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.
A Long Island mother of three has become a postnuptial hero, after a prenup nearly cost her everything. In a landmark case, Elizabeth Cioffi-Petrakis, 39, won an appeal overturning a bizarre premarital agreement with her millionaire husband. Now she says she may be entitled to half of her ex’s worth when their divorce becomes final.
I saw this on Yahoo! today and it just got me a bit confused. Is there something I am missing? How did this woman win? And how is this even fair? Why did she divorce him in the first place? Because he didn't change the name of the house, which he most likely bought with his own money?
Please women, elaborate on why you are worth your ex-husband's money which he made on his own.
It seems to me that marriage is becoming more and more scary for successful men. I feel that our society will eventually run into some world where marriage becomes obsolete. If a woman wants money, work your ass off like the men you chase who are well-accomplished. If you want to marry him, then stay with him. This is after all why any man would make you sign a prenuptial agreement because they fear the woman will for irrational reasons decide to leave him and take half of his money. Staying with him would avoid all the headaches, and depression that life would hand to you... and you're probably going to be more set financially as well.
He didn't hold up his end of the prenup. I'm not sure why he would make promises in a contract he had no intention of keeping. That was his mistake.
If that contract was so important to him, seems to me he should have upheld his end of the deal. If not he's basically demonstrating that the contract wasn't really all that important.
i read the article if the things the article said were true he broke the prenup and she is intitled to 1/2 plus child support.
Well that I do get. But I don't understand how the prenup would have even mattered at all if he burned the prenup as he promised. It's a stupid promise for sure.
But explain how this woman can pretend to be the victim here. It seems like she was living a pretty solid life while she was married. And the house not being changed to her name? How is that even a bad thing? If she decided to stay with him... the kids would be living a pretty decent life, she'd be living a decent life. She wouldn't be depressed. Hell, everyone would win. But now the courts decide on her favor to give her half of his wealth. How is this justified? What line of logic and reasoning does it make it okay and fair? Where does she become the victim? Not changing the house to her name as he promised is really such a devastating thing to inflict on someone?
edit:
And maybe I'm somehow naive... but I think that in divorces any money being given to anyone should be for the children alone. Not the spouses, whether male or female. That should be the only agreement couples should ever make when they marry and/or divorce. I've never married, let alone been divorced so that may be more common in most of these cases. But it's just insane that you hear about spouses, mostly women in these cases, get a ridiculous amount of money from their exes in divorce settlements; money which they did not bring to marriages. It simply does not belong to them. And I don't understand how the courts make up some arbitrary law that implement this and somehow most of society does not bring this to question.
i read the article if the things the article said were true he broke the prenup and she is intitled to 1/2 plus child support.
He didn't break the pre-nup. He didn't do things that the wife *claims* he said he would do, but as I asked in another thread on this topic, how does "hearsay" and "verbal promises" (if in fact they were even promised) take precedence over a written, signed, legal document???
She didn't. Point of clarification, he filed for divorce... not her. In the article it refers to him as Petrakis and her as Cioffi-Petrakis. The article clearly says "Petrakis" first filed for divorce.
I am not sure how or if that effects their pre-nup, but it might sway a judge.
I saw this on Yahoo! today and it just got me a bit confused. Is there something I am missing?
Definitely. All you know about the case is what you read in an online Yahoo article--not much. No offense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by migol84
How did this woman win? And how is this even fair?
I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. Her lawyer knows the answer, we don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by migol84
Why did she divorce him in the first place? Because he didn't change the name of the house, which he most likely bought with his own money?
How would any of us know that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by migol84
Please women, elaborate on why you are worth your ex-husband's money which he made on his own.
I don't think I am.
Quote:
Originally Posted by migol84
It seems to me that marriage is becoming more and more scary for successful men. I feel that our society will eventually run into some world where marriage becomes obsolete. If a woman wants money, work your ass off like the men you chase who are well-accomplished. If you want to marry him, then stay with him. This is after all why any man would make you sign a prenuptial agreement because they fear the woman will for irrational reasons decide to leave him and take half of his money. Staying with him would avoid all the headaches, and depression that life would hand to you... and you're probably going to be more set financially as well.
I've heard this sentiment on the forum, yes. I'm glad we married when we were young and broke. Everything we have we worked for together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by migol84
I don't get it. What exactly am I missing?
Probably about 98% of the story, if I have to guess.
He didn't break the pre-nup. He didn't do things that the wife *claims* he said he would do, but as I asked in another thread on this topic, how does "hearsay" and "verbal promises" (if in fact they were even promised) take precedence over a written, signed, legal document???
What kind of legal precedent does THAT set???
Did you even read the article?? It was written IN the prenup that he would put her name on the house when they had their first child. It wasn't "hearsay" and "verbal promises". He failed to follow through with items promised in the prenup, therefore the contract was deemed null and void.
Did you even read the article?? It was written IN the prenup that he would put her name on the house when they had their first child. It wasn't "hearsay" and "verbal promises". He failed to follow through with items promised in the prenup, therefore the contract was deemed null and void.
Perhaps the article I read stated things differently than the one you read. Here's an excerpt from the Yahoo article that I read:
"Ziegler, author of “The Pre-Marital Planner,” further explained the court’s decision to Shine. “Many couples discuss the terms of their prenups and say they will do or say things in the future that are not memorialized in writing,” she said. “However, this fraudulent inducement to buy a house, put the marital home in joint name and make other financial incentives after the parties wed appeared to sway the appellate panel who agreed to set aside the prenuptial agreement based on fraud.”"
That makes it sound like the things she complained he didn't do, were not put in writing anywhere.
Rich men should not marry broke women. The laws in this country are ridiculous. There's no way that some broke-ass woman should get half the money a man earned all by himself.
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.
