O.J. Loses Rolex to the Goldmans

A California Judge has ruled that O.J. Simpson must turn over whatever sports memorabilia he was trying to recover in Las Vegas as well as his Rolex watch to Fred Goldman.

According to O.J.'s lawyer, O.J. paid $150.00 for the watch, making it likely to be a fake rather than a real Rolex Submariner.

Translation: If it turns up on eBay, take a pass.

Minor point: No one's answered my question, what if the watch were real and he purchased it with his money from his pension fund which is exempt from the Goldman's judgment? Could he keep it then?

< Judge Accused of Spanking Prisoners Resigns | Poll: Hillary's Lead Widens Over Obama and Others >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Not a collections specialist (none / 0) (#1)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 08:37:34 AM EST
      but I think that if you convert exempt property to non-exempt property the non-exempt property can then  be attached to satisfy a judgment. I believe his house is in Florida which has a law making residential real property exempt but otherwise I think that if uses his exempt pension proceeds to purchase any other personal property or real property which is not exempt by statute it is subject to attachment to satisfy the judgment. The fact the money to acquire the property came from an exempt source would not be a shield.


    Pensions (none / 0) (#3)
    by eric on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 10:02:11 AM EST
    Suppose he used his pension to buy a cheeseburger.  Could they snatch that, too?

    If buying something with one's pension immediately makes that property non-exempt, that would make a pension exemption pretty worthless, wouldn't it?

    I say that if he bought the watch with his pension, he keeps the watch.


    Again, (none / 0) (#4)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 12:08:21 PM EST
      I don't do bankruptcy or collections work so this is not legal advice and you should seek the advice of qualified counsel before acting to collect judgments or   to  protect property from creditors, but, I said convert exempt property to NON-EXEMPT property. State laws vary widely but I would assume lunch is exempt property most places as are (often within certain value limitations) things such as clothes, household furnishings, a certain number of vehicles,  insurance policies,  limited amounts of cash, etc.

      Using the pension proceeds to buy things that are also exempt from judgment is different than using it to acquire property which is subject to execution.


    sorry, i don't agree. (none / 0) (#10)
    by cpinva on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 08:10:11 PM EST
    using the "fruit of the poisonous tree" analogy, you have to go back to the source of the funds, to determine the character of anything purchased with them.

    if i use exempt funds to buy a car, the car retains that character, exempt. if i use non-exempt funds to buy a house, the house takes on the character of the funds used to purchase it.

    again, as noted above, to assert otherwise would negate the purpose of the exemption. unless the law states otherwise, exempt follows exempt, i should think.

    i feel for the goldmans, they suffered a tremendous loss. that said, i think it's time they sought professional counseling, and got on with their lives. if chasing o.j. is what their life has come to, they are sad and empty people. i can't believe their daughter would want that.


    No, (none / 0) (#11)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 07:59:00 AM EST
      you can't use inapplicable inverse analogies to defeat LAWS.  Your "fruit of the healthy tree" docrtine is not the law, so it does not matter if you disagree. Non-exempt property is NOT EXEMPT no matter how it was acquired.  



    the Goldmans (none / 0) (#2)
    by maye on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 08:39:40 AM EST
    Have you ever wondered how the Goldmans keep their relentless pursuit of OJ going year after year?  I realize it's not a legal question.  It's more about psychology and emotional survival.  Wouldn't you want to "move on" at some point?  There are many levels and layers of grief, but to nurse and nurture one's anger and resentment for decades seems almost as tragic as the murder itself.  The constant vigilence over what the murderer is doing, acquiring, spending would seem to rip into the scar tissue of the grief incessantly.  If I made the decision to go on living after the murder of my child, I would need to make peace within my own soul in order to remember what was good about that child's life rather than how he died.  Pray God I never have to know this kind of grief, but surely the Goldmans can find a better way to remember their loved one.

    All people are different (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 12:25:34 PM EST
    And in a case as anomolous as O.J.'s, the Goldman's feelings and actions over the years are simply par for that anomolous course.  Were these tragic and televised circumstances brought on us, none of us can say what we would do or how we'd react in the aftermath.  Should victims who committed their post-WWII lives to hunting down Nazi war criminals have instead found "a better way to remember their loved ones"?  Are parents of murdered childen, whose cases are unsolved, wrong to hound the police and continually press the search for justice in the face of long odds?  Or should they just give it up and let it all just fade?

    I think you need to try harder and really IMAGINE the debilitating feelings of loss and rage and grief and powerlessness that you would experience were your beloved child murdered.  


    I've imagined.... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 04:41:03 PM EST
    I'd think I'd either...

    a) kill the s.o.b., get my justice, and face the consequences.

    b) accept my loved one is dead and move on as best I could.

    For damn sure, I ain't chasing the guy down for a cheap watch.  I just can't figure that one out.

    Then again, you're right, you never really know till it happens to you.


    Hey, it's not just the Goldmans, (none / 0) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 12:30:19 PM EST
    after all those years isn't OJ still looking for the murderer?

    If I saw the murderer of my child on TV livin' lage year after year, I think I'd do the same as the Goldmans.


    O.J. Loses Rolex to the Goldmans (none / 0) (#7)
    by spudvol on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 04:04:16 PM EST
    The Goldmans Lose Daughter To O.J.

    I guess it's all about perspective.

    Sports Memorabilia? (none / 0) (#9)
    by john horse on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 05:07:21 PM EST
    So Goldman owns OJ's sports memorabilia?  Does this include his Heisman?  If so then I have a problem with that.  What OJ did on the football field had nothing to do with what he did off the field.  He earned those awards.  As far as I'm concerned noone else has a right to them.  

    He WOULD still have the "AWARD" (none / 0) (#12)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 08:05:45 AM EST
      which is an honor but the trophy given to him is a piece of personal property.

      Joe Blow who bought a boat with money he made working "earned" that boat but it is still subject to execution. More similarly, if he was given a boat in recognition of catching the biggest bass in a tournament, his creditors could still execute on the boat even if they couldn't strip him of his title of Big Bass Man.