- 48 -
with Mr. Quinn. The majority of her assets reside in her law
firm retirement plans, and are attributed to her earnings over
the many years of her 50 year participation in the work force.
The assets accumulated in the course of the Quinns' normal
working life do not derive from the omitted income and are not a
significant benefit.
As with Mrs. Gaskins, respondent argues that Mrs. Quinn
must account for the diverted income. She cannot account for
something she knows nothing about. See our discussion of this
requirement as to Mrs. Gaskins, above. As with Mrs. Gaskins, we
reject respondent's argument. Mrs. Quinn knew of no diverted
funds, had no reason to know, of any diverted funds, and
possessed no assets in excess of those accrued in the course of
ordinary support and a lifetime of steady savings. Mrs. Quinn
has amply demonstrated that she derived no benefit from any
unreported income of her husband.
The Quinns remain married, although their relationship has
suffered. During 1982, when learning of the Credit Alliance
suit, Mrs. Quinn considered getting a divorce. Her confidence in
Mr. Quinn was shaken; she felt her financial security, for which
she had worked and scrimped and saved her entire life, being
threatened. Rather than pursue divorce proceedings, the Quinns
agreed that their joint assets, including the house given to
them by Mrs. Quinn's parents, be transferred to Mrs. Quinn,
either in her name alone or jointly with one or the other of
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011