PDA

View Full Version : Divorce, payments and al that jazz


King_Ghidra
24-05-2006, 10:50:25
Lots of stuff in the news about this kind of thing at the moment because of various cases.

Couple of things that confuse me:

Payment to 'maintain a standard if living they have come to expect'. What is the legal basis for having to assure this? If two people are divorced and one is not working, surely they now have to go out and get a job and fend for themselves? Why should the other partner have to maintain their previously attained lifestyle?

Second one:

From what i've seen from divorce settlements, division of the estate is not based on a 50/50 split. How then is the court supposed to decide what portion of the estate each party is awarded? Is it based on some idea of contribution to the relationship or finances or suchlike? Is this why we hear these things like 'my 20 years of mothering amounts to 500,000' etc.?


Related question:

Child support payments. Is there any legal provision that money paid in child support ashould be spent on the child? Or is it purely the decision of the parent who lives with the child how it is spent?

King_Ghidra
24-05-2006, 10:50:50
Now complete with obligatory typo in the thread title

Tizzy
24-05-2006, 10:56:03
The main argument as I understand it is that if one partner gives up their job to raise children/look after the house etc then they are dependant on the other.
So when the marriage breaks down they have had however many years out of work and are not as employable therefore the other partner should continue to provide for them as it was a joint decision.

I understand the point but I strongly disagree that "future earnings" should have any place in a divorce settlement, or assets gained before the marriage for that matter.

The Scottish system seems a much better way, any maintenance granted is limited to 3 years, which is enough time for the one who hasn't worked to get on their feet, instead of living off the other person for the rest of their lives.

Nills Lagerbaak
24-05-2006, 10:58:49
Hmm, these days with both partners working, these sort of laws make less and less sense. It's a shame pre-nuptuals have no legal basis.

Remember that argument that child raising shoul dbe paid? If that were the case then there would be no argument for divorce settlements would there?

Funko
24-05-2006, 10:59:07
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
Now complete with obligatory typo in the thread title

Did you mean Jizz?

Funko
24-05-2006, 10:59:54
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak
Hmm, these days with both partners working, these sort of laws make less and less sense. It's a shame pre-nuptuals have no legal basis.

Remember that argument that child raising shoul dbe paid? If that were the case then there would be no argument for divorce settlements would there?

If both partners are working then the system would already mean that they get a lot less payments, if any.

Nills Lagerbaak
24-05-2006, 11:00:11
That's what I thought. Should have been a divorce lawyer if you get off on it that much.

Nills Lagerbaak
24-05-2006, 11:01:54
So the partner that keeps on working (and thus supporting the other) is hit with a double whammy when they split up and he/she has to continue to support the other.

Probably best that neither partner gives up working cmpletely.

King_Ghidra
24-05-2006, 11:02:12
Originally posted by Tizzy
I understand the point but I strongly disagree that "future earnings" should have any place in a divorce settlement, or assets gained before the marriage for that matter.

The Scottish system seems a much better way, any maintenance granted is limited to 3 years, which is enough time for the one who hasn't worked to get on their feet, instead of living off the other person for the rest of their lives.

Yep agreed.

Nills Lagerbaak
24-05-2006, 11:06:43
Ok what about the case of the classic gold digger. Never gets educated / works and gets married inorder to be divorced. In England will she (or possibly he) get money to this new "life she has become acustomed to" even though there was no way she would have attained that had she not got married?

Tizzy
24-05-2006, 11:08:43
In a nutshell, yes.

Funko
24-05-2006, 11:11:09
Basically, yes. A bit like the Macartney case which I guess is partially what prompted K_G's posting?

Tizzy
24-05-2006, 11:11:33
There's a been a ruling today that one woman, married for 18 years I think who gave up work when she got married is entitled to 250K per year from her ex.

Nills Lagerbaak
24-05-2006, 11:13:12
If I was a rich man, that's enough to make me very synical indeed. It is actually quite unfair, because say there were no kids involved, she/he has no right to that money, and actually was lucky to be "spoiled" for as long as he/she was!


EDIT - and what I mean by cynical would be "no wifey you are not going to give up work!"

(unless there was a child involved, maybe

Funko
24-05-2006, 11:14:27
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5010888.stm

From what the judge said in the second case the husband's adultary was a big factor in that case.

Nills Lagerbaak
24-05-2006, 11:20:27
I do agree with some of the Beeb reader's comments though, it's a big anti-marriage ruling.

"if his fortunes change later in life and he ends up earning less than she does, will she then have to support him - don't think so"

Judgements made on future possibilities are never a good thing methinks.

Funko
24-05-2006, 11:25:49
Yeah, basically I agree with Tizzy's two points.

Nills Lagerbaak
24-05-2006, 11:31:28
Yeah, agree too.

Time to join fathers for justice. Shit I'd need a kid forst though.


Right, batchelor power it is then. Who's with me?

Funko
24-05-2006, 11:48:35
If it's batchelor power, you should really go it alone.

King_Ghidra
24-05-2006, 11:55:50
bachelor

Funko
24-05-2006, 11:56:55
:lol: I typed that but my spelling is normally so bad that I changed it and copied Nills.

Nills Lagerbaak
24-05-2006, 12:00:35
What's batchelor then (cna't find anything in Dictionary.com, although it recognises the spelling)


Oh and don't evey, evver, copy my spelling!

Funko
24-05-2006, 12:01:51
They make super noodles, cup a soup etc.

http://www.agreatbighuginamug.com/

King_Ghidra
24-05-2006, 12:06:39
those hug in a mug adverts are downright sinister

Nills Lagerbaak
24-05-2006, 12:07:52
Oh yeah, someone throwing severed arms / chests out of a plane. Twisted.

Greg W
24-05-2006, 12:20:05
I tend to think the "lifestyle they have become accustomed to" is a richman's thing, no?

In upside down land, what normally happens is the mother gets custody, and the father has to pay a truckload of money to his ex for upkeep of the children. Some men end up paying so much that thye quit their job and go on the dole just so they don't have to pay "the ex" so much money.

Which, frankly, is ludicrous.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
24-05-2006, 13:19:46
Originally posted by King_Ghidra

From what i've seen from divorce settlements, division of the estate is not based on a 50/50 split. How then is the court supposed to decide what portion of the estate each party is awarded? Is it based on some idea of contribution to the relationship or finances or suchlike?

Related question:

Child support payments. Is there any legal provision that money paid in child support ashould be spent on the child? Or is it purely the decision of the parent who lives with the child how it is spent?

Just from a general legal perspective:

1. You can seperate contributions, like the estate brought into marriage. As for wealth gained during the marriage, yes, a 50/50 rule protects the partner who has spent more time on the home and children as opposed to the job. It should just shift the burden of proof though - if both worked or one has neither worked nor taken care of the home or children.

2. In principle, yes, it's just difficult to prove as most support for minors comes in the form of housing, food and time spent. So it's only in the most extreme cases that you can prove an abusive use of the payments.

Lurker the Second
24-05-2006, 15:19:46
Is it true that Paul McCartney did not have a pre-nup? I assume they are enforceable in England and, if so, he's a fool.

Tizzy
24-05-2006, 15:21:38
He didn't have one, but they're not legally binding here anyway for some reason.

Funko
24-05-2006, 15:38:46
That is correct.

From what I understand they are barely binding in the US either.

Nills Lagerbaak
24-05-2006, 15:43:12
I'll wager they are going to have to become binding (if they want to keep people marrying)

Lurker the Second
24-05-2006, 15:59:54
The binding validity of a pre-nup is an issue of state law here, so it can vary, but I think in most states they are binding.

King_Ghidra
24-05-2006, 16:00:13
I don't see how they can be, as they would not allow for changing circumstances in the marrriage. That would be legislating against future events, which you guys already agreed would be dangerous.

JM^3
24-05-2006, 16:14:39
Originally posted by Tizzy
The main argument as I understand it is that if one partner gives up their job to raise children/look after the house etc then they are dependant on the other.
So when the marriage breaks down they have had however many years out of work and are not as employable therefore the other partner should continue to provide for them as it was a joint decision.

I understand the point but I strongly disagree that "future earnings" should have any place in a divorce settlement, or assets gained before the marriage for that matter.

The Scottish system seems a much better way, any maintenance granted is limited to 3 years, which is enough time for the one who hasn't worked to get on their feet, instead of living off the other person for the rest of their lives.

In the US, traditionally at least, the man might go and be a lawyer, while the woman doesn't get the degrees she might have had.

I know that my mom quit school to get married (she might also have been pregnant, I am suspicious but don't think I would get an honest answer).

Jon Miller
(my parents were very conservative when I was young, however, looking at pictures of them from the mid-late 70s they look like hippies) (also, I was born not that long after the marriage (less than a year).. and there would have been a child before me if things had gone right)

Nills Lagerbaak
24-05-2006, 16:18:24
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
I don't see how they can be, as they would not allow for changing circumstances in the marrriage. That would be legislating against future events, which you guys already agreed would be dangerous.

Not really. You're just saying that changes in the marriage will not effect my money or your money. People can stil mistreat each other and leave each other, they just end up with what they "had in the bank" to begin with

e.g. we both agree you should give up work. Fine but do it knowing that there will be no payoff in the end.

JM^3
24-05-2006, 16:20:29
Also, in US (but it is rarer), the man can get payments from the wife...

JM

Dyl Ulenspiegel
24-05-2006, 16:21:08
What exactly can you agree in a prenuptial? Seperation of estates (which is the default settiung here)?

Funko
24-05-2006, 16:21:21
Same here.

Lurker the Second
24-05-2006, 16:22:27
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
I don't see how they can be, as they would not allow for changing circumstances in the marrriage. That would be legislating against future events, which you guys already agreed would be dangerous.

I'm not sure I follow that entirely. Just because circumstances might change in one case doesn't mean there should be a blanket prohibition on pre-nups. There might be, and in fact are, circumstances where they either will not be enforced at all or will not be enforced in their entirety, but in order for that to occur you will need to have (and prove) facts that make it fall within the applicable exception.

Nills Lagerbaak
24-05-2006, 16:23:09
My example was, of course the "Extreme prenupt", and anyone who signed it would be odd, but you get the picture.

It's a terrible thing and gives Lawyers more money, but I guess at least you won't get the situation where anyone is hit with a massive unexpected blow.

Sir Penguin
24-05-2006, 16:23:15
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
Lots of stuff in the news about this kind of thing at the moment because of various cases.

Couple of things that confuse me:

Payment to 'maintain a standard if living they have come to expect'. What is the legal basis for having to assure this? If two people are divorced and one is not working, surely they now have to go out and get a job and fend for themselves? Why should the other partner have to maintain their previously attained lifestyle?

Second one:

From what i've seen from divorce settlements, division of the estate is not based on a 50/50 split. How then is the court supposed to decide what portion of the estate each party is awarded? Is it based on some idea of contribution to the relationship or finances or suchlike? Is this why we hear these things like 'my 20 years of mothering amounts to 500,000' etc.?


Related question:

Child support payments. Is there any legal provision that money paid in child support ashould be spent on the child? Or is it purely the decision of the parent who lives with the child how it is spent?
Thinking of getting married, K_G?

SP

Nills Lagerbaak
24-05-2006, 16:24:56
Haha, missed the obvious question!

Propose first, draft the prenupt later :-)

Funko
24-05-2006, 16:32:30
On a romantic moonlit night in Paris, K_G gets down on one knee in front of his girlfriend and asks, "Darling... would you mnd having your lawyer look this over?"

Lurker the Second
24-05-2006, 17:18:52
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
What exactly can you agree in a prenuptial? Seperation of estates (which is the default settiung here)?

That, plus you could waive or establish alimony via agreement.

King_Ghidra
25-05-2006, 08:34:59
Originally posted by Lurker the Second
There might be, and in fact are, circumstances where they either will not be enforced at all or will not be enforced in their entirety, but in order for that to occur you will need to have (and prove) facts that make it fall within the applicable exception.

Lurker's finest hour.

Nills Lagerbaak
25-05-2006, 08:44:11
Originally posted by Funko
On a romantic moonlit night in Paris, K_G gets down on one knee in front of his girlfriend and asks, "Darling... would you mnd having your lawyer look this over?"

I once saw a qulity short film about two kids who were about to shag, then the boy pulls out a consent form. Both their lawyers trhen walk into the room and thrash out the details of what exactly each party is willing to do.

When they finally get down to it, they are disturbed by her house mate. After th inital embarrassment she says "er...shall I go get my lawyer?"

Funko
25-05-2006, 09:31:48
:lol:

paiktis22
25-05-2006, 12:21:49
Originally posted by Funko
On a romantic moonlit night in Paris, K_G gets down on one knee in front of his girlfriend and asks, "Darling... would you mnd having your lawyer look this over?"

:lol:

but unfortunately, there are many instances where property takes the leading role in a relationship. i was aggravated to find out from an ex relationship that she considered the woman of her brother a "vulture" ince she didnt accept to live in the house the groom's parents built (above theirs of course, taking care of them when they're too old to walk in the bathroom, nothing's for free :lol: ) but she wanted to sell the house and built a new one. that way she could have it 50% 50% with her husband whereas if she stayed in his house it would be 100% his. - if something is yours before the marriage it's yours afterwards. if something is build -made when in marriage is 50% 50%, that's what the law says, i think.
both thinking patterns, the sister of the groom and the wife of the groom (if indeed she thought like that) were freakish. it's like a contest of property managment whereas it should be about lurv.

paiktis22
25-05-2006, 12:23:02
i dont know what the poor groom thought.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
25-05-2006, 14:24:06
nobody asked him