Afficher la notice abrégée

dc.creatorPedroza, Mariana
dc.date.accessioned2022-06-20T17:18:56Z
dc.date.available2022-06-20T17:18:56Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.citation13 Est. Plan. & Cmty. Prop. L. J. 547en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2346/89671
dc.description.abstractThis Comment starts with an introduction in Part I. Part II of this Comment follows the history, policies, and principles governing community property systems, and explores how community property states, especially Texas, go about characterizing property at the time of divorce. Although minimally referencing other community property states—in order to highlight how the law varies within each—this Comment will primarily focus on Texas law to encourage the proposed legislation. Part III analyzes the unique features of modern contingent revenue and explains why Texas law must recognize its distinction from traditional contingent revenue. Part IV argues that in order to safeguard and promote human creativity, avoid disproportionate awards, and protect the freedom to divorce, modern contingent revenue must be characterized as separate property at the time of divorce. Part V lays out and explains this Comment’s legislative proposal, which will enact a new presumption that validates modern contingent revenue as separate property, and a reverse burden of proof, making the non-creating spouse bear the burden to prove that such property is part of the community.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherEstate Planning and Community Property Law Journalen_US
dc.subjectCommunity propertyen_US
dc.subjectContingent revenueen_US
dc.subjectSeparate propertyen_US
dc.subjectIntellectual propertyen_US
dc.subjectDivorceen_US
dc.subjectSocial media revenueen_US
dc.titleDividing the Intangible: An Examination of Community Property in a World of Contingent Revenueen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Fichier(s) constituant ce document

Thumbnail

Ce document figure dans la(les) collection(s) suivante(s)

Afficher la notice abrégée