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.
Was she entitled to more money than she could have made working? No. Especially if she went out and actually got a job after the divorce, or worked while they were married. What makes her need more money other than simple greed?
And, actually, just having his name gave her instant celebrity and pretty much ensured her work as a celebrity after they split. I don't know what Ivana did for work before her marriage, but simply having the name "Trump" put her in the spotlight and gave her very lucrative opportunities.
Take a look at Colorado. A friend who lives in Colorado Springs told me that they've greatly loosened the regs on what constitutes a common-law marriage. Indeed. From what I read, in Colorado you only have to have proof that you're cohabitating and community recognition that you're a couple. The kids I taught in high school would refer to their boyfriends/girlfriends as husband/wife! That's all it takes in CO.
Here's the list of states. By reading the requirements, you'll notice it doesn't take much to be considered "common law marriage" in many of them. Note that my source is NOT a common law marriage proponent and, in fact, gives instruction on how NOT to get caught in the "common law marriage" trap.
The link you posted is the same as the second link in my post
In CO it takes living together and developing a reputation as a married couple which still means you have to intentionally establish yourself as a married couple. I don't see how that is government shoving it down our throats.
I did a quick google and apparently CO had some issues with their marriage laws a few years back. The age of consent for marriage was 16 with parental consent and 18 without it but the age of consent for common law marriage was 14 for boys and 12 for girls. This created a stir with a case of a 34 yo man and 14 yo girl when a judge ruled she was too young to consent and the decision was overturned on appeal. In September of 2006 a law went into effect (was passed in July of 06) that raised the age of consent for a common law marriage to 18.
The unmarried.org site we both linked hasn't been updated since August of 2006.
Why not? Was all the money he made while they were together his and his only? Was she just a tenant who bore his children? Do you believe one should walk out with what they came in with?
Yes. I do. While two people are in a relationship with each other, the man is responsible for taking care of her financially. IF she wants to jump ship, that's her prerogative, but she should get no more than what she could have gotten by working a job.
Her KIDS are getting more a month than I EARN. See the trouble?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PassTheChocolate
Regardless, she did work while she was married. She ran some of the business and did well at it. But if she had gone to work at Walmart, is that income all she would be entitled to after all those years together?
If she wanted his support, then she shouldn't divorce. If she wants a divorce, she shouldn't expect his support. Till death do you part.
Yes. I do. While two people are in a relationship with each other, the man is responsible for taking care of her financially. IF she wants to jump ship, that's her prerogative, but she should get no more than what she could have gotten by working a job.
Her KIDS are getting more a month than I EARN. See the trouble?
If she wanted his support, then she shouldn't divorce. If she wants a divorce, she shouldn't expect his support. Till death do you part.
Ivana Trump aside, why should someone have to choose between going back to a lifestyle they left 15 yrs before, just because their marriage failed (it takes two ya know)? The same would go for a man who married, gave up whatever career they had to raise the kids and be there by their spouses side if that's what was required. In my case, we're not rich, but we've moved around so many times for his work, and we have two very small children that we agreed weren't going to be in daycare until they were old enough to go to school. Some would say he's being more generous than he should, I call it being a decent father. If he were unable to do that, of course I would work. I've never been on welfare a day in my life, why should I have to now, just because we're not together.
The link you posted is the same as the second link in my post
In CO it takes living together and developing a reputation as a married couple which still means you have to intentionally establish yourself as a married couple. I don't see how that is government shoving it down our throats.
I did a quick google and apparently CO had some issues with their marriage laws a few years back. The age of consent for marriage was 16 with parental consent and 18 without it but the age of consent for common law marriage was 14 for boys and 12 for girls. This created a stir with a case of a 34 yo man and 14 yo girl when a judge ruled she was too young to consent and the decision was overturned on appeal. In September of 2006 a law went into effect (was passed in July of 06) that raised the age of consent for a common law marriage to 18.
The unmarried.org site we both linked hasn't been updated since August of 2006.
Yeah, admittedly, I didn't click on your second link. And I noticed that the unmarried site hasn't been updated recently.
Practically speaking, using Colorado as an example, all it would take is a joint checking account with an address showing both parties' names and a couple of people to testify that the couple referred to each other as "husband" or "wife." Many co-habitating couples do that if they are speaking to others in a context they think will cast them in a bad light if it's known they're living together. (around religious folks or at school conferences, for example)
My friend in Colorado had an acquaintance who had to go through a full-blown divorce when she and her boyfriend split because of exactly those issues. That's why those of us who don't WANT to be married have to take care to protect our rights. Living together isn't as worry-free in that respect as it used to be.
If the man provides for you financially, why should you want to leave?
It goes for both people...why should he walk out with LESS than he walked into it with? If you want him to support your kids, you could have stayed married to the guy. Because he isn't having to try to provide a home for himself, as well as providing you with a sizable payment. He shouldn't have to struggle to make ends meet just because you up and leave. If he's the one that files, sure, take him for all he's worth, if you want. But when people make unilateral decisions, they should reap the repercussions of those decisions.
EDIT: I did say this--"...but she should get no more than what she could have gotten by working a job." There's a difference between making $40K a year, and having it handed to you.
And, actually, just having his name gave her instant celebrity and pretty much ensured her work as a celebrity after they split. I don't know what Ivana did for work before her marriage, but simply having the name "Trump" put her in the spotlight and gave her very lucrative opportunities.
Back when they were married, Trump wasn't much more than a real-estate tycoon, far less popular than he is now. So, the celebrity wasn't much of a benefit to being married to him. Sure she made money off of a book, but who could predict she'd have reason to write one? And she isn't much of a celebrity.
When we have these discussions here, it becomes a matter of what monetary value people place on a wife/husband and their role in the marriage. It is generally very little when they are marrying into money. Leave with what you came with - they are then essentially borrowing a life from their spouse. You get to enjoy the wealth and lifestyle as long as things are going well.
The law does concur. It was not meant for people to take advantage of, as with any other law, but it happens. So, some people get money they don't deserve. But it also protects those who's spouses are all too happy to leave the other with nothing, with or without kids. The law recognizes that a marriage is a union all the way around, at least that is how I interpret it.
Yes. I do. While two people are in a relationship with each other, the man is responsible for taking care of her financially. IF she wants to jump ship, that's her prerogative, but she should get no more than what she could have gotten by working a job.
Her KIDS are getting more a month than I EARN. See the trouble?
If she wanted his support, then she shouldn't divorce. If she wants a divorce, she shouldn't expect his support. Till death do you part.
So, she should stay with him even though he had a mistress? THEIR kids are entitled to that support.
I'm going to just acknowledge that you know nothing about their situation and leave it at that.
And while cases like Trump's are the kinds that make the news--celebrity divorces--where the people actually HAVE money; far more divorces are between people that, in all honesty, don't make that much to begin with.
I don't see a rational reason for a woman to work, but that's just me. I recognize that many women DO work these days, whether I like it or not. But, if she works, why does she need HIS income if she splits with him? This is where marriage is of more benefit of a woman than a man--because it is very rare for him to get spousal support in case of a divorce.
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.
