SB 85, introduced by Senator Broden, prohibits an individual from disclaiming an interest in property if the disclaimant is delinquent in the payment of child support.
I wonder how often this comes up. I do as much family law as I care to – which is to say, none – but I hope to get better acquainted with wills and estates which is, I believe, where the disclaimer business generally comes up.
Would this be a quit claim? If so, I can see how this makes sense from the disclaimant’s part.
“Oh I really have no interest in this property and ‘wink wink’ I will not receive any of the proceeds if it is sold ‘wink wink’. So after the quit claim is in place the property is sold by others with a stake in the property and no proceeds can go to the disclaimant’s obligations to child support. SLICK. The legislator who is on to this scam might not be so bad.
Would it be unconstitutional to disallow someone to file a quit claim though? I hate to ask that question since all child support deadbeats are almost below contempt. imho.
I only know this much about quit claims from questions that arose in one of my mother’s beauty shop visits. Maybe you should drop by a beauty shop and get an opinion? ;-)
And to think just a few years ago, they killed off the 80 yrs. old person’s right to adopt their 72 year old friend as a legal method of avoiding Indiana inheritance taxes.
In an estate claim, it’s a disclaimer that is filed, not a quitclaim. A quitclaim deed relates to real property and I don’t think it would to dislcaim for real property because it transfers whatever interest someone has in the property at the time it is executed, not some future interest in the property that may be coming to the grantor.
I meant in an estate “case” not an estate claim.