NZ stay-at-home mom wins 70% of assets in divorce

5th_Law_of_Robotics · 2013-10-07T16:47:21+00:00

A Wellington woman who gave up her career to support her family has won 70 percent of the money from the fallout of her marriage in a landmark case expected to change the face of divorce settlements in this country.

From "biased against men" to "extremely biased against men".

Hurray progress!

"From a realistic perspective it is abundantly clear that the [wife's] lifestyle in the future will be substantially reduced when compared with the potential lifestyle available to the [husband]."

Fortunately, due to the Patriarchy, his lifestyle won't be at all reduced despite now having on 30% of what he did before.

Feminist math.

IameAuhSomme · 2013-10-07T12:57:25+00:00

mine won 80% ...she serially cheated on me and lied about it. i live in the UK.

Lawtonfogle · 2013-10-07T14:07:38+00:00

as a future doctor, i'm fucking disgusted

never

get

married

carchamp1 · 2013-10-07T16:22:54+00:00

This happens in the U.S. also guys. In fact, most husbands married to housewives are broke. They may not realize it, but they're broke, nonetheless. If you add up the net worth take by these women, which can be 70% (if you get off with 50% you're lucky), plus the various spousal support arrangements (alimony, "child" support, etc.), breadwinners are perpetually in the red.

And, BTW, this isn't going to change anytime soon. The only way to avoid this slavery (yes, I wrote slavery) is to avoid marriage and children. Any thoughts of "family" for men is a mirage. It can disappear at any time.

carchamp1 · 2013-10-07T14:31:26+00:00

But she created this kind of lifestyle by her support

Yeah, she, not her husband can take all credit for his hard work and success. I'm sure he couldn't have done it without her.

Macdaddy357 · 2013-10-07T22:01:09+00:00

Yet another country where a man is nothing but a wallet to be picked clean.

mrwhibbley · 2013-10-08T01:07:33+00:00

So she is 54, married 28 years. Got married at 26 years old. She had two children, lets assume 2 years apart. Sp the youngest at the time of the divorce is 24 years old. She could have been working for the previous 10 years prior to the divorce. It is unfortunate that her husband was a scumbag douche that cant keep it in his pants, but the award should not set a precedence by any means. Her career was impacted for maybe 12 years. After that, she enjoyed the fruits of his labor and education. I cant imagine she was unaware of his numerous affairs, but kept quiet for the benefits of having a million dollar a year husband.

super_poderosa · 2013-10-07T17:22:16+00:00

Oddly enough, I see this as pretty fair. I'm married, and my wife and I both went to college. Toward the end, we had a child. We, together, decided that she would stay home with our kids and that I would go and make money. She has held down the household and I've gotten a lot better at making money. If we were to split, for whatever reason, I believe it would be fair that she gets more of the common assets than I do. Because of her support, I'm very good at making money now. She's no good at making money, because she was doing something else in our relationship. Now, I don't know if I like a judge telling us that's what we HAVE to do, but if I were to split with her right now I think I'd give her everything and call it fair. Situations like ours are what alimony was built for though, I also think it's fair that I continue to support her for a few years while she adjusts to a new economic reality.

2013-10-08T03:12:16+00:00

Sadly... the only way to fix this is to insist that all parties in a marriage work.

ruboos · 2013-10-08T00:01:08+00:00

70% is definitely excessive. And yes, he was the one doing the work outside of the home in their marriage. However, considering her age, and the fact that she sacrificed her career to care for their kids, she should be awarded some of their property. Whether that amounts to cash, or property, I get it. I just finished with my own divorce, and while I was pissed about my ex getting anything, I completely understand it. I was the one with the income, and she was the one home with the kids. We traded roles once for about 6 months while I was taking a break from classes, but her income didn't amount to much then. Even though her idea of child care was essentially just being there to make sure they didn't hurt themselves, basically a babysitter, I do understand the concept of shared property. It's shitty, but it's just a legal contract.

SindbadTheSailorMan · 2013-10-08T03:36:02+00:00

I don't mean to cause any offence, but what does the acronym NZ stand for?

CosmicKeys · 2013-10-08T09:30:42+00:00

A lot of people in here are flailing the "DON'T GET MARRIED" and "PRE-NUPS ARE USELESS" flags but that's missing a larger point.

In NZ, if you are in a long term relationship deemed serious by the courts (i.e. is longer than 3 years), it doesn't matter whether you're married or not. They'll still get half your assets.

http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/family-court/what-family-court-does/property#fc4

So yes, pre-nups are a good idea. A better idea? Pick your long term partners carefully, look for someone who will care for you and not your money. And don't be a cheating asshole, that goes for both genders.

2013-10-08T12:36:18+00:00

I really don't see why it's not just a 50/50 split.

I also don't see why people get married.

Reus958 · 2013-10-08T17:31:22+00:00

I actually think it was fair to split the assets slightly in favor of the woman. The reason being is that she gave up her career. I believe divorce should result in a 50-50 split, because both people should be all-in to the marriage. I do come from a background where I think responsibilities should be split 50-50 within a marriage. If one of the partners decides not to work, for example, they should do as much housekeeping as the other works, and then any remainder is split beyond that.

kaosethema · 2013-10-09T21:38:00+00:00

Not seeing a problem with this. Woman gave up her job to support her husband. What do most of you think she can do at 54?

iMADEthis2post · 2013-10-07T13:29:27+00:00

I'm not really sure how I feel about this one. There is reason behind the argument however at her age and the amount of money involved it seems a little pathetic, half would half been more than enough to start a pretty comfortable new life etc.

At the same time, if he is earning around 1,000,000 a year. I'm not sure why he is that fucked about the whole thing.

I'm also kind of wondering if he is earning that much, why do their assets only come in at around 2 million, it suggests to me that the income is not stable and thus very misleading or they have lived a very opulent lifestyle.

There is probably more to this than is currently divulged in that article and I'd have to know more to comment on it really.

2013-10-07T22:18:40+00:00

THIS is why you get prenups.

pgyt · 2013-10-07T13:21:40+00:00

Pre-nups, guys.

carchamp1 · 2013-10-07T17:52:55+00:00

The real winners here are the lawyers.

meliasaurus · 2013-10-07T13:05:43+00:00

I would say 50% max would be reasonable, because, well, she stayed at home takign care of the children and supported her husband. Sacrificing her carreer (ok, she was a nurse, cant really call that a carreer, but still). Im shure many you of will disagree, but thats my personal opinion. But 70%? Wow. Just wow.

Furthermore, something that would interest me greatly is the amount of child support/alimony she gets if any.

Jazzeki · 2013-10-07T15:32:03+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Title	NZ stay-at-home mom wins 70% of assets in divorce
Author	nick012000
Upvotes	222
Comments	166
Date	October 7, 2013 11:56 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1nwkcw/nz_stayathome_mom_wins_70_of_assets_in_divorce/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/nz-stay-at-home-mom-wins-70-of-assets-in-divorce.1161919 https://theredarchive.com/post/1161919

Comments