The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a woman could not use protection under the U.S. bankruptcy code to avoid paying a debt that resulted from fraud by her partner.
The court said that the California woman, Kate Bartenwerfer, owed the debt even if she did not know or could not have known about her partner’s fraud.
The 9-0 ruling, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, underscored a Supreme Court decision in 1885 which found that two partners in a New York wool company were liable for the debt due to the fraudulent claims of a third partner even though they were not themselves “guilty of wrong.”
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a woman could not use protection under the U.S. bankruptcy code to avoid paying a debt that resulted from fraud by her partner.
The court said that the California woman, Kate Bartenwerfer, owed the debt even if she did not know or could not have known about her partner’s fraud.
The 9-0 ruling, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, underscored a Supreme Court decision in 1885 which found that two partners in a New York wool company were liable for the debt due to the fraudulent claims of a third partner even though they were not themselves “guilty of wrong.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/22/supreme-court-rules-bankruptcy-no-shield-to-fraud-debt.html
https://archive.ph/3TpP1
Think of what this means in regards to all these high profile divorces we've been seeing.
...in that context, i would be DELIGHTED to see Melinda Gates tried for crimes against humanity..
But i think we all know tgis hasn't worked that way in a very long time.