I just had to share this, as usually we hear the opposite
I was listening to LBC (Leading Britains Conversation) earlier today, and it was discussing a recent divorce story of a man who was cheating on his wife, the wife files for divorce, the high court orders her to give £2MILLION to the 'Husband' to settle the divorce! The wife earned over £10m in bonuses over their 4 years of the relationship. No children involved.
I find this astonishing, I see so many horror stories on here about how the man gets divorce raped for everything he has but this seems to be one of those rare cases where the tables were dramatically turned
Of course, there was a massive outrage about this, with people saying how it isn't fair and blah blah blah, but if this was the other way around, it would not have even been mentioned. We all know the score.
This guy is the luckiest man alive. Gets out of his shit marriage, has another plate on the go (perhaps multiple) and now has £2MILLION extra to his name for it
Madness!
I guess the divorce rape situation can (sometimes) swing both ways.
I'm grateful I've found this sub at a young age, and i know never to get married, which is the moral of this story yet again. But perhaps for women with lots of wealth, maybe they shouldn't either as she obviously made a costly mistake here
Thoughts
I mean don’t we have to be consistent? It’s bullshit one way that’s disadvantageous for male but it’s still bullshit if advantageous for male.
I don’t think the cheater should be the one winning in any situation. If a woman is fighting her impulse and staying loyal, why should she be punished?
Same goes for relationships where the woman cheats. If she has the time to cheat, she has the time to work.
No-fault divorce. Just one of the many experiments that was shoved down our throats by lifelong politicians and left in place after proven to do all harm and no help.
In a fault divorce, you need to prove something bad happened like a criminal case. Innocent until proven guilty. In a no-fault divorce, there's no difference between innocent and guilty they just go straight to the penalty phase.
No-Fault divorce is the reason for these bullshit results. However in most causes the man has more money and is the one drawing the short stick. That's why nothing is done. Would it be vice-versa, no-fault would have been reverted years ago.
However "fault-divorce" opened doors to other shenanigans and filled up courts and the legal system because of the required proof. In the end the one with more money and resources (eg. that could dig up the most dirt) usually won which usually was the man. So no-fault was result of feminism and the state liked it because it made divorces cheaper for the state.
There will be more cases like this in the future as women increasingly become breadwinners. It will be interesting to watch from the stands as it plays out and the outrage grows.
The big fault is adultery, and proving adultery is terrifyingly easy in the 21st century.
Of course, recognizing the fault of adultery would threaten the government's sweet sweet divorce settlement train.
Proof how? For someone with common-sense to get what happened. easy. To proof in court, hard if the cheater denies it. And first we need to define what cheating is? Touching? A kiss on the cheek? Hardly. A real kiss? Maybe. You will need an image or video of the act. And that can be avoided easily with proper measures like pull the blinds.
GPS tracker? Well I was at a hotel meeting a friend / business associate. Why meet at a hotel? it's quiet there / confidentiality / she is a massage therapist, can't do it in public. I mean it all depends on how shrewd you are. (is a gps tracker without court order even admissible as evidence?)
Does cheating count as a "fault divorce" ? How does this even work?
Only in states where adultery is illegal (NY)
Is this standard practice in America? Can you change a 'no fault divorce' into a 'fault divorce'?
Yes by signing a legally binding prenup. But even then the prenup often gets thrown out.
Because vagina.
We have all lamented the state of affairs lately where female equality and equity only applies to benefits, not responsibilities or burdens.
No fault divorce means the state government has decided it no longer gives a flaming fuck who is at fault, and in fact will usually give them control of their spouse's past present and future incomes. If you've so much as paid careful attention to more than two divorces of people close to you, you will probably reach the conclusion that family law operates on its own system entirely different from other forms of law. Coincidentally, family law courts have the unique privilege of zeroing your bank account (or your employer's) without warning or even burden of proof. It's guilty until proven innocent, with the accused being restrained from presenting the proof. Why? Because think of the children! (Imagine this slogan on a poster taped to a charging bulldozer.)
Prenups CAN work. If you think you're going to charge in like a manly man and force it to work, it will not work. You need a lot of time, a lot of money, and a lot of shopping around for lawyers who aren't just clowns in suits. Lawyers, plural.
If you absolutely positively MUST get married, don't do it in California. CA is the reason why USA is now stereotyped as the land of lawyers. Lawyers are like guns. Bring five and hope your opponent doesn't bring ten.
By the way, prenups can't do anything about children and children are the ultimate weapon. No proof is required for children within marriage and this is based on traditions as old as history. Bon appétit, marriage dreamers.
This is the part that pissed me off when I learned it. Friend is a pretty up and coming "Divorce Lawyer" in Newport Beach and he was talking about how often prenups mean absolutely nothing.
How there are litearlly hundreds of ways to just crumple it up and throw it away.
I think no fault has its place, I’ve known plenty of couples who have just called it off because they weren’t compatible anymore, and most of those don’t raise red flags that scream “that divorce is unfair”, however I admit that it’s given to FAR too many divorces where clearly one party should be legally at-fault (like adultery)
I agree with this. In this situation where there are no kids, i think there should be no winners or losers. It should have simply been a parting of ways but obviously, things are never that simple. This is a yet another glowing example of why never to get married, ESPECIALLY if you have a lot of money and/or resources as this could have quite easily been the opposite
Right. And I think the post did well at highlighting reactions when the man gets money from the woman in the divorce, as opposed to the opposite.
My own crackhead father was sitting on $5000/mo in free play money from various sources including my mother's paycheck, after a divorce I secretly got my first steady job to bankroll. First in a series(*) of other people's divorces leaving me penniless missing meals.
He was given control of the household money (read: my mom's paycheck she worked overtime for) and ordered to continue paying the bills my mom had been paying flawlessly up to that point. Mortgage payment stops entirely, beginning a one-year squatting phase (how long a mortgage eviction takes in California) before the house was found with foam rubber covering the floor and weeds growing through it. He was still living there right up until the night before the sheriff's department was scheduled to show up, which was when my mom and I finally recovered our belongings from the place.
When does a man win in divorce court? Usually, when he's a crackhead.
Long story short: don't marry, don't do coke (or meth or heroin,) don't hang out with people who do. Try not to work for men married to gold-digging wives.(*)
Humans are great, aren't they!?
(s)
I read on article on this couple. It said that they both made about 100k when they got married. Her future earnings were unexpected
No fault Family Courts are the only places where reprehensible behavior is acceptable.
what if the other person never wants to have sex?
If by "never" you mean they never not even once had sex, this is grounds for annulment.
You should always be putting your expectations in writing. Entering into a legal agreement without specifics is just stupid. People probably do it because they're told all that matters is "love". Goals matters too. How many kids are you going to have, where are you going to live, sex how many nights a week on average, what kind of lifestyle does she expect you to support her with, how often she wants date nights, is she staying home to home school so the kids aren't brain washing in public, religion, politics, etc, etc.
Not saying it has to be a rigid set in stone schedule that can never be changed, but if you never tell her your expectations on sex then you can't really blame her for not keeping a sex frequency she never agreed to.
If you both agree to each other expectations, and you keep your end of the deal but she doesn't keep hers, then that's where fault divorce should come in.
That's historically been, and still probably is, grounds for divorce. No fault be damned, most people sympathize with that as a reason to leave
But it doesn't go that way. That is why we celebrate the man from OP's post. Treating women as you would men is bluepill fantasy.
The only way to win at modern marriage is to not play.
Treating women as you would men is bluepill fantasy.
And is as functional as treating cats like dogs. Nature wins the day and we men need to be ever vigilant.
I’m certainly not celebrating him. It’s an interesting case to study though.
I agree as well, however, the problem is proving this shit in court. It becames a total shit storm.
These cases do happen, but men rarely marry for money, so you don't see it very often.
I think it’s important to note that the woman made 10 million dollars and that the payout was that not 2 million. Had these roles been reversed she would have gotten half or more.
I think paying for the other is bullshit in general. Save for splitting of joint accounts an assets in half. So long as both parties were working and paying during the relationship.
She received £10M over 4 years. Likely £2M is half of what was left after taxes and lavish spending. When you are making that type of money, half is gone in taxes and spending £250K a year on shoes and vacations is nothing, since you are saving £1M.
Read an article on it. Two multi ,million homes, aston martins, vacations. All of it
This is what I’m saying. Did he get a house? Any of the vehicles? Or did he get 2 Mil in stfu money?
a 1.1M house and 900k in cash
I never understood how marrying someone entitled you to the spoils of their labor. Even in the event of having chicken, why should anyone deserve more than a reasonable living allowance if they choose to raise their children alone? I've heard people say it's because they've grown accustomed to a "standard of living." A standard of living they never took the liberty of attaining on their own!
Lawyer here. The answer is that the divorce rules of today were created during a different time.
Keep in mind that it wasn't that long ago that women were largely socially prohibited from any meaningful access to proper employment. Even as recent as 1972 in Virginia, a woman could have been denied the ability to become a licensed attorney if the state discovered evidence that she cohabitated with a man that she wasn't married to or wasn't related to by blood (oh, you lived with your boyfriend? sounds egregiously immoral to me. no practicing law for filthy whores like you).
Then, just a little before that, it was difficult for women to own property. And the tradition of asking a father's permission to marry his daughter stems back to a time when women were almost literally chattel property.
So what happens during these times in the event of divorce? It wasn't like women could just go out and get a job to support themselves. So laws were passed to ensure these women did not become wards of the state, living on the streets, unable to manage without real work.
The main issue is that society tends to change at a much faster rate than the laws which govern them. Next thing you know, the laws applying to today's society were implemented by yesteryear's social generation.
Women started participating more fully in the workforce. It eventually became less of a faux pas for women to obtain mortgage lending for real estate without a husband. Divorce rates steadily increased as women became more financially independent.
But what about the law? Well, the law still operates under the premise that women are handicapped creatures in our society and must be supported by a breadwinning man, else they may become burdens on the state for assistance.
So times have changed, but the laws largely have not (but they're starting to). That's why divorce laws seems so strange to you now; it's because you view these laws through the context of the society you see today, not the society (and problems) that these laws were created to fix.
Getting divorced now, she wants the chicken support.. and I get to keep the kids..
I just noticed that typo. It's too good to edit away.
Stop going all Don Quixote on us, fairness and consistency are dead. Do you think that if men follow some code of honor women are going to follow suit? Or do you think they're going to continue fucking us over while everyone ignores the problem?
This is not a male vs female issue this is legislature being draconian mixed in with favouritism towards women. Divorce rape is wrong.
Man losing his earnings = dumb
Woman losing her earnings = dumb
Reducing it to team sports of man vs woman makes it so you miss the actual issue at hand.
This is my point though. Men mostly think like you and talk about fairness and practicality while women work as a collective for their own selfish interests. Which is a large part of whey they are kicking the shit out of us.
So... we’re being oppressed by the matriarchy?
The men that have to follow the honor code are the judges. All fault lies on them.
No. Judges have to follow the law not some fuzzy "code of honor". It's the legislative not the judicative who would have to make a change, provided you believe in any of the bullshit system.
Meh... Not quite true. Judiciary makes common law and can change law through judicial review.
That is for the USA. Quick look at UK looks like the Judicial can strike a law and send it back to Parliament. So maybe they can't make law, but they can strike it and not follow it (Assuming it violates some rights).
Legislators write the laws every year; judges pick the ones they like best and interpret them however they damn well feel.
Want to survive? Better have some good money for a good lawyer. Also an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, so just don't go where the lawyer-lovers are in the first place.
Fair enough, but judges do have great leeway when it comes to family court decisions, specifically alimony. And I don't, the system is eating itself.
No we don't have to be consistent. 'Fairness' means nothing anymore. The fact that you're unsure about it in the first place in your comment shows you don't even really agree with it.
Fairness is dead when one side isn't playing by the rules. It's winner takes all. This is bluepill bullshit.
Go ask all the thousands of ruined fathers and ex husbands if they care about fairness anymore.
Sex-commies corrupt every word they speak. 'Fairness' was just among the first to be dunked into their joker acid.
I’m not unsure about it. I did a longer response to /u/HumanSockPuppet below that I don’t want to post multiple times.
Your point is incredibly weak and lacks any actual real world relevance. No offence.
Haven't you been on TRP for long??? This isnt a legislative debate; it's a simple report that the good guys can win every once in a while.
The rule is wrong not the application of the rule.
I think that the point is that the outrage over this highlights the hypocrisy and furthers the discussion. Hopefully, shit will change someday.
No. Consistent rules would only apply if men and women were equal (that is, identical). They are not. So the rules need to be different for the sexes.
Now, that's not to say the current state of society's rules are anywhere near what they should be if we expect to incentivize men to begin participating again. But equal rules are NOT the correct solution.
I’m not advocating for equal rules (even though I do believe the law should be blind), I’m advocating for an equal reaction to the enforcement of bullshit rules. If you oppose a man being divorce raped out of his earnings then you should also oppose women being divorce raped otherwise you’re not actually against said thing you’re just participating in mindless tribalism missing the actual issue at hand. The rule is wrong not the application of the rule.
Sacrificing your principles because it works out favourably for you this time means you never had those principles to begin with.
Good.im happy to see this.most women get paid to cheat on their husband, so let's start wrecking their lives too
should be 50/50 every time. Any adjustment to that would be to rectify any situation where one or both people are trying to spend/hide money to screw the other person.
Why should settlements be 50/50 when life isn't 50/50?
People should keep what is rightfully theirs.
No-fault marriage is a contract, a business model. Dissolution of the business is not cause-dependent (so morality, his or her behavior, infidelity, etc is irrelevant). In this case, probably because of the short duration of the contract, life of business, the judge decided one party should get 20% of the business and the other should get 80%. That's it. To view it otherwise is to romanticize marriage as something other than what it has become in Western culture, essentially a joint partnership.
Full disclosure: I'm in the middle of a divorce now and have another hearing in a few weeks and so I am speaking without the end result. So far what I have experienced is that most of the raping is done by the lawyers who encourage, they bill hourly, the parties not to reach a logical, fair conclusion and encourage the vindictiveness of the one who feels more injured (in my case, ironically, my wife, who left me but then, of course, wanted to come back to which I said no having in the interim found my balls, which were apparently hidden somewhere while I was sleeping-awake through the latter part of my marriage). The other thing I have learned and this is especially true if you are starting with next to nothing as we did, have a prenup. Lots of guys here say they'll never get married but most of you will, even with what you have learned here but you can still protect yourself with a prenup. It has no downside. If you never need it, great. If you end things and you decide to be generous, get rid of it to whatever degree you want. But if you end acrimoniously (far and away the most likely) or even pleasantly but with disputes that arise after a long marriage, then you have it. It's not foolproof but at least it clearly spells out what you both agreed to at the start. This is what any people contemplating a business should do but often fail to do and for the same reason: the business is just an idea at first and has no assets. It's also a good test because if you can't negotiate a prenup when you have nothing then it's not very likely you will be able to divide up real assets. As an added bonus, regardless, a prenup might streamline your legal costs.
Quick lawyer joke (from "Better Call Saul"): what does a man's ejaculate and a lawyer have in common? They both have a 1 in 3 million chance of becoming a human being.
So the cause is irrelevant in a business contract? Fraud? Theft? Intentional sabotage? Those are completely irrelevant in the dissolution of a business or would the injured party receive monies from the offending party in a civil suit?
Dissolution of business is much like a criminal case or disagreement over payment of money. The court's job is to find out who is right and who is wrong.
Dissolution of marriage, under the no-fault system, means right and wrong do not matter. It doesn't mean nobody gets punished; it means punishment is handed down without regard for right or wrong.
A business contract is different than a partnership agreement. In a contract you are opposing parties and there are default provisions, liquidated damages, or forced performance. A partnership can dissolve for any reason, just like one partner wants to move on. The operating agreement should have a buyout/separation clause, which are usually inadequate, or a buy-sell agreement. Otherwise arbitration or court. Fraud, conversion, theft are felonies under a penal code. . . . "There are two times a business partnership doesn't work: When you're losing money. And when you're making money" -- just like marriage contracts.
The basic contract means pretty much nothing. The court has its own script which overrides all.
There IS such a thing as a pre-nup that actually works. But it has to be done right, and the average knowitall is more likely to do it 100% wrong and end up with effectively nothing. Long story short: if a courthouse is in your future, you need not only a lawyer but a great one from exactly the right specialty. You don't wait until you're handed the subpoena to visit a lawyer, just like you don't wait for a tennisball-sized tumor to pop out before getting your first cancer screening.
So how do you do a prenup properly?
You need a lawyer and the other side needs a lawyer. These two lawyers are opposing each other so you need to eliminate all possibility of CoI. Basically make it scientific-clean and pray you don't get an activist judge calling it dirty anyway.
Once the two lawyers are sufficiently funded, they'll tell you what you need and bill you extra for telling you. There are a lot of limitations on what you can put in this agreement, for example children and settlements related to children are pretty much off-limits.
There are two key reasons why people say prenups don't work. One they don't cover what everyone wishes they would, two they take more investment than people typically assume or promise they do - everything in law does.
If a lawyer tells you law is predictable, don't hire him. These people are knowitalls, the polar opposite of killitalls. Guess which one you need in a fight.
I've heard a judge can throw out a prenup? Can you explain how a situation like this could happen?
The pessimist answer: yes they do.
The optimist answer: only invalid parts.
The experienced answer: every judge is different. It is entirely possible to get a judge who simply hates you for what you look like, or sees their spouse's face in place of yours after they found out last night they were getting cheated on. Or maybe the judge is just mad as hell after the dude before you put on a three ring circus. (Courts line cases up by the dozen and call them one after another rapidly.) If you did your documents wrong, which people tend to do with delusions of knowing it all, then yeah you're not getting anything. The best defense against getting fucked by a courthouse is to never get brought to one. Short of that, absolutely nothing is guaranteed.
Pretty much every problem in law can potentially be caused by having an idiot / shyster / wrongfield / alcoholic lawyer. Choose carefully.
Financially, the partner who is punished is usually the more wealthy. The issue is that a) men are usually breadwinners and b) child custody favors mothers while (at least in the US) it harshly punishes the non-custodian. In the rare event that the father gets custody, women are the ones punished.
Exceptions to the trend aren't rare. But that doesn't change the trend.
Pretty much everything revolves around child custody. The normal rule is that a woman will get custody even if she's on drugs and every kind of abusive, but I have also seen fit and working bio-mothers lose custody to druggie abusive households as well.
Basically the family court is a protection racket.
Generally, it seems to me, when the father gets custody it is not viewed as punishment to the women. They usually don’t want custody anyhow and that’s why the man gets the children.
Tl;dr: in a gutter fight like a divorce, being the one living in the gutter helps.
My thought?
Still fucked up unless there's more to it.
He cheated now there's a divorce and he gets paid?
Women wanted no-fault divorce, so they can soak their ex while playing with their new dicks. Reap what you sow, princesses.
Absolutely True and perfectly fair too. They wanted this and pushed for it and got it and it occasionally backfires in their face (Brittney Spears is another example, from what I gather).
These reverse alimony / payout cases need to become far, far more common if there's to be any chance of reform.
Is that like reverse racism, or reverse sexism?
'Reverse' means nothing.
A better term would be, "the shoe is on the other foot now."
No honey...
People wanted no fault divorce so that they could escape shitty marriages without needing the government/churches approval...
It's a matter of personal/individual freedom.
Then why do we need the government's approval to get married in the first place? (Marriage licenses)
How about we just get the government out of marriages entirely and leave it entirely between the Church/Mosque/Buddhist temple because those are the terms that the couple agreed to within their respective faiths. For non-believer/secular individuals, you guys can use the state.
Having a blanket of everyone having to conform to the secular government's view of marriage doesn't sound very free to me.
Having the rules potentially changed mid marriage does not tickle my freedom bone either.
They wouldn't be. The couple that adhere to the faith would have their marriage and divorce solved by their respective faiths. All customs, courtesies, expectations of behavior, and who gets what at the end of divorce and for what circumstances would be outlined from the beginning. I think your views on faith based marriage has been polluted by the main stream media. If you actually do research on what the faiths actually believe in, you would understand.
No, I was talking about government defined marriages.
I'm thinking of one religion alone that gets this treatment in the present day, and not one I'd want to join.
just freedom of contract. no states, no churches, only whoever you want.
Government approval basically only is in place when it comes to one's ability to cognitively consent to a marriage...so, for example, children can't cognitively consent to marriage...so government helps to protects the children from being sold into domestic and sexual slavery.
Other than that... government is involved in marriage because family members have certain rights that non family members do not...for example, one's next of kin often has power of attorney over an individual who has fallen too ill to make decisions for oneself...now...do you want the person who spends every day with you and sleeps next to you to make medical decisions for you in a time of need? Or do you want your 3rd cousin twice removed who you have never met to make medical decisions for you? Do you want your lover to be able to legally visit you in the hospital is you are sick?
Because Kings were the defender of the faith, having received their crown by Divine Right. They codified Catholic norms, as the rulers of the material realm (houses, and muh stuff). There were NO Mosques/Buddhist/Hindu Temples until the last 50 years or less -- about the time Third Wave Feminism started...hmmm. Ronald Reagan advocated No Fault divorce. There were plenty of miserable men STUCK with shrews, nags, bitches, and frigid women. Seemed like a good idea at the time. Women by in large weren't thots and the hive kept a code of conduct on women.
The Hive kept a code of conduct on men too. Your status, career, business in genteel society was destroyed for misconduct, not that it didn't happen. Male cheating was harder because the hive kept women in check. Hard to cheat if there are few thots and regular women were either repressed, wary, or advocates of Victorian morals. Pressure was immense on men to get married lest they be considered gay, hurting their career prospects. An actress with nude photos received lots of tsks tsks in the 1980s media, and usually meant her career was over. As a boy in the early 1980s, I remember a family who was a Pillar of the Community. The father on occasion read a scripture at church; he was a school principal. He got caught by an undercover cop with his dick exposed at a porn theater. At church, I can recall the look of pained embarrassment of his wife and his two sons, one my age. They were no longer jovial. A couple of months later they moved to the other side of the state.
Wait a minute, were all women Not Like That in the mid 20th century?
Adultery was a fault, and proving adultery was less costly than defending yourself against a modern false accusation. Justice is a luxury.
Marriage trapped men in 1900. It's not that women were NAWALT, but rather the Hive and church was on hyperdrive to prevent it. Marriage occurred early to prevent people from exploding. Plus we died earlier. Women were more docile/beta and that kept them in their place. Catholic guilt. Victorian represson. Protestant shame. Women made other women prudish. I remember reading an Ann Landers advice column from late 70s where the chick asked about how she should undress on her wedding day as her fiancee never saw her nude (not everyone was a hippie). Landers said to get undress under the covers. Today's bride would ask if she should have BBC during her Honey Moon or wait a few months. Today marriage screws men differently. We Redpillers spend our time grappling with today's current nightmare -- the upside is there are more sex partners if you have game. The Hive has always been hostile to us. The Blue Pill promised us that we'd have a nice little wifey as a loyal companion, some kids to carry the family lineage, and vast majority of men historically accepted it as part and parcel of building civilization.
Lol is that a serious question?
You don't need government approval for marriage. Who said otherwise? What is this, 1930?
If you want to claim the benefits given to married couples by the government, then it's best you register your license. Even if you still a unmarried couple, you still have limited rights in many states.
Government wants more married couples as they are reliable tax payers and because of it, they provide incentives for more marriage.
Fault-divorce was a massive deregulation of "the church says no."
No-fault-divorce means the court no longer works like civil or criminal court, but rather works more like Lenin's redistribution squad - making sure nobody is too rich when there's poor people around.
In fault divorce, you win if you're right. In no fault divorce, you win if the court's prefab script likes you better.
No fault divorce simply removes antiquated religious fairy tale beliefs from legal/state/government proceedings...and keeps the government from telling a person whether or not they must remain within a legal partnership with another person.
Human beings have a right to autonomy, and no fault divorce comes with that right to self determination.
Ahhh yes aka womyn: avoid accountability and responsibility at all cost
And honey? That’s really sexist reeeeeeeeeeeee
yawn
Men wanted no fault divorce too.
I'll tell you what, buttercup. We can keep it super easy for anyone to get divorced, but if someone can prove adultery to the court, the offending person will see their settlement and potential alimony severely impaired. Naturally, this would be applied equally to men and women--we want to be fair, yes? How's that sound?
Oh wait. Icky consequences. No female wants those.
0.0001/10. Learn how to troll.
Did I argue anything about adultry and cheating?
Nope...I didn't sweet pea...
So take your assumptions elsewhere.
;)
Answer the question, asswipe.
No, it's not fair. This shouldn't happen.
The point is, it happens at men's disadvantage all the time and nobody says anything. Happens to a woman once and people actually call it what it is.
The point is that women wanted these rules, now they should get soundly fucked by them.
I hope she was a feminist. lol
If she truly was a feminist it would be a major loss for her as far as equality goes, she's getting out of a shitty marriage for a lump sum where as men are left footing a infinite bill based on life earnings.
if she wasn't then she is now lol
This thread will bring out women hating incels lurking on here. I don’t think he should be entitled to her bonuses nor her if the roles were reversed.
No kidding. This shit is poisonous regardless of gender, the focus and horror is in the theft veiled with legality. You're still basically stealing someone's money because you dicked them/got dicked by them.
In other words, the whole system is corrupt?
The tricky part is doing anything about it.
I'm just still trying to understand why you get to have the other person's money in a divorce. Property can make sense because that's dodgy and I don't want to even get into kids, but most married couples still have their own separate bank accounts. They have their individual money.
The kids. "Alimony" is an obsolete concept except in niche cases; now it's "child support." Meet the new boss.
Laws vary from place to place (shock!) but to my understanding money is not community property.
The big shit-pit usually comes when the judge is planning out how the children's future is going to go. In their infinite wisdom and benevolence, the courts generally pre-decide that they will live with only mommy and her friend of the the day. With this comes an obligation to continue providing for the children, which are legally the ex-husband's children regardless of DNA. Legends speak of a limited ability to contest paternity despite marriage, but the government has its own interest in sticking SOMEBODY with the bill.
None of us do. Most likely those evil divorce lawyers saw an opportunity somewhere and took advantage of it.
I remember Chris Rock talking about his divorce once. His ex wife didn't even want anything other than filing the paperwork, but the lawyers got into her ear convincing her to take more than she wanted and needed.
Like Shakespeare wrote, if you want a just society start by hanging all the lawyers.
I completely disagree with this...
People deserve representation in a court of law...the average human being understands very little about the law and legal procedures...
It's just another example of division of labor which has allowed human beings to flourish.
You underestimate people and overestimate lawyers. Most of a divorce, especially without children in a no-fault state, is just the listing of assets and debts. This is not really any different than filing your own taxes. And I am quite sure there would be a Quicken product for it were it not for one reason: you need a lawyer to respond to the other lawyer. Why? Because without one, the other lawyer is very likely trying to screw you so the only thing that requires a lawyer is the presence of another lawyer, the more of them she has, the more you need just to keep up with paperwork. They're like evil tribbles with access to your credit cards.
In practice, the opposing lawyers are like Mario Kart racers constantly throwing projectile weapons at each other.
In family law it ALL hinges on child custody. If you don't have custody, then your status as a doctor / lawyer / contractor will be threatened any time the court wants more money than you've got. When's that? Whenever they feel like it. How to get custody? Show up with twice as big a lawyer as the one your spouse brought.
When lawyers win, they get rich by taking a cut of their clients' windfalls. When lawyers lose, they go bankrupt with their clients and their wives leave them torching everything on the way out. Just because you have a lawyer doesn't mean you have a winning lawyer.
Ironically enough, I would call winning or losing in a courthouse about as close to wild nature as modern civilization gets. Winning means eating.
More like - I'm aware of the fact that many people do not actually understand many aspects of the law and legal proceedings.
There are people in every profession who are assholes and take advantage of others...lawyers just get a bad reputation because usually in every legal battle there is a loser...and losers are pissed at everyone who worked against their own cause...
Did she know what she was getting herself into when getting married? If so he of course is entitled to all of that. If she didn't: ignorance it not an excuse and he of course is entitled to all of that.
tl;dr: It's your own fault if you make retarded life choices.
Eh, I think the laws should be radically changed each party walks away clean but that’s not the world we live in so..... sucks to be her. Maybe men coming out ahead like this will start that change. Divorce should be easier.
Thousands of men get butt fucked daily in divorced. Lives ruined. One woman has to give a fifth of her bonus to her man and everyone on TRP is saying it's unfair.
What. The. Fuck. Is. Going. On?
Oh, absolutely. The incels here are our problem, so report to the mods when you see them. The point was calling out hypocrisy, not laughing or saying this situation is good. It's like racism; denying it exists because "colorblind" is stupid, countering it with more in the opposite direction is evil, but there's nothing wrong with consistently calling it out regardless of the parties involved.
It varies by jurisdiction but the usual general principle is that if they were married then the assets that accrue to the couple during the marriage are equally theirs.
Upon dissolution the court makes an attempt to determine how much of the outstanding assets can be ascribed to the period of the marriage itself, and then divide them up.
There's of course a lot more to it than that, and nuance and variations on this theme. But that's the core basic premise that essentially underpins every divorce. That shouldn't be surprising at all.
The likely example of bias here is the variation between the actual result and what would be implied by a 50/50 split. If you're talking about 10 million in income during the marriage and he's walking with 2 then it's actually quite likely that he's being severely punished, for cheating, or for being male, or for not being the breadwinner, or something.
Given the tiny amount of information you've given the number actually looks low.
People talk about love but from the perspective of the state marriage and divorce are economic in nature. Anyone who seeks to actually understand those topics would be wise to start with that principle in mind.
I don't know that 2 million seems low percentagewise.
Yeah, she made 10, but then they paid tax on it and how much you wanna bet they spent a bunch? Having 4 in the bank and him getting two seems plausible.
Money is not community property; at least not any place I've been.
The money typically comes from the idea that a divorced spouse has the right to continue their standard of living the way it was (what utter pigshit.) I can see that as a punishment for an entirely-at-fault wage earner, but when your spouse cheats on YOU and then ditches YOU this seems like it's more than just a little bit unfair that YOU should part with your future incomes to support the other side's expensive habits. No fault just means innocent or guilty makes no difference.
shouldn't it be half the assets? or did they spend 6M?
Damn son where'd you get this?
He ain't lucky.
The bitch was rich. Of course she had to pay. It's usually the other way around because women are usually too lazy to put in the work to make bank.
I'd expect as more women out earn soy fattened loser betas (Thanks Affirmative Action!) that the laws regarding alimony and no fault divorce have provisions that preclude unilateral interpretation.
Women allowed to cheat and get half.
Men punished for same and alimony capped
A judge is like a sea captain; nobody understands how much power they have until they feel it in their colon.
Expect the future of rulings to look a lot like the future of judges. If the past 10 years are any indication, just don't get married.
He got the house! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5243913/Wealthy-trader-says-husband-won-lottery-cheating.html
// , Well, now we have an example to point out to people and say, "So you think it's fair if it's done to men, why not to women?"
Sometimes it takes a little concrete role reversal to make hypocrisy like this obvious.
"The wealthy trader, who earned an eye-watering £10.5million in bonuses during their marriage, said the principle that assets should be shared equally in these circumstances was unjust."
So now a woman doesn't like what all women were doing normally till today, getting half of something they didn't produce.
The problem is that this single rare example will be held up as an example of how everything is fair and nothing is biased against men... conveniently ignoring that it's exceptionally rare for a woman to marry a man who is her financial inferior.
This is honestly so heart warming to see men actually treated like humans in divorce court.
I ain't gonna lie.
I have such a shit eating grin right now.
I love karmic justice
The only way to reforming the family law system in the west is if both sides feel pain. Right now, its still primarily the man that gets screwed over - one win for the good guys doesn't mean anything. We should be celebrating this victory, not denigrating it, as it means the step to equality has been taken
That’s why I own no assets in my name and legally only earn €1 a year: 😂😂😂 who remembers the dumb fag that wrote something along the lines of the above and it got that lawyer to write several posts about hedge funds and trusts etcs
Only reason I would ever get married would be if she makes way more money than I do or will inherit a lot of money soon, just so I can cut loose in the green when shit goes downhill
You should never marry below your wealth class. Every man who ever got stung is a fucking idiot.
The laws themselves were written in a gender neutral language. They are to be applied equally to men and women as dictated by the situation.
The laws that were written were chosen to be written based on known tendencies to act along gender lines. A man can benefit as much as a women, if only he'll make himself like a woman.
As your example illustrates, she the ambitious go getter. He's the tag along content to let her do all the work while he goes out and plays. He made himself a woman, he was rewarded accordingly.
Women want equal rights but think they deserve everything. Fuck them bitches man!!!They praise Janet Jackson for getting 40 million a year from her Arab husband she divorce after purposely having a kid with him. Then talk shit about Mary J Blige ex husband for wanting more from their divorce. All these bitches are Scandalous!!!!
At this point the courts have completely eviscerated the whatever moral basis for marriage that once existed, so why even bother anymore?
I still find this to be horseshit.
But at least it's fair and equal horseshit. If guys get divorce raped then women should too. Baby steps.
A great example why if you do get married you should marry a women with a good job or business.
Normally we'd all be on the woman who was cheated on side. But we all know why we aren't. Women ignore similar Situations that happen to men
There is some shaudenfraude here but we have this one guy as against how many women who have ridden that pony?
I spent several years as a divorce lawyer (and stupid me, I might go back) but fault based divorce always struck me as more intelligent.
It seems to me that no-fault divorce was a feminists invention to let women draw resources from me, although as this case illustrates, there are some time when the man can score.
Hurrah for male equality! These rules feel so outdated, but the law doesn't change as fast as society, unfortunately.
Good, personally I hate it either way, but at least maybe this will bring attention to the stupid women who do it and get rid of the practice completely
this is truely the worrying factor. the wife is saying the system must change because its not fair, no where does she even contemplate it hasn't been fair on all men who over the decades this has been used to divorce rape.
It will change, but just like rape can only be committed by men on women crime, divorce rape will become exclusively a women on men action.
No bonus points for not having a child (or couple) then the father get the childcare + alimonies.
edit: and still £2M, is a big sum, yes, but those 2M aren't hers 50%, just ~20%.
Whenever it is the other way around the blabla is on this page boy. My sympathies are with the working woman, not her poor slut of a husband. Cheering for this guy signals to me you have a clouded, uncertain mind. But thanks for lifting the issue, I feel now more than ever that society is degenerating as regards to the balance between male and female "energy"
If it had been the other way around, the wife would have received at least £5MILLION, probably much, much more.
So no, this isn't the opposite of what we usually hear. It's exactly what we usually hear: that men get shafted in divorce proceedings.
The law is relatively impartial, the wealthy partner will end up paying off the poorer partner regardless of their sex - she's hardly the first wealthy woman to pay a divorce settlement to a poorer man.
What usually complicates things is having children. The woman usually gets the children and therefore (quite rightly) gets a larger share of the assets. In the rare cases of the man getting the children, he'll get a larger share of the assets (also quite rightly).
There's definitely an argument for more men getting custody of their kids, as well as reform of visitation rights and so forth, but the law as it stands for childless couples is applied fairly.
Technically, the laws are gender neutral, referring to the "high-earner" paying the "lower-earner", but in practice, it's normally men who pay women, because women usually fancy a man who makes more than her.
It's funny how when the tables are turned, as sometimes happens because the laws are gender neutral, everyone complained how "unfair" the woman got treated.
Why only 2m? Shouldn't he get half?
Bastard didn't deserve anything.
You're right, he didn't. As nice as it is to see a female get divorce raped for once, he didn't deserve anything, and this kind of publicity will only fuel the feminist fire.
He didn't deserve anything? Why? Because he cheated? What about all the millions of women who ruin men in divorces where they cheated and in return are rewarded? The cheating doesn't mean anything anymore when one side doesn't play by the rules and gets rewarded for it.
Good for the guy for not sticking around in a dead bedroom like a good puppy and getting some pussy. And good for him taking some of her money. She could be the nicest woman in the world, doesn't matter, she owes him money and he deserved every last penny because they got married and that's how divorces work.
Blue pill morality is taking over this sub. It's shocking.
Alimony is bullshit, no matter who gets the money. He doesn't deserve a penny, just like females divorce raping their husbands don't deserve a penny.
This is hardly a revelation. No one gave a shit until it starts affecting women.
It’s not feminism when majority of women don’t agree with it. It’s fake feminism. He deserved more probably and got less. Whoever earns more ends up giving to the one who makes less. Marriage = 50:50 share
There's a difference between what someone truly deserves and what they legally deserve. He legally deserved half, but was probably fine with settling with 2 million as that is more than enough to live off of. He truly doesn't deserve a damn penny because he didn't earn that money himself.
Well yea, we could say that for any kind of money exchange AFAIK if you didn’t earn the money yourself.
No, because those are consensual transactions. Alimony is a court telling you that you have no choice but to give someone money.
If you have to steal someone else's hard earned money just becuase you fucked them, you are a piece of shit. This guy isn't a hero, he's just a male version of everything RP warns against. Go to work and earn your shit, better yourself.
The idea that capitalism is a meritocracy is the totally blue pill "American Dream" fantasy. TRP propagates this delusion in the name of stoicism and self-reliance as a just credo for men to follow, but that's not the way the world works.
People who believe these lies tend to believe Trump earned his fortunes fair and square, despite being given a $200M investment as a graduation present. Most rich people are that way due to inheriting their money or having other rich people in their immediate circle of friends and family invest in their success.
It is a meritocracy. If you can't afford anything you want, it's becuase of your own weak mind and failed ambitions. This whole "I can never make my own money becuase i grew up poor" is a horse shit argument. Go to school, be good at what you do, make more money than the majority of people. It's not that hard. Are you going to tell me you're fat because of genetics next?
AHH the brain washed blue pill.
Hmm, so you think only ambitious and wealthy people are strong minded. You should try coming out of your comfort zone more.
Maybe visit a few rural areas and see what happens when you decide to call the people there weak minded :)
A small personal story. Back when I took the bar exam, one of the essay questions was a divorce. It was a very simple fact pattern, particularly for a bar exam question. The only item of any interest was the "typical" genders were reversed, with the woman earning much, much more than the man.
Legally, it made zero difference. I just did the normal, simple, uncomplicated analysis. Man gets paid, no problem. But I walked out convinced that I would score better on the question than many because there would be people unable to write down the correct answer due to their prejudice.
I'm still convinced I was correct in my assumption.
If the genders were reversed and even if they aren't I don't support cheaters getting money.
But that doesen't stop me from enjoying the schadenfreude when morons that want to take other people's money shoot themselves in the foot.
laws like these are put in place to help women at the expense of men, but the language of the law can't fully reflect that. they still need to have plausible deniability.
and so, from time to time, people(courts) who are just trying to follow the rules run into a case like this, go through the motions and end with the woman getting destroyed. the ruling is of course completely unfair, but it's designed that way because normally it's the man getting destroyed. that's why they will hardly discuss changing the law at all. it's so rare that it works out in his favor that it's important to keep it and then use a single serving of outrage for one specific case at a time, least many women not get their fair share.
A large group of illogical people are capable of almost anything.
I believe the perfect way would be to have 1) mandatory shared custody on any case, ok this is not the case but I write it anyway. 2) no payment whatsoever simply you get back to whom you were before signing the contract.
Probably a good thing, this should finally get the convo going. The fire rises. I can sense change coming sson.
This seems wrong. It doesn't matter what the genders are.
Threads like this make realise how many losers dwell here.
“I know never to get married” , you don’t know squat. This sub is retarded.