I know I’ve pointed out flaws in their approaches before, but never with an intent to show anyone up. I’m trying to teach, however imperfectly, so maybe someone else doesn’t make the same miscue. Emese Hasznos, T. C. Memo. 2026-100, filed 9/29/26, is out $311K because her divorce lawyer didn’t require her loved-once to transfer title to the real estate that was her share of the divorce split to her.

Judge C-Doug Pugh does a deep-dive into FL divorce and real estate law. I never had a FL ticket, so I leave her disquisition to FL lawyers to scope out.

At close of play, Emese gets innocent spousery and 50% of the net proceeds of sale. The divorce judgment provided for sale of the real estate, but Judge C-Doug Pugh found sufficient indicia of ownership remained in loved-once that he had an interest therein, encumbered by the IRS NFTL, such that, although Emese was entitled both to innocent spousery (uncontested) and to 100% of net proceeds of sale, 50% thereof had to go to IRS.

And this, notwithstanding “…petitioner’s anticipated difficulties in obtaining relief from Mr. Munro, but Mr. Munro’s indemnification is her only avenue for payment.” T. C. Memo. 2026-100, at p. 11. (Footnotes omitted, but they say loved-once left the US of A and cannot be found, and all Emese gets is what the law allows; pore l’il ol’ Tax Court has no equitable powers).Takeaway- If one spouse is out of the real estate, do a title search for IEDs, and get him or her out of title.