Friend of mine screwed over by divorce

Firstly- 99% of divorces end with someone getting "screwed". Its messay af.

Secondly- this was my come to Jesus moment: if your friend was fine with this arrangement while married, he has agreed to this going foward. If he did not want to be compelled to continue this financial arrangement, he should not have been party to it from the get go.

Several years ago, a friend of mine, married for 20+ years, three kids was tellign us how fucked he was getting, b/c his wife had never worked outside the house. It struck me .... the above struck me! He cannot be aprty fo a financial arrangement then bitch when he is held responsible to continue it.

Any dude who is okay with a partner who does not contribute financially to the marriage, he is fucking retarded and deserves to get "screwed over".

that financial arrangement was solely under the condition that they are married...when there is no marriage than that previous contract is invalid, you dont get to leech off someone for decades.
 
that financial arrangement was solely under the condition that they are married...when there is no marriage than that previous contract is invalid, you dont get to leech off someone for decades.

You're oversimplifying it. In any financial partnership, you also look at what the person put into it (the marriage), and the husband agreed to her contribution as sufficient to be an equal partner.

Also, she continues her contribution to the agreement post marriage, for the most part.
 
that financial arrangement was solely under the condition that they are married...when there is no marriage than that previous contract is invalid, you dont get to leech off someone for decades.

Do you agree that everything acquired during the marriage/financial arrangement should be split 50/50 even if one partner contributed a lot more than the other?
 
where do I sign up to lose half my stuff in the future?

sounds great
 
Do you agree that everything acquired during the marriage/financial arrangement should be split 50/50 even if one partner contributed a lot more than the other?
no, no they should not

This isn't 1940, women have rights, they are on average more educated then males are....

If anything the stay at home spouse (whichever gender) should have to owe back pay to the person that supported the mooching for years.

The whole argument is patently absurd, you are required to support your children until they're adults, right? So why don't we owe money to our 19 year old daughters/sons? Surely, they are ACCUSTOMED to that lifestyle, and even moreso they don't have the skills/education/work experience to likely to even support themselves......Oh that's right, they are adults now!
 
Let's be honest here. Realistically these types of relationships the tacit agreement is basically the woman just has to look younger and prettier, in turn they get the benefits of finances from the man.

Or do we really believe that woman are marrying guys 20 years their senior due to their great personality?

You could instead marry and have a relationship with someone in your same social and economic tier. Of course you'll have to trade off in the looks and age department.
 
no, no they should not

This isn't 1940, women have rights, they are on average more educated then males are....

If anything the stay at home spouse (whichever gender) should have to owe back pay to the person that supported the mooching for years.

The whole argument is patently absurd, you are required to support your children until they're adults, right? So why don't we owe money to our 19 year old daughters/sons? Surely, they are ACCUSTOMED to that lifestyle, and even moreso they don't have the skills/education/work experience to likely to even support themselves......Oh that's right, they are adults now!

Well you are talking about two different things now. Splitting up of assets and then you start talking about alimony.

In most states, any husband and wife ownership is automatically going to be split 50/50. For example, if you own a house as husband and wife, it becomes 50/50 tenants in common ownership upon divorce. It's a similar concept for any assets acquired during the marriage. The marriage creates an entity, so I guess I don't understand how people think assets acquired during the marriage should be divided any way other than 50/50. I mean, how would you even begin to base it and assess it?

I do have an issue with spouses going after assets acquired pre-marriage. That can be argued, and I've seen probably every type of divorce you can think of. Honestly, most of the time, I think the court rules correctly. By the way, I've read several where the wife is actually paying the husband and is the breadwinner.

In regards to alimony/maintenance, that depends on your state. It's really not that easy to get here unless you can establish that the wife stayed at home for the kids and her earning potential now is drastically hurt due to that. Again, that's an agreement made during the marriage. IMO, the marriage should be fairly long in order for alimony/maintenance to ever make sense.
 
Well you are talking about two different things now. Splitting up of assets and then you start talking about alimony.

In most states, any husband and wife ownership is automatically going to be split 50/50. For example, if you own a house as husband and wife, it becomes 50/50 tenants in common ownership upon divorce. It's a similar concept for any assets acquired during the marriage. The marriage creates an entity, so I guess I don't understand how people think assets acquired during the marriage should be divided any way other than 50/50. I mean, how would you even begin to base it and assess it?

I do have an issue with spouses going after assets acquired pre-marriage. That can be argued, and I've seen probably every type of divorce you can think of. Honestly, most of the time, I think the court rules correctly. By the way, I've read several where the wife is actually paying the husband and is the breadwinner.

In regards to alimony/maintenance, that depends on your state. It's really not that easy to get here unless you can establish that the wife stayed at home for the kids and her earning potential now is drastically hurt due to that. Again, that's an agreement made during the marriage. IMO, the marriage should be fairly long in order for alimony/maintenance to ever make sense.
I understand why these laws were put in place, women had essentially no rights or were at least screwed if they got divorced in decades past

But it's 2018. If a spouse doesn't work, they shouldn't just automatically get half of what was earned. They didn't earn it, and they were already compensated by having meals/housing/Health Care/literally everything provided for them like a child. IOW if you are a Dependent, you shouldn't get anything IMO, if you are a contributing SPOUSE that is different.

If both people work, you divide the total assets/net worth according to what proportion they paid into it....

This goes both ways too, KFed shouldn't have got like 100M from Britney Spears that was absurd
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why anyone gets married to a person who doesn't have a career of their own.
 
I understand why these laws were put in place, women had essentially no rights or were at least screwed if they got divorced in decades past

But it's 2018. If a spouse doesn't work, they shouldn't just automatically get half of what was earned. They didn't earn it, and they were already compensated by having meals/housing/Health Care/literally everything provided for them like a child. IOW if you are a Dependent, you shouldn't get anything IMO, if you are a contributing SPOUSE that is different.

If both people work, you divide the total assets/net worth according to what proportion they paid into it....

Good luck at the logistics of figuring out what both put into it. That sounds like an attorney's wet dream.

Judging by your post, it sounds like you shouldn't be so upset by the system, but the husband that lets the wife stay home and not work. I think you are missing the biggest component - a lot of husbands want their wife to be a stay at home mom. They either want their wife with the kids or daycare is too expensive. I really don't know how you can think the ex-wife isn't entitled to any of the assets since she wasn't making money. She wasn't making money in a lot of marriages because she was at home with the kids.
 
Firstly- 99% of divorces end with someone getting "screwed". Its messay af.

Secondly- this was my come to Jesus moment: if your friend was fine with this arrangement while married, he has agreed to this going foward. If he did not want to be compelled to continue this financial arrangement, he should not have been party to it from the get go.

Several years ago, a friend of mine, married for 20+ years, three kids was tellign us how fucked he was getting, b/c his wife had never worked outside the house. It struck me .... the above struck me! He cannot be aprty fo a financial arrangement then bitch when he is held responsible to continue it.

Any dude who is okay with a partner who does not contribute financially to the marriage, he is fucking retarded and deserves to get "screwed over".

They really don't get it. They look at it as "I took care of her for 20 years." No dumbass, you are one unit during marriage. Any money you make during that period is hers as well.
 
Good luck at the logistics of figuring out what both put into it. That sounds like an attorney's wet dream.

Judging by your post, it sounds like you shouldn't be so upset by the system, but the husband that lets the wife stay home and not work. I think you are missing the biggest component - a lot of husbands want their wife to be a stay at home mom. They either want their wife with the kids or daycare is too expensive. I really don't know how you can think the ex-wife isn't entitled to any of the assets since she wasn't making money. She wasn't making money in a lot of marriages because she was at home with the kids.
which is a legal requirement, or else it's child neglect right?

you have to take care of your kids. If one person chooses to refrain from making an income, they are ENTIRELY dependent on the other person. Why should they get half the assets?

I've yet to hear even one remotely plausible argument for this (not saying from you, just in general). It makes zero sense. It's like this purely b/c of antiquated laws
 
They really don't get it. They look at it as "I took care of her for 20 years." No dumbass, you are one unit during marriage. Any money you make during that period is hers as well.


Yeah, I assume it scares a lot of dudes who have a stay at home partners
 
which is a legal requirement, or else it's child neglect right?

you have to take care of your kids. If one person chooses to refrain from making an income, they are ENTIRELY dependent on the other person. Why should they get half the assets?

I've yet to hear even one remotely plausible argument for this (not saying from you, just in general). It makes zero sense. It's like this purely b/c of antiquated laws

Because that was the arrangement made. You have to look at a marriage as an entity similar to a partnership agreement. Each are 50% in the marriage. Everything acquired during that time is for the entity. Now if the husband decides the wife can stay at home during the marriage for the kids, he's established that as an agreement for the benefit of the entity.

Also, the husband would be dependent upon the wife as well in regards to childcare. I'm also assuming husband's with a stay at home wife would have them handling a lot of the general household chores. Surely you see some value to a stay at home wife?
 
Because that was the arrangement made. You have to look at a marriage as an entity similar to a partnership agreement. Each are 50% in the marriage. Everything acquired during that time is for the entity. Now if the husband decides the wife can stay at home during the marriage for the kids, he's established that as an agreement for the benefit of the entity.

Also, the husband would be dependent upon the wife as well in regards to childcare. I'm also assuming husband's with a stay at home wife would have them handling a lot of the general household chores. Surely you see some value to a stay at home wife?
yes, the value is already compensated by having a house, food, clothes, HC, bills paid, entertainment, etc....
I don't see why any saved assets enter into the equation

also what if the person is somewhat wealthy, and has a nanny/butler/maid? then what does the stay at home spouse provide? (probably a prenup involved in that situation, but still....)
 
yes, the value is already compensated by having a house, food, clothes, HC, bills paid, entertainment, etc....
I don't see why any saved assets enter into the equation

also what if the person is somewhat wealthy, and has a nanny/butler/maid? then what does the stay at home spouse provide? (probably a prenup involved in that situation, but still....)

I think you are having trouble with marriage being it's own entity or unit. Anything acquired for the entity or unit is going to split exactly as it was formed - 50/50.

Your idea of compensation for the stay at home wife is agreed upon by who? I mean it sounds like she's entitled to some of the assets acquired (clothes), but not others? Where do you draw that line?
 
I think you are having trouble with marriage being it's own entity or unit. Anything acquired for the entity or unit is going to split exactly as it was formed - 50/50.

Your idea of compensation for the stay at home wife is agreed upon by who? I mean it sounds like she's entitled to some of the assets acquired (clothes), but not others? Where do you draw that line?
i'm not having trouble at all, i just disagree w/ the basis of the laws. It's not a real joint entity if one person provides all the income, it's a single entity w/ a parasitic organism attached to it.

They made sense 50 years ago, not so much now.
 
Being a unit is the entire point of marriage though. If being married didn't mean anything legally, it'd be nothing but a piece of paper. It's a defined agreement. IF you don't wanna split assets and stuff just stay together and don't get married.
That's a fair point and argument, i agree entirely
good luck convincing a women to do that (Kurt Russel bless), but still, good pt haha
 
i'm not having trouble at all, i just disagree w/ the basis of the laws. It's not a real joint entity if one person provides all the income, it's a single entity w/ a parasitic organism attached to it.

They made sense 50 years ago, not so much now.

My wife and I both work. We actually work in the same office building, but for different companies. Very similar schedules, but I now make probably 70% of the household income to her 30%. It hasn't always been that way as it used to be fairly close to 50/50. I have no issues with splitting assets 50/50 if we got divorced. Going back to your argument that it should be how much each put in, that would be an accounting nightmare. We have been married near 10 years. She's inherited money a couple times, I've inherited once, incomes have changed, etc. It all went to the joint accounts. There is no way to account for exactly what each has put in - and I think that would hold true for most marriages.
 
I understand why these laws were put in place, women had essentially no rights or were at least screwed if they got divorced in decades past

But it's 2018. If a spouse doesn't work, they shouldn't just automatically get half of what was earned. They didn't earn it, and they were already compensated by having meals/housing/Health Care/literally everything provided for them like a child. IOW if you are a Dependent, you shouldn't get anything IMO, if you are a contributing SPOUSE that is different.

If both people work, you divide the total assets/net worth according to what proportion they paid into it....

This goes both ways too, KFed shouldn't have got like 100M from Britney Spears that was abs

Divorce, or family law, has evolved since then. the legal approach is to look at a marriage as a financial agreement, where each party is 50/50 partner, regardless to what each party contributes or also said as each partner acknowledges that the contribution of the other partner equals 50% of the total.

People should really think hard if they earn $500K a year and they want to marry someone making $50K a year. In Ontario and most of Canada anyways, the former is essentially accepting the lattes contribution is the same as theirs.
 
Back
Top