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 know a guy who went to Argentina to avoid child support? So do I. Couldn't be the same guy, right? Argentina must be a popular haven for deadbeat dads...
Yep. And he ended up knocking another woman up down there
He's working for cash and basically hiding out to avoid paying anything to support any of his children. He's a chef, so as long as he doesn't get arrested he can live there illegally for quite some time just working under the table in restaurants.
The only time I've ever heard a man or woman say 'take him/her to the cleaners' is because the divorce proceedings are retaliation for something the spouse did. In one case, he gambled away ALL of their money, retirement etc. and she ended up horribly in debt. When they got divorced you better believe she tried to get every possession he had because he lost all of hers. In another, he cheated on her with a barely legal girl, she ended up with herpes AND hpv (which is how she found out he was cheating) while pregnant with their third child. Yeah, she wanted to destroy him financially and really, I don't blame her.
I don't think maliciousness comes out of nowhere, there's almost always a reason for it.
These scenarios are horrible! I truly feel for these people and want them to receive a remedy for any loss they've had.
However, they have nothing to do with the points I'm making about profiting from NO FAULT divorce, where someone can still profit or "take them to the cleaners" even if the other person did none of what you mentioned above.
These scenarios are horrible! I truly feel for these people and want them to receive a remedy for any loss they've had.
However, they have nothing to do with the points I'm making about profiting from NO FAULT divorce, where someone can still profit or "take them to the cleaners" even if the other person did none of what you mentioned above.
Agreed, but I was just mentioning that the divorces I've seen have been fairly amicable, unless one of the parties wants to destroy the other because of a horrible transgression.
Question: Why does having lower assets justify someone getting a "top up"? Isn't that profiting on something they didn't earn? Or am I misunderstanding your example?
Whatever is assets are accumulated in the marriage and debts incurred are divided 50/50 in a divorce. If you have a car loan and your spouse doesn't, that could be the imbalance that needs to be equalized. One person has a pension plan, the other doesn't. One person has more investments than the other. But it's only from the timeframe of the marriage beginning to the date of separation.
Agreed, but I was just mentioning that the divorces I've seen have been fairly amicable, unless one of the parties wants to destroy the other because of a horrible transgression.
I understand your point.
I didn't mention that divorces can be amicable while someone is still profiting from the situation. I've seen that many times as well, it's not only adversarial divorces that set this up. Pre-set state laws and "percentage schedules" create structural profits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberty2011
Whatever is assets are accumulated in the marriage and debts incurred are divided 50/50 in a divorce. If you have a car loan and your spouse doesn't, that could be the imbalance that needs to be equalized. One person has a pension plan, the other doesn't. One person has more investments than the other. But it's only from the timeframe of the marriage beginning to the date of separation.
I don't personally agree with this arrangement, but I acknowledge this is the law in many places and am fine if people enter into this voluntarily. It seems in this scenario the person with the most debt and the least assets gets the better deal.
If I were ever "married" (ceremony, not license), I'd be fine with either keeping everything separate, or having joint accounts/assets we create to build our lives together and if things ended, would liquidate based on percentage of contributions. If we both owned a house, we'd sell it and split along the same lines.
Outside of that, we'd have our own separate personal accounts/assets. I wouldn't want to mix pension plans and investments we didn't voluntarily create as joint.
I don't personally agree with this arrangement, but I acknowledge this is the law in many places and am fine if people enter into this voluntarily. It seems in this scenario the person with the most debt and the least assets gets the better deal.
If I were ever "married" (ceremony, not license), I'd be fine with either keeping everything separate, or having joint accounts/assets we create to build our lives together and if things ended, would liquidate based on percentage of contributions. If we both owned a house, we'd sell it and split along the same lines.
Outside of that, we'd have our own separate personal accounts/assets. I wouldn't want to mix pension plans and investments we didn't voluntarily create as joint.
It does seem that way, but that's the way the law regards it. I imagine if you don't agree to it, you can go to court or mediation and see if that gets you further. I only know my own situation and there isn't enough in question to warrant spending money in court. To use my own example, our house down payment was from an inheritance I received, there was a refinance a few years ago which rolled some debt into the mortgage. As the house isn't owned jointly, the appraised value of the house, less the mortgage, is all on my "side". It's not "fair" that the inheritance isn't subtracted from the value of the house, and it's not fair that his share of the joint debt in the mortgage isn't pulled out and tallied on his "side". The law states I'm entitled to 1/2 of his pension for the years we were married and he doesn't think that's fair because I didn't work to earn that pension, but the law looks at his pension as a marital asset. Nothing about divorce is fair, but in our situation, it pretty much evens out in the end, whether we like it or not.
This is interesting. How some of my female friends as well as other women in this forum have problems with men not committing to them, I've been dealing with the complete opposite in two relationships in which I had to end it; their pace was too fast. It came to the point I had to decline a proposal from ex 2 and off course the relationship didn't recover from that.
I felt bad in the end and as a way to make them feel better, I once requested them as friends on their facebook. Ex 1 never replied back nor added me and ex 2 just said how he can't be my friend, how he's trying to get over with me. I think that was kind of mean. I was just trying to help them out and they acted like I don't exist.
Yet here I'm wondering what I for them to rush things.
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.
