Perhaps Kurt Cobain knew when writing the song “All Apologies” that one day his daughter would be embroiled in a nasty divorce battle. While the lyrics, “Married, Buried, Married, Buried”, may not sound uplifting, they are undeniably classic Nirvana. Fans of the band would largely agree that the most well known live performance of the song was the acoustic version played during the band’s “Unplugged in New York”, which took place shortly before Cobain’s death. Now it is the guitar used by Kurt during that performance which lies at the center of Frances Bean Cobain’s divorce from her husband.
Specifically, Frances’s husband is in possession of the guitar – thought to be worth several million dollars – and refuses to return it to her while alleging that she gave it to him as a wedding present. Not surprisingly, Frances denies ever giving it to him at the start of their short-term marriage, and is taking the position that he has no right to any money from her fortune (Kurt’s estate is valued at approximately $450 million).
With that said, and straight from Seattle to the swamps of New Jersey, how would a court here potentially address the issue?
I Think I’m Dumb, or Maybe Just Happy: Well, for starters, is there a prenup protecting Frances’s rights and interests in Kurt’s estate and, as part of the estate, the subject guitar? I don’t know the answer, but even if Frances was blinded by her love for her now soon to be ex-husband, she would hopefully be smart enough to have had some sort of agreement drafted and signed protecting her from the claim now being made (unlike Paul McCartney in his divorce from Heather Mills, for example). Such agreements often have language addressing so-called separate property and whether separate property is exempt from equitable distribution. Language regarding interspousal gifts is also common and can be crafted in a way to ensure that even if she did gift the guitar to him during the marriage, it could still remain separate property exempt from distribution.
And For This Gift, I Feel Blessed: At the heart-shaped box of this matter is whether the guitar was an interspousal gift from Frances to husband during the marriage. This is essentially what husband is claiming. In New Jersey, an interspousal gift is subject to equitable distribution. Husband can take the position that even if the guitar was originally a non-marital asset exempt from equitable distribution (for instance, as an inheritance or gift to Frances, or by agreement), it lost that exempt status and became marital property subject to distribution once she gifted it to him. If proven, Frances loses the right to claim that the guitar is exempt from equitable distribution at the time of the divorce. With a guitar worth several million dollars, husband may look at his share of the guitar as the proverbial meal ticket in a short-term marriage where his rights are likely otherwise limited.
Hey! Wait! I’ve Got a New Complaint: To rebut husband’s claim and supporting evidence/testimony that Frances gifted him the guitar, Frances would have to establish that there never was any gift. In other words, there was no intent by Frances to gift him the guitar – a fact that perhaps she could establish by testifying about how she told husband at the time, and/or at other times during the marriage, that it was her/her family’s guitar, rather than husband’s guitar. Maybe husband simply took it from the home and is now fabricating the entire story. Credibility and the surrounding factual circumstances will play a large part in the final result. Also, even if the guitar was ultimately deemed to be an interspousal gift, Frances may be aided in the actual allocation of the asset by New Jersey’s equitable distribution factors, especially that regarding who brought the subject property to the marriage. Keeping the guitar in the Cobain family would seemingly be an important consideration for a family court judge, and may sway any determination regarding whether Frances could ever have intended it to be a gift.
It will be interesting to see how this matter unfolds and ultimately concludes. Whether the litigant is Frances or anyone else similarly in her shoes, learning the law regarding gifts and equitable distribution may leave the litigant forever in debt to such priceless advice.
*image courtesy of google free images.