In high-net-worth divorces, one spouse (usually the husband, historically) might object to the other’s clothing expenditures. A judge will ask: Was that $5,000 handbag a reasonable, necessary expense for maintaining the marital standard of living, or was it a frivolous dissipation of assets?
Let’s dive into the strange, fascinating, and surprisingly relevant world of the “frivolous dress order.” To understand the term, we have to travel back to 1887. No, not to a Parisian atelier—to an American bankruptcy court. frivolous dress order
Under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, Section 523(a)(2)(C) creates a presumption of fraud for any “luxury goods” or services totaling more than $725 (adjusted for inflation) bought on a credit card within 90 days of filing for bankruptcy. While the law doesn’t define “luxury goods,” legal precedent consistently points back to that 1887 case. A winter coat? Necessary. A set of designer stilettos? Potentially frivolous. A bespoke suit for a job interview? Necessary. A velvet smoking jacket for lounging? Frivolous. In high-net-worth divorces, one spouse (usually the husband,