the other hand, in the Welch case, Jenifer’s former husband did not disclose the portion of the property he held in a partnership while they were married.
The cases are similar since they both amount to external fraud as the two husbands failed to give the full details of their community properties in court during the divorce proceeding. Another similarity is that in both cases, the defrauded spouses later find out and file cases against their former husbands although the two filed cases are thrown out by the court. The women successfully appeal the decision of the court after which they are awarded alimony in relation to the community properties that had not been disclosed by their spouses initially.
Differences between the two cases
The processes through which the spouses found out about the hidden property are so different. In Modnick’s case, the plaintiff was informed by the IRS that her ex-husband had failed to disclose some of his property during their divorce case. Thus, she is likely to have spent more if she is the one who hired the IRS. On the contrary, in Welch’s case, Jenifer found out that her former spouse owned property in a partnership from one of his partners. It is clear that Jenifer did not spend any cash to obtain that information unlike Ms Modnick.
More so, in the Modnick’s case the spouses had no children and the alimony is likely to have been low since it is awarded in line with the number of family members while Jenifer and her former husband had three sons under the age of fourteen and she is likely to have scooped a higher value of alimony.
Mr Modnick changed the ownership of his accounts to prevent the court from catching up with him while Mr Welch did not try to change the property he owned in the partnership although he did not disclose its existence in court.
Additional factors needed to compare the cases
There are additional factors needed to facilitate the comparison of the two cases. For instance, in Modnick’s case we are sure that the bank account was opened and used while the two spouses were still married and this makes the money in the bank account a community property. In the Welch’s case, the date of establishment or admission of Mr Welch into the partnership has not been mentioned. Hence, it needs to be determined as it will help in ascertaining the nature of the property.
Thus, if the husband entered the partnership before their separation then the property becomes a community property. On the other hand, if his admission to the partnership was after their separation, the property is an individual property and it should not be shared out with the ex-wife. The number of children in Modnick’s case also needs to be determined since it is not disclosed yet it is an important factor in comparing the two cases.