A while back I noted a report from Dealbreaker on the "billionaire polo mogul" John Goodman "who ran someone over while [allegedly] driving his Bentley drunk" and then "adopted his girlfriend" Heather Hutchins to allegedly "shield his assets from a lawsuit [NYP]."
Slate explains:
On Feb. 10, 2010, Palm Beach air-conditioning mogul John Goodman allegedly ran a stop sign. His Bentley convertible struck a Hyundai being driven by Scott Wilson, a 23-year-old civil engineer. Wilson’s car landed in a nearby canal where the young man drowned. The near-billionaire then fled the scene. Police say Goodman had a blood alcohol content of 0.177, twice the legal limit. Not surprisingly, Goodman is being sued by Wilson’s parents for a great deal of money. (He also faces criminal charges that could put him in jail for 30 years).
Fortunately for Goodman, he had set up a very large trust (currently worth “several hundred million dollars” according to Goodman’s attorney) years earlier for the benefit of his two children, with distributions to be dispersed when each child reached the age of 35. West Palm Beach Judge Glenn Kelley ruled early in the Goodman civil lawsuit that the jury could not be told of the large trust’s existence because it might encourage jurors to impose a larger verdict against Goodman, despite the fact that he, in theory, has no control over the trust.
But what about Goodman? If a jury verdict were to bankrupt him, would he be left penniless while his children continued to benefit richly from their trust income? Enter the shrewd estate planning attorney who recommended that the 48-year-old Goodman adopt his 42-year-old girlfriend, Heather Laruso Hutchins, thus making her a beneficiary of the trust that Wilson’s parents cannot mention or touch. (In this arrangement, Hutchins is the beneficiary to roughly $70 million, which she would presumably share with Goodman, her doting dad-slash-boyfriend.) Elegant. Brilliant. And actually not that uncommon, it turns out.
Our interest in the case was occasioned by the business law aspects of shielding one's assets in such an unusual way, but a couple of my readers left comments asking whether Goodman would commit incest if he and Hutchins engaged in hanky panky now that they're father and daughter. This seems like an opportune way of procrastinating on reading galleys, so i did a little digging:
Florida law defines incest as:
826.04 Incest. ---
Whoever knowingly marries or has sexual intercourse with a person to whom he is related by lineal consanguinity, or a brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece, commits incest, which constitutes a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. "Sexual intercourse" is the penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ, however slight; emission of semen is not required.
On our facts, the key issue is whether Goodman and Hutchins are now "related by lineal consanguinity" as a result of the adoption. I found a Florida case, Beam v. State, which held that:
... it is clear that the legal definition of incest is limited to persons who are related either by lineal consanguinity or collateral consanguinity. It does not extend to persons who are related by affinity or adoption, but not biologically by blood.
We are not alone in our conclusion. Numerous decisions rendered by courts in other states hold that incest does not encompass conduct between persons related only by adoption. See, e.g., People v. Kaiser, 119 Cal. 456, 51 P. 702, 703 (1897) (“The word ‘daughter’ means, and is generally understood to mean, ‘an immediate female descendant,’ and not an adopted daughter, a step-daughter, or a daughter in law.”); State v. Lee, 196 Miss. 311, 17 So.2d 277 (1944) (defendant could not be convicted of incest with an adopted daughter); State v. Rogers, 260 N.C. 406, 133 S.E.2d 1, 3 (1963) (recognizing that the statutory crime of incest is not applicable to a sexual relationship between a man and his adopted daughter); State v. Youst, 74 Ohio App. 381, 59 N.E.2d 167 (1943) (statutory crime of incest is not applicable to a sexual relationship between a man and his adopted daughter); State v. Bale, 512 N.W.2d 164, 166 (S.D.1994) (holding that sexual penetration between an adoptive parent and child is not incest; explaining that “[t]he legislature could have easily prohibited sexual relations between relatives by affinity and by adoption, but did not do so.”).
So despite whatever kinky fantasy games to which Goodman and Hutchins may put their new relation, it appears that they're legally okay on this issue. (OTOH, that Slate article claims that the law in "at least 25 states and territories, representing over 140.8 million people" does include adoptive relationships within the definition of incest.)
Whether the effort to shield Goodman's assets will hold up as the wrongful death suit continues is yet to be resolved. One hopes not.
We now return you to your regular non-prurient programming.
