This article on Huffington Post about Beth Shak’s $1 million shoe collection is quite illustrative.
A person who spends that kind of money on shoes should not at all be surprised that it comes up in the divorce. The reality is that it is an asset with value. That it is some woman’s shoe collection is not the point. If they have value, they need to be divided. In fact, in some states including California, spending that kind of money during the marriage no matter what the asset could be a breach of fiduciary duty. You’re not allowed to have “secret rooms” full of cash without sharing it with the ex… so why a shoe collection?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost