Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You got that right about the divorce attorneys opinion...imho those people are the truest form of sewer scum there is on the planet...last summer my SO and I decided to split..we had EVERYTHING agreed on down to the very last detail..her lawyer kept saying the judge wouldn't agree to this or that and suggested we "lawyer up" and fight it out...we both sat in front of this dirtbag and told him we didn't disagree on anything and were both happy with our end of the deal and he tried his very best to get us to fight..I finally lost my temper and cussed him like a rented mule and walked out...she ended up firing him in the long run...courts,lawyers etc etc prey on misery and have the nerve to hold their heads high in arrogance...dbags deluxe.
I wouldn't have continued business with the guy and considered reporting him to the bar. That's disgusting. We have a good lawyer. Never had to take anything to court, but we've had him deal with any legal issues that have come up and he did a fantastic job. Never found a reliable mechanic that wasn't trying to rip me off. I guess it depends on who you know. Isn't that what they say? You need two things in life, a good lawyer and a good mechanic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid
Pre-nupital agreements can be easily discarded by a judge.
There has to be a damn good reason. They can't arbitrarily throw it out.
Good point. It's more than time to change the law to show a more equitable distribution based on "contributions". This has to work both ways. Men nor Women should get screwed if there was little or no contribution. I believe whatever you came with is always yours, whatever you built is up for debate based on contribution and as it relates to kids, 50/50, period.
Why should some guy, OR woman give up 1/2 of EVERYTHING they built IF they had a spouse that basically had no job, no kids, and pretty much no monetary contribution. Should they be left out in the cold? No. But, 1/2? Not a chance. It's sad when a divorce comes and in most cases, not all mind you, no one really wins.
Despite that hallmark moment, it does come down to asset accumulation over time. I don't see why the courts should not reflect that. The major contributor based on the scenario above should leave with the majority of the wealth. The spouse that did nothing did so by their own choice (medical conditions notwithstanding). They need to live with those consequences. Its not any different than someone who basically does nothing with their life.
Why reward them? We have an entire welfare class that is adapting to lives without jobs and/or minimal efforts. What's the difference in this scenario. Before you sound off, read the typical scenario I laid out for some....No kids, no job, for years.....
Fair by its very definition takes into account all of these contributing factors. It's time the law reflected that. If it did, there would be a whole new perspective on divorce AND marriage. Probably why pre-nuptials are flying off the shelf now.
The line had to be drawn somewhere when it comes to the law, because proving "contribution" over the course of a marriage is nearly impossible, especially in hindsight when opinions are more than a little jaded. You'd have to have substantial proof of wrongdoing to divide accumulated marital debts and assets by anything other than 50-50, at least here in Ontario.
Good point. It's more than time to change the law to show a more equitable distribution based on "contributions". This has to work both ways. Men nor Women should get screwed if there was little or no contribution. I believe whatever you came with is always yours, whatever you built is up for debate based on contribution and as it relates to kids, 50/50, period.
Why should some guy, OR woman give up 1/2 of EVERYTHING they built IF they had a spouse that basically had no job, no kids, and pretty much no monetary contribution. Should they be left out in the cold? No. But, 1/2? Not a chance. It's sad when a divorce comes and in most cases, not all mind you, no one really wins.
Despite that hallmark moment, it does come down to asset accumulation over time. I don't see why the courts should not reflect that. The major contributor based on the scenario above should leave with the majority of the wealth. The spouse that did nothing did so by their own choice (medical conditions notwithstanding). They need to live with those consequences. Its not any different than someone who basically does nothing with their life.
Why reward them? We have an entire welfare class that is adapting to lives without jobs and/or minimal efforts. What's the difference in this scenario. Before you sound off, read the typical scenario I laid out for some....No kids, no job, for years.....
Fair by its very definition takes into account all of these contributing factors. It's time the law reflected that. If it did, there would be a whole new perspective on divorce AND marriage. Probably why pre-nuptials are flying off the shelf now.
Just how would the courts determine what each deserved? How would they determine any contribution other than actual earned income? If one paid the mortgage but the other maintained the home (repairs, cleaning, decorating, seeing the utilities were paid etc.) One paid for the groceries but the other purchased them and cooked them. One earned the money, but the other managed it? What if the earner was abusive physically or emotionally, an alcoholic, gambler, adulterer, what if they stank and had bad hygiene or a host of awful personal flaws.
If within the first 6 months to a year of marriage I saw my spouse unwilling to contribute financially or in a supportive role that made my life better and enabled me to better suceed in my career or he displayed the above I would divorce then. Most people do not accumulate much in that amount of time. So if you accept that situation for 10, 15, 20 years then yeah 50/50 seem fair.
..in a divorce just for being there? If your husband/wife spent the entire marriage mooching off of you (no steady income, never had kids to raise, didn't do much around the house,etc), do they deserve anything? I say hell no.
Why would you marry someone like that in the first place?
You almost deserve to be taken if you pick so poorly.
..in a divorce just for being there? If your husband/wife spent the entire marriage mooching off of you (no steady income, never had kids to raise, didn't do much around the house,etc), do they deserve anything? I say hell no.
The laws are still somewhat based off of 1950's society. Back then most women didn't work. That's why child support, alimony, and 'half' was so important.
Today, there are women in marriages that do or don't work for any number of reasons. Depending on the situation, the man or woman is awarded alimony, 401K benefits, retirement, etc.
That's why actually getting married is a bit of a risk.
It is extremely critical to choose the right partner for marriage, and even then, over enough time people do change.
Some people rationalize that they are happier without the person in thier life, even if it coast them half or whatever. Some people are unhappy with the spouse, and then unhappy without the spouse while losing X% income.
The trick is to be happy no matter the end result. But that is easier said than done.
I do not believe in the 50/50 principle. In my opinion the assets should belong to those that have earned it, even if one spouse gave up their career to raise kids - that is a personal decision and why should it be compensated? The total income of both individuals during the marriage should be calculated and assets divided according to that ratio.
If one spouse gave up their career to stay home and requires rehabilitation support to get back into the workforce then alimony should be awarded only upto a reasonable point where that person can gain skills and get back to work - say 3 years maximum or half the length of the marriage whichever is *shorter*.
If there aren't these guaranteed "winnings" from divorces then perhaps people will think more carefully about the choices they make when getting married.
If you have looked at your partner in marriage as a mooch...small wonder you are divorced! Not everyone has to have a "steady income" to qualify for mating. Marriage is not to see what one person can get from the other. There are situations where one spouse has nothing and the other has the ability to acquire money...what are you supposed to do...say "your fired" from the marriage because you failed to produce wealth? What happened to "for richer or poorer and in sickness and health"?? If you are a man and you sleep with your wife and have sex..whether she is a provider of material wealth or not - You pay for that privilege. If you part - you pay your bill - which is half of everything you both owned.
You pay for the privilege to have sex with your partner! lol!
I do not believe in the 50/50 principle. In my opinion the assets should belong to those that have earned it, even if one spouse gave up their career to raise kids - that is a personal decision and why should it be compensated?
Because generally it's not a unilateral decision. The couple decides together for the sake of their children.
Because generally it's not a unilateral decision. The couple decides together for the sake of their children.
Exactly.
Think about the sacrifice and amount of trust that decision would entail.
On everyone's behalf.
This is not a one-sided decision.
And if you think you spouse taking care and raising children isn't worth the world, you're nutso factso.
Exactly.
Think about the sacrifice and amount of trust that decision would entail.
On everyone's behalf.
This is not a one-sided decision.
And if you think you spouse taking care and raising children isn't worth the world, you're nutso factso.
I'll add that it's not always worth it financially for both spouses to work, given the stratospheric cost of child care. My cousin is a teacher, and she and her husband have three small children, 5, 3, and an infant. Child care would cost more than her take-home pay, so there's really no point to her going back to work right now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
