# Divorce buggers Money Management



## Garpal Gumnut (13 September 2009)

I've arrived home tonight to find the house stripped of all furniture , our joint accounts zeroed and a rather disparaging note from the fourth Mrs Gumnut.

Luckily I have a poly pipe full of cash and other contraband well buried.

I am on first name terms with my Family Law Lawyer, called her and she gave me the same advice as before. 

All the Mrs Gumnuts seem to have had a dream run, they arrive with very little in assets apart from that which god gave them, and leave with a large hunk of my fortune.

Its all very well in a bull market, but if we were to go into a bear again,  it buggers up your money management and stop losses.

Any advice would be welcome.

Can I plead the recent bear market for giving the 4th less than the 3rd.


gg


----------



## Absolutely (13 September 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I've arrived home tonight to find the house stripped of all furniture , our joint accounts zeroed and a rather disparaging note from the fourth Mrs Gumnut.
> 
> Luckily I have a poly pipe full of cash and other contraband well buried.
> 
> ...




Sympathies GG if you feel you need them.

I've been through it once and it unquestionably buggers up finances. Three and a half years on and $100K of legal bills later, only now can I see light at the end of the poverty tunnel.

If you have been through this three times and have managed to stay somewhat solvent, it gives me confidence that I too will eventually fully recover.

Good luck, I hope it works out.


----------



## nunthewiser (13 September 2009)

may i suggest a good escort service rather than getting married every 15 minutes m8? .........be a lot cheaper in the long run and so much easier to replace


----------



## Solly (13 September 2009)

gg, mate your plight has hit the headlines.

*Open door policy batters GG's lawn*

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26066685-29277,00.html


----------



## nunthewiser (13 September 2009)

planB 

hire a cunning Nun to plant allsorts of incriminating evidence on former mrs GG whilst also having a few sordid sex sessions which i will more than happy to video so you have a whole armoury of bad laundry to hang on her when it comes to court time ..hey you might even be eligible for a compensation payment ! 

rates are negotiable


----------



## tech/a (13 September 2009)

Change Lawyer!
Trusts
Prenups
Take Nuns advice--and from a nun no less!
The first not the second piece of advice.

Marry into wealth!
Get over kids even hers!


----------



## erasmus (13 September 2009)

Maybe start with a  marriage counselor,your track record demands nothing less.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 September 2009)

erasmus said:


> Maybe start with a  marriage counselor,your track record demands nothing less.




The last or nearly the last , the 4th that is, is a trickcyclist, so don't tell me about bloody counselling or any **** like that.

gg


----------



## Kryzz (13 September 2009)

as long as you still have the arnage gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 September 2009)

Solly said:


> gg, mate your plight has hit the headlines.
> 
> *Open door policy batters GG's lawn*
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26066685-29277,00.html




Thanks mate. I'm going for celibacy for a few days. I'm hurt.

gg


----------



## explod (13 September 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The last or nearly the last , the 4th that is, is a trickcyclist, so don't tell me about bloody counselling or any **** like that.
> 
> gg




Garpal, you are better than I.   My number third is going ok after 11 years.  Fortunately we were both loaded up reasonable with about the same amount.  Most of our dough is tied up in the d/i/y SMSF, so cant think at what the mess would be if we split, so maybe we wont.

Trouble is us blokes need all the comforts which includes pillow talk.  Therein lies the problem.  I have fantasized that if it did blow again I would never again.  Would perhaps try to get a female on her own and we could (on agreement) just have visits.

Your situation is a bit sudden and a bit of a shock but on rumination will see if I can come up with some solutions for our type after a sleep on it.

But we both know you will survive and better times are ahead.

cheers explod


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 September 2009)

Kryzz said:


> as long as you still have the arnage gg




thanks mate, still have it.

gg



explod said:


> Garpal, you are better than I.   My number third is going ok after 11 years.  Fortunately we were both loaded up reasonable with about the same amount.  Most of our dough is tied up in the d/i/y SMSF, so cant think at what the mess would be if we split, so maybe we wont.
> 
> Trouble is us blokes need all the comforts which includes pillow talk.  Therein lies the problem.  I have fantasized that if it did blow again I would never again.  Would perhaps try to get a female on her own and we could (on agreement) just have visits.
> 
> ...




thanks mate 

gg


----------



## So_Cynical (13 September 2009)

Sorry to hear of your plight GG...ive been divorced almost 2 years, only the one wife...don't know how u guys can do it 3 or 4 or more times.

I find i just cant believe in any woman now..there all shallow and one dimensional and or menopausal...perhaps GG u can find happiness in bachelorhood.


----------



## overit (13 September 2009)

Now I know why MR Neil Dando from the other thread is so petrified of women! Maybe he is the lucky one!


----------



## MrBurns (13 September 2009)

I posted this in the Williams Sisters thread but transferring it to here.

I just recently decided I'm not looking any more, I'm sick of the hastles, the moods, all the crap and for what ?

I'm going to fill my life with fast cars, a full bar and travel.

I didn't think of that as an option before but now I feel more at peace.

Either I make bad choices or women are just selfish people who want you in the good times and conveniently lose interest when it suits them, I really don't want to believe that but I'm not going back for more, as someone mentioned, it's probably smarter the hire them by the hour.

Advice ? Dont leave the house, the courts give the house to the one who is in possession.

Get legal advice on how to hide as much as possible, if it's not too late.

Furniture gone, accounts zeroed ? Maybe the police should know about this theft.

Don't worry mate there's plenty of support in here for you.


----------



## nunthewiser (13 September 2009)

im a bloke 

i love women

im reading lots about how mean and bad women are in here 

have you ever considered maybe its YOU that are the selfish ones ?. maybe its YOU that keep driving them away with chauvanistic and small minded behaviour ? maybe YOU never made the effort to make things work ?perhaps YOUR needs were always more important than theres ?

i dunno im probably wrong and yeah its all there fault ... 

no offense intended of course


----------



## Mr J (13 September 2009)

Funny what you guys say about women, as out there are a whole lot of women complaining about never finding a good guy. Maybe you lot should hook up.



> I find i just cant believe in any woman now..there all shallow and one dimensional and or menopausal




Seems you just don't have luck landing nice girls. There are plenty of nice girls out there.


----------



## MrBurns (13 September 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> im a bloke
> 
> i love women
> 
> ...




I love women too, but maybe I go for the wrong ones, some people just do that, gg looks like he's one of them.

Did I ever consider it's my fault ? Naaa I'm great.


----------



## Mr J (13 September 2009)

You might be great, you just might have flawed taste. For example, I like nice girls, and dislike sharks and party girls (at least spending any unreasonable amount of time with them).


----------



## MrBurns (13 September 2009)

Mr J said:


> You might be great, you just might have flawed taste. For example, I like nice girls, and dislike sharks and party girls (at least spending any unreasonable amount of time with them).




Once I see a pretty face I'm gone, dont look further, idiot.

Just a bloke I guess.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 September 2009)

MrBurns said:


> I posted this in the Williams Sisters thread but transferring it to here.
> 
> I just recently decided I'm not looking any more, I'm sick of the hastles, the moods, all the crap and for what ?
> 
> ...




But in a funny way I still love her.

gg



nunthewiser said:


> im a bloke
> 
> i love women
> 
> ...




thanks mate.

I always lead with that part of my anatomy which is foremost, its served me well, but you are correct , maybe I need to be more circumspect.

gg



Mr J said:


> Funny what you guys say about women, as out there are a whole lot of women complaining about never finding a good guy. Maybe you lot should hook up.
> 
> 
> 
> Seems you just don't have luck landing nice girls. There are plenty of nice girls out there.




Mate there are not plenty of nice girls out there,

Women are just like us.

Red in tooth and claw.

gg



MrBurns said:


> I love women too, but maybe I go for the wrong ones, some people just do that, gg looks like he's one of them.
> 
> Did I ever consider it's my fault ? Naaa I'm great.



burnsie you disappoint me.

I'm hurtin.

gg



Mr J said:


> You might be great, you just might have flawed taste. For example, I like nice girls, and dislike sharks and party girls (at least spending any unreasonable amount of time with them).




I would totally disagree.

Many a shy flower at a party just blossoms.

gg


----------



## Julia (13 September 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> may i suggest a good escort service rather than getting married every 15 minutes m8? .........be a lot cheaper in the long run and so much easier to replace



This seems a sensible suggestion gg, if in fact you are not having us on.

If this is the fourth Mrs Gumnut now departed, might be time to reconsider some of your carousing and, um, extra curricular activities.   I expect Townsville is rather too small a place to keep secrets.

And, before you blokes feel too sorry for yourselves, plenty of us women have also been manipulated and cheated.

I'd never, ever, ever get married again, and to anyone doing it these days, I reckon you have to have a watertight pre-nup agreement.  Or, for that matter, even if you just decide to live together because I believe now all the same criteria apply, married or not.


----------



## trainspotter (13 September 2009)

Make sure the next one has big t1ts and her Dad owns a brewery ! *quickly looks over shoulder to see if Mrs TS is watching !*


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 September 2009)

Julia said:


> This seems a sensible suggestion gg, if in fact you are not having us on.
> 
> If this is the fourth Mrs Gumnut now departed, might be time to reconsider some of your carousing and, um, extra curricular activities.   I expect Townsville is rather too small a place to keep secrets.
> 
> ...




Thanks Julia, 

I have , as it would happen, been to a Green party meeting just two streets down from garpalmansion ( unless she the 4th gets it) , and have met a delightful young lady with quite radical ideas on global warming, the evils of capitalism and the need to have a sustainable etc. etc. 

It all makes sense

So a new chapter may be about to open for poor me.

gg

gg


----------



## MrBurns (13 September 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> burnsie you disappoint me.
> I'm hurtin.
> gg




Disappoint you ?
After 4 it might be reasonable that you may not choose wisely, like me.

You're hurting, men suffer more than women in these situations.

A mate of mines's marriage just broke up after 32 years, after 6 months she was shacked up with someone else in the same small country town, she told him that she married him because it was convenient at the time.

The local police took his guns away as a precaution, he's ok now, dating a few and enjoying his freedom but he was suicidal at first.


----------



## Julia (13 September 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Thanks Julia,
> 
> I have , as it would happen, been to a Green party meeting just two streets down from garpalmansion ( unless she the 4th gets it) , and have met a delightful young lady with quite radical ideas on global warming, the evils of capitalism and the need to have a sustainable etc. etc.
> 
> ...



Oh God, No. 4 has just left (unless you are indeed having a lend of us which I strongly suspect), and you're lining up the next one!

At least you could suggest to the potential No. 5 that, with her views about the evils of capitalism, she will not be at all interested in your possible financial attractiveness.


----------



## So_Cynical (13 September 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> im a bloke
> 
> i love women




I always just assumed u were Gay...of course u love women.



MrBurns said:


> A mate of mines's marriage just broke up after 32 years, after 6 months she was shacked up
> with someone else in the same small country town.




On my first trip to the Philippines i met a guy on the plane with a similar story...does your mate 
live on the north coast of NSW?


----------



## Mr J (13 September 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I would totally disagree.
> 
> Many a shy flower at a party just blossoms.




Sure, but nice girls who can party aren't what I refer to as "party girls". By nice girls, I don't mean quiet and shy types, I just mean girls that are genuine.


----------



## johnnyg (13 September 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Make sure the next one has big t1ts and her Dad owns a brewery ! *quickly looks over shoulder to see if Mrs TS is watching !*




Pictures or GTFO.


----------



## trainspotter (13 September 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> I always just assumed u were Gay...of course u love women.




Now that is so funny on too many different levels. Having met the Nun in his habit and skolling a few bourbons ... AHEM ... I mean drinking the holy water with his Holiness it was far from my mind that he would be batting for the other team !! LOLOL


----------



## nunthewiser (13 September 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> I always just assumed u were Gay... ?




hahahahah 

oh dear there are so many comments i could reply to that but i think i will just giggle quietly at what could of been 

thanks babe


----------



## trainspotter (13 September 2009)

I saw this in the local paper recently under the headline "MISSING"  ....... "Wife, dog and boat missing" .......... "Reward for dog and boat" and this "Wanted Woman who has a boat, must be able to clean fish, send photos of boat only to PO box ... " LMAO I think I read it in the Townsville Times? You advertising again GG?


----------



## noirua (13 September 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I've arrived home tonight to find the house stripped of all furniture , our joint accounts zeroed and a rather disparaging note from the fourth Mrs Gumnut.
> 
> Luckily I have a poly pipe full of cash and other contraband well buried.
> 
> ...




One of my distant relatives was sent in an iron ship from Ireland to Tasmania.  She had 10 children and one married three times, then disappeared and was never heard of again.
So stick your poly pipe in the tucker bag and set forth for pastures new.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 September 2009)

Julia said:


> This seems a sensible suggestion gg, if in fact you are not having us on.
> 
> If this is the fourth Mrs Gumnut now departed, might be time to reconsider some of your carousing and, um, extra curricular activities.   I expect Townsville is rather too small a place to keep secrets.
> 
> ...




Yes, agree Julia, but men feel pain more than women in these situations.

gg



trainspotter said:


> Make sure the next one has big t1ts and her Dad owns a brewery ! *quickly looks over shoulder to see if Mrs TS is watching !*




Her dad doesn't own a brewery.

gg



MrBurns said:


> Disappoint you ?
> After 4 it might be reasonable that you may not choose wisely, like me.
> 
> You're hurting, men suffer more than women in these situations.
> ...




Mate, **** happens, its all life experience. 

gg



Julia said:


> Oh God, No. 4 has just left (unless you are indeed having a lend of us which I strongly suspect), and you're lining up the next one!
> 
> At least you could suggest to the potential No. 5 that, with her views about the evils of capitalism, she will not be at all interested in your possible financial attractiveness.




She is independently wealthy, her old man is a mover and shaker in big things, her grandad was a CP politician and minister , but I'm into environment and sustainability now, so don't really care.

gg



Mr J said:


> Sure, but nice girls who can party aren't what I refer to as "party girls". By nice girls, I don't mean quiet and shy types, I just mean girls that are genuine.




goyles are goyles.

gg


----------



## DB008 (13 September 2009)

Putting assets into Trusts.
Seperate Bank accounts.


----------



## cuttlefish (13 September 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvtZTkl0qWg

GL GG


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 September 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvtZTkl0qWg
> 
> GL GG




wise mate.

very wise.

madly.

gg


----------



## Mr J (13 September 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Goyles are goyles.




Sure, and they come in a variety of sizes, shapes, and personalities.


----------



## cuttlefish (13 September 2009)

been listening to some Tom Waits after your recent post in another thread.

Bit 'o blues harp in this tune - not to everyone's taste but not an unknown aus band either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZlx5QJriBw&feature=related


----------



## nunthewiser (13 September 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> been listening to some Tom Waits after your recent post in another thread.
> 
> Bit 'o blues harp in this tune - not to everyone's taste but not an unknown aus band either.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZlx5QJriBw&feature=related




good song

is a BIG "chain" fan . got a few tunes dotted through the music thread here 

cheers


----------



## nunthewiser (14 September 2009)

lol heres a classic bit of ole johnny for those broken hearted out there 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq344ks1ieg


----------



## Bobby (14 September 2009)

Sorry to hear about your heartbreak GG , to have loved someone who now lets you down is a horrible feeling .
If I may give some advice when you are ready for the next , play down your wealth , be the average Joe  .

Have a mate who went over to Russia on the trip called ( * Meet Russian Brides* he was a bit burnt at the time, when the group met the Lady's in each city he asked through the interpreter  ~ one's he fancied ( I need to screw you to see if we are sexually compatible ) before any thoughts of marriage .
Well he did dip his wick all over Russia & came back as unhappy as he left .

Real Love has no comparison , do try again when the times right .


----------



## jono1887 (14 September 2009)

Sorry to hear about this GG... what proportion of your assets did she manage to get away with? wouldn't you be holding gold, bonds, stocks and various other asset classes which aren't so liquid and easy to take away??

But this is an interesting lesson for me.. i'll be very careful when i find someone to get married to..


----------



## gav (14 September 2009)

Bobby said:


> If I may give some advice when you are ready for the next , play down your wealth , be the average Joe  .




And here lies the problem.  If wealthy older men play down their wealth, what do they have to offer to the younger attractive woman (that they seem to go after)?  

Please note: This is just a passing comment, as I've seen this sort of thing happen numerous times.  It's certainly not directed at GG in anyway.  GG could have George Clooney looks for all I know! :


----------



## jono1887 (14 September 2009)

gav said:


> And here lies the problem.  If wealthy older men play down their wealth, what do they have to offer to the younger attractive woman (that they seem to go after)?
> 
> Please note: This is just a passing comment, as I've seen this sort of thing happen numerous times.  It's certainly not directed at GG in anyway.  GG could have George Clooney looks for all I know! :




not all people go for looks and money... there are some genuine people are there who are not so shallow. (well i hope so at least... im waiting out for one )


----------



## Bobby (14 September 2009)

gav said:


> And here lies the problem.  If wealthy older men play down their wealth, what do they have to offer to the younger attractive woman (that they seem to go after)?
> 
> Please note: This is just a passing comment, as I've seen this sort of thing happen numerous times.  It's certainly not directed at GG in anyway.  GG could have George Clooney looks for all I know! :




Gav , there good   looking females who are looking for just ok  men who are descent respectable humans .
Check this free site   http://www.australian-dating-guide.com/details/site100.html


----------



## gav (14 September 2009)

Bobby said:


> Gav , there good   looking females who are looking for just ok  men who are descent respectable humans .
> Check this free site   http://www.australian-dating-guide.com/details/site100.html




Thanks for the tip - but I wont be clicking the link as I have a gorgeous, sweet, intelligent partner who I adore.  In fact, reading this thread makes me realise how lucky I am...


----------



## Bobby (14 September 2009)

gav said:


> Thanks for the tip - but I wont be clicking the link as I have a gorgeous, sweet, intelligent partner who I adore.  In fact, reading this thread makes me realise how lucky I am...




You are a very lucky man then , lets hope that GG will be so in the near future, only problem is when having tasted such pain the natural reaction is to build that emotional wall .


----------



## Solly (14 September 2009)

gg, I had bit a problem with the exit of Sollette #4. Yep it was a bit messy but surprisingly, for some reason she didn't fight me over the Toyota Crown or my Dave Allen VHS collection. I was a bit cut up for a while especially after all the money I'd spent on her English lessons and cultural awareness classes.

I thought I'd found a stable cultured lifetime female companion, a step up from previous attempts with waitresses, pole dancers and short haul flight attendants. I suppose my work & life style are not the most congruous environment to live in. My industry and field of expertise has a high relationship failure rate. Yet I've now survived quite well and am very appreciative of the support Dr Lindeman offered during some rough days (and nights). Also you know the old saying "Time cures all with a bottle of Jack".

But I still feel a bit guilty about some of those early morning long phone calls I made to those understanding directory assistance lasses during the lonely periods of recovery. It's a bit harder to get a real girl now but keep persisting with the robotic voice, I find a deep broad north eastern European lisping accent often confuses the voice recognition software and you'll eventually get a real human, with a 70% confidence factor of ending up speaking with a girl. I'm very polite and now always ask how is the weather in Bangalore. 

Although I didn't come home to a denuded abode, this did happen to a mate of mine Tim, when his relationship soured with a trainee cheerleader from a now defunct coastal leagues club. Everything went that was movable, including the carpet tiles in the guest room ensuite, which we believe were all relocated to a mystery location somewhere west of Baulkham Hills just past Hillscam way. He still fondly recalls using his plastic camping shower until the bathroom fittings were replaced.  I don't believe it was all Tim's fault but he does have an unnatural attraction with the rock singer Nena, you know the 99 lufteballon chick, that may have contributed to the relationship's demise. Thank goodness the breakup didn't comprise his new identity gained courtesy of the witness protection program as a result of some minor involvement with truck stop and a 24 Hour Chemist with poor security. I've never thought it was prudent to asked him where that new Harley came from either. 

gg, my advice is to get back on the horse as soon as you can, there's plenty of lovely caring ladies willing to be seen in the companionship of an articulate, stately, worldly, educated gentleman as you. It's a pity you live so far away from where I am based, I would love to introduce you to some of my friends that frequent the "Boardie" on the weekend. 

There's one lovely semi-petite ex-long hauler named Nicki that I'm sure you hit it off with. She's been 48 hours sober, she's only got two more procedures of the laser tattoo removal treatment to go (and with a high neck collar you hardly notice anyway). She does mean pirouettes like Steve Nicks on the dance floor in piano bar and does a great bass air guitar impression of Suzi Quatro. Although her leathers are a big tight but hey that's what Tony Ferguson's for anyway. She's now not as feisty as she used to be but she did once restrain a juiced up front rower in Business Class all by herself after a misundestanding about responisble alcohol serving just before the aircraft diverted to Nadi. She still has the Tuff-Tie restraints mounted in a display case in her unit as testament to her nimbleness and sense of duty. 

If you'd  like to know more about her I'll see if she'll let me post her pic and contact details, although her mobile wont be reconnected til Thursday. 

Hang in there gg, it could be worse. Imagine if you'd also invested with Manny !!

I'm predicting a bull run with the ladies very soon.


----------



## nioka (14 September 2009)

Better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.


----------



## Prospector (14 September 2009)

Gosh GG, I am so sorry for the manner in which you found out about the separation.  No-one deserves to come home to such abandonment.  

I know that you are hurting right now, even though you started this as a financial kind of thread, but obviously it is all rather crappy for you right now.  

And indeed if this is true







Garpal Gumnut said:


> But in a funny way I still love her.



 I havent read any of your personal reflection/extra curricular stories, but if indeed your behaviours matched your emotions then I am very sorry for your loss. But, perhaps you need to think about whether the behaviours you demonstrated during your marriage indeed reflected that you understood what love in a marriage means.  Maybe she felt abandoned too, emotionally.  Just guessing from the other posts here.

Good on you Gav, hope that feeling remains as you traverse through the ups and downs that life brings.  Sometimes those feelings are all that you have left to hang on to, and even those get very strained at times.  

GG I hope that you will find someone who enjoys your company soon, but perhaps find someone who doesnt want or need the commitment that marriage requires.


----------



## MrBurns (14 September 2009)

Bobby said:


> Gav , there good   looking females who are looking for just ok  men who are descent respectable humans .
> Check this free site   http://www.australian-dating-guide.com/details/site100.html




Lucky bugger


----------



## moXJO (14 September 2009)

Hey GG if you miss that constant background whine or being bossed around you can borrow my wife. I will begin packing her bags in anticipation of your response.


----------



## awg (14 September 2009)

Hi GG

Sorry to hear

Obviously you probably dont want to go in depth on the forum, but if you have 4 failed marriages, is there a common thread to what went wrong.

you come across as someone who is interesting and intelligent, so I am sure u must have given it some thought.

problem is that most men need a female companion,loneliness is a hard thing to conquer, so the question is how to get involved with a good sort.

after 25 yrs with a wonderful woman, I feel blessed.

I think woman are the most highly refined of anything on the planet, nothing can compare to a really good one.

having seen various friends and family have not so good experiences, and the insight of my partner, who does much marital counselling, here is what i believe are pre-requisites.

1) must be kind hearted...any evidence of harshness or cruelty, forget it
2) similar intellectual capacity
3) matched sex drives
4) similar assets
5) know the person for long enough for initial chemistry to wear off

many might disagree and I could add more, I went through this mathematically with someone close recently, who was smart and wealthy, and we realised that just the above ruled out at least 99.5%

for a mature person, such a partner is mighty hard to find, they are usually long term partnered!

having said that, there is much to be imagined for the prospect of hunting the field, I mean there a BILLIONS of women out there..i need to stop now..

good luck


----------



## Zird (14 September 2009)




----------



## chrisgee (14 September 2009)

just read about your bad luck mr gg- hope it all works out for you


----------



## cuttlefish (14 September 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> good song
> 
> is a BIG "chain" fan . got a few tunes dotted through the music thread here
> 
> cheers




Yeah I'm a big fan as well, Matt Taylor's got to be one of the best blues harp players around - good raw blues.


----------



## Glen48 (14 September 2009)

Mate I am in a worse position just paid 4k for 2 acres on a river bank over seas and getting out of Australia for good on the 22 Oct to build a house for about another 5k and the bad news I am 59 and have to decide which 24yr to settle down with and wait until I can get my pension.
All the best, lot more to follow in your foot steps and with the Feminazi taking control most of you left are in trouble.
As Erroll Flynn said women are like Elephants good to look at but not to own


----------



## Mr J (14 September 2009)

Bobby said:


> Have a mate who went over to Russia on the trip called ( * Meet Russian Brides* he was a bit burnt at the time, when the group met the Lady's in each city he asked through the interpreter  ~ one's he fancied ( I need to screw you to see if we are sexually compatible ) before any thoughts of marriage .
> Well he did dip his wick all over Russia & came back as unhappy as he left .




I'm sure the girls were unhappy as well. I couldn't do that though I'd have to live with someone before any thoughts of marriage.



> If wealthy older men play down their wealth, what do they have to offer to the younger attractive woman (that they seem to go after)?




It's their choice, but playing up wealth will obviously tend to attract the wrong types, well at least the wrong type to live with and marry.



> there are some genuine people are there who are not so shallow




There are plenty out there. Are you genuine? Are your mates genuine? I'm guessing you think so, so I ask you why females would be any different. For every bad male experience, there's a bad female experience. There are some bad experiences here, so there are going to be some bitter opinions. Part of the problem is that many males are attracted to the wrong types, or act in a way that attracts the wrong types (such as splashing money around).


----------



## kincella (14 September 2009)

wow Glen48, where in the world can u buy a house and land package for 9000k's....>???????
and then get a pension to boot ?


----------



## Solly (14 September 2009)

Has anybody heard how gg's travelling?


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (14 September 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> garpalmansion ( unless she the 4th gets it) ,
> 
> So a new chapter may be about to open for poor me.
> 
> gg




C'mon Garpal, you know what to do...

1) Companyfy the GarpalMansion immediately. Make it IRON TIGHT.
2) Go to where the sweet young things are and ask them if they would like to stay in the Garpalmansion free in exchange for a bit of "modelling work".
3) Fit every room with a webcam.
4) Wander round in a red smoking jacket and self satisfied smirk on your face.
5) Kick out the models in 5 Months and 29 days when they hits their expiry date.

GG will now be accepting bids from all interested parties who wish to be "pool boys", "Pizza Delivery Men", "T.V Repair Men", "Dirty old men" and "Friendly next door neighbors".

Don't rush him all at once guys.

Cheers

Sir O

P.S. Send me my commission in single malt scotch GG.


----------



## MrBurns (14 September 2009)

Solly said:


> Has anybody heard how gg's travelling?




You tell us.


----------



## nunthewiser (14 September 2009)

Solly said:


> Has anybody heard how gg's travelling?




last i heard he was being spanked by a pretty, young, greens party member and thoroughly enjoying it


----------



## Solly (14 September 2009)

MrBurns said:


> You tell us.




I checked twitter he ain't there. 



nunthewiser said:


> last i heard he was being spanked by a pretty, young, greens party member and thoroughly enjoying it




That's it I'm chucking in my Democrat membership, can you wear speedos ?


----------



## explod (14 September 2009)

Well Garpal, I ruminated for you overnight as promised and wracked my brains today but I'm stumped.

Only thing that did occur to me is that if you do get tempted to ever venture again, put on a pair of them old west Qld dungarees and get about as if you dont' have two bob.   In the unlikely event that you find love this way there is a good chance that its real.

Anyway just thinking of you buddy.


----------



## Solly (14 September 2009)

nun, mr burns,

I'm getting concerned, the whole thing might have been a set up by Dionysius the Phocaean in retribution to gg's stance against tsunami financial & MSC. 

Not based on evidence, just sayin'....


----------



## MrBurns (14 September 2009)

Solly said:


> nun, mr burns,
> 
> I'm getting concerned, the whole thing might have been a set up by Dionysius the Phocaean in retribution to gg's stance against tsunami financial & MSC.
> 
> Not based on evidence, just sayin'....




I'm starting to think you're right................that the whole thing was a setup.


----------



## nunthewiser (14 September 2009)

Solly said:


> nun, mr burns,
> 
> I'm getting concerned, the whole thing might have been a set up by Dionysius the Phocaean in retribution to gg's stance against tsunami financial & MSC.
> 
> Not based on evidence, just sayin'....




you mean the ole " lolitta special" ? 

where a influential member of society is kidnapped by a pretty young lady at a party meeting , spanked and tied up then photographed?

or something more dire?

the more you mention it the more my concerns are growing also ........ 

perhaps we should get in contact with the townsville police and put out a missing posters alert ?


----------



## Solly (14 September 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> you mean the ole " lolitta special" ?
> 
> where a influential member of society is kidnapped by a pretty young lady at a party meeting , spanked and tied up then photographed?
> 
> ...




I've got a mate who has got a friend of a friend that works in Stanley St HQ.
I'll text him, if I get no response I'm calling Crimestoppers.
(But I'll have to disguise my voice, it's because of an unrelated incident that I shouldn't elaborate on in a public forum.)


----------



## Solly (14 September 2009)

Solly said:


> I've got a mate who has got a friend of a friend that works in Stanley St HQ.
> I'll text him, if I get no response I'm calling Crimestoppers.
> (But I'll have to disguise my voice, it's because of an unrelated incident that I shouldn't elaborate on in a public forum.)




Just got a tweet to say an abandoned Azure has been found in the bush at the end of Gilford St on Maggie. I don't want to be an alarmist, but it's not looking good. Surely there's security vision from the ferry that the authorities can confiscate and forensically examine. I'd be looking for a stout slightly rotund guy of Greek extraction to help with their inquiries.


----------



## Solly (14 September 2009)

Got to go off line for a while now, got to take home a worn out ex-long haul F/A that's passed out in my lounge room again. It's a bit of a handful to load her in the buggy and transport her back to her place in the estate.

I was sort of hoping that she'd be gg's sort of gal but I think she's stumbled again on one of those "12 steps".

It's a pity she's never gotten over a brief liaison she had with a Hollywood hopeful she met on a layover in Phoenix in the mid 90's. I don't think I'll ever really understand the XX.


----------



## Julia (14 September 2009)

MrBurns said:


> I'm starting to think you're right................that the whole thing was a setup.



Yep, possibly like this entire thread.


----------



## MrBurns (14 September 2009)

Julia said:


> Yep, possibly like this entire thread.




Do you think so ????? Gee come to think of it I think you're right


----------



## Prospector (14 September 2009)

There would be a few rather upset people if this was a set up!


----------



## nunthewiser (14 September 2009)

lol 

blessim i say


----------



## nunthewiser (14 September 2009)

solly 

i just used my connections in the queensland anti corruption squad to put out an A.P.B on mr Gumnut ...... police are currently scouring the neihbourhood biker clubhouses/ known knocker shops and all hotels and bars  in the area ...... they are confident of finding him within the next day or 2 

i hope my description as an al capone lookalike helps them


----------



## jono1887 (14 September 2009)

You guys dont think GGs gone committed suicide or anything over this would he?
I'd be pretty distraught if it happened to me.. but then again, I'd be out looking for a hit man and some muscle to get my stuff back. :


----------



## Solly (15 September 2009)

Just got back from Nik's place had to spend the night there, I hate it when she gets clingy, she's into this role playing thing at moment and likes to pretend she's still a cabin supervisor but that's a whole other story.

I've just checked my DMs on Twitter, the steer with the Azure on Gilford St on Maggie last night was erroneous. Looks like it was just a '77 Moke Californian with clutch problems and two Danish female backpackers who were up to hijinks in the scrub. I sometimes wish my sources were equipped with 1 lux cameras on their Crackberrys. 

Got another unsubstantiated report that a person matching gg's description was seen cruising the streets out Oonoonba way in an unmarked Pantec. Ash was found near the gates of the yard where there is a missing Isuzu. I'm lead to believe that preliminarily forensic examination appears confirm that the ash textures and burn rate matches gg's favourite Gran Coronas. 

Also got in touch with a mate who has got a friend in a large Telco to see if there is any legal way of tracking the last known transmissions from his gPhone. Hope hes's got the GPS tracking enabled.

I'll log on later to see if there any further updates or info.


----------



## MrBurns (15 September 2009)

Enough's enough - 

I heard from my reliable sources that you, Solly, and gg are one and the same, there's no 4th Mrs Gumnut and the only ones scammed are the posters on this forum - of course I might be wrong........


----------



## Prospector (15 September 2009)

Solly said:


> I've just checked my DMs on Twitter, the steer with the Azure on Gilford St on Maggie last night was erroneous. Looks like it was just a '77 Moke Californian with clutch problems and two Danish female backpackers who were up to hijinks in the scrub. I sometimes wish my sources were equipped with 1 lux cameras on their Crackberrys. Got another unsubstantiated report that a person matching gg's description was seen cruising the streets out Oonoonba way in an unmarked Pantec.  I'll log on later to see if there any further updates or info.



Solly, from someone who has gone from being sympathetic to the post like this above, well, I think Mr B and Ms J are on to something here.  Only someone who knew there was nothing to worry about would do a post like this.  And of course, we could be wrong.


----------



## Solly (15 September 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Enough's enough -
> 
> I heard from my reliable sources that you, Solly, and gg are one and the same, there's no 4th Mrs Gumnut and the only ones scammed are the posters on this forum - of course I might be wrong........




Mr Burns,
Thanks for the compliment of putting me close to the same league as gg. But gg and I are not the same entity but probably share some similar interests. I'm sure Joe can tell our IPs would be thousands of klms apart. Although I'm mobile atm and don't use a gPhone


----------



## Prospector (15 September 2009)

Solly said:


> Mr Burns,
> Thanks for the compliment of putting me close to the same league as gg. But gg and I are not the same entity but probably share some similar interests. I'm sure Joe can tell our IPs would be thousands of klms apart. Although I'm mobile atm and don't use a gPhone




It's easy to set up a wifi at home and one at work and also have the mobile carrier (eg Optus) plugged into the laptop via USB; the latter of which makes any location impossible to pinpoint.


----------



## MrBurns (15 September 2009)

Prospector said:


> It's easy to set up a wifi at home and one at work and also have the mobile carrier (eg Optus) plugged into the laptop via USB; the latter of which makes any location impossible to pinpoint.




The plot thickens...........


----------



## jonnycage (15 September 2009)

you beat me to it monty, well said!


----------



## jono1887 (15 September 2009)

Prospector said:


> It's easy to set up a wifi at home and one at work and also have the mobile carrier (eg Optus) plugged into the laptop via USB; the latter of which makes any location impossible to pinpoint.




and the point of this is?? who would go to the effort just to do this?


----------



## Solly (15 September 2009)

Prospector said:


> It's easy to set up a wifi at home and one at work and also have the mobile carrier (eg Optus) plugged into the laptop via USB; the latter of which makes any location impossible to pinpoint.




Then you are way smarter than me !
I have trouble dialing the right frequency in the 108 Meg range !

I'll let Joe be the arbiittator he makes the rules and has the technical abilities to verify these things.

But on serious note I do hope gg's traveling ok, if he has been financially damaged I hope he's got a quick way forward I assume he's not a youngster.


----------



## MrBurns (15 September 2009)

jono1887 said:


> and the point of this is?? who would go to the effort just to do this?




Google "strange psychological behavior" or perhaps ask a journalist or 3 in Townsville (hint).

Anyway enough said, this is just pure conjecture................or is it


----------



## nunthewiser (15 September 2009)

solly looks nothing like GG .......... check there avs

in fact if one looks closely .......... i even look more like GG than solly does


----------



## moXJO (15 September 2009)

Maybe Mrs GG now owns the computer. 

I'm sure GG is just sorting out more important matters atm.


----------



## Taltan (15 September 2009)

Recently got married and this thread is making me think regarding the finances situation. The tax system is telling me to put more money in her name but now I'm thinking one day the taxman could be the cheaper option?


----------



## nunthewiser (15 September 2009)

grab a plastic 44 gallon drum with a lid , bury it with an easy access cover disguised and hidden under a loose tree stump , each week add a small % of your income and every 6 months place a larger lump ie gold or similar in it .... then if anything turns to poo you will have a nice lil slush fund to live on while the lawyers sort  out the rest

another handy home hint provided courtesy of nunsRus


----------



## moXJO (15 September 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> grab a plastic 44 gallon drum with a lid , bury it with an easy access cover disguised and hidden under a loose tree stump , each week add a small % of your income and every 6 months place a larger lump ie gold or similar in it .... then if anything turns to poo you will have a nice lil slush fund to live on while the lawyers sort  out the rest
> 
> another handy home hint provided courtesy of nunsRus




My mate done this in the back yard, and rats or something ate threw his money. Lucky some of the serial numbers were left and the bank exchanged them. Was a while back so may have been the old paper money.


----------



## Quincy (15 September 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Enough's enough -
> 
> I heard from my reliable sources that you, Solly, and gg are one and the same, there's no 4th Mrs Gumnut and the only ones scammed are the posters on this forum - of course I might be wrong........






Solly said:


> gg, great to see you made it down, it's not that pleasant in 'cattle' when you aren't used to it. It's a pity the days are now gone when people of stature could grab a jump seat at short notice with a local crew on one of TAA's T-Jets.






Solly said:


> Just witnessed EC's grilling at the Inquiry.
> 
> One thing you can say is that he is consistent, it's all the banks' fault.
> 
> ...






Solly said:


> I was looking for gg today but couldn't see him although things were rather rushed especially in the scrum around  EC as he left the centre.
> 
> Maybe I didn't recognise him without his hat and cuban. Hope he didn't run into problems with the baggage handlers loading the castration kit in the hold.
> 
> Not sure if he has his gphone with him or we have to wait until he's back in the Garpal Den but a post from him about today's proceedings would be very interesting and welcomed.





Ships in the night.


----------



## Prospector (15 September 2009)

jono1887 said:


> and the point of this is?? who would go to the effort just to do this?




If helps if your ISP gets banned, for instance.


----------



## Solly (15 September 2009)

There's still no news of gg's whereabouts, still nothing on Twitter, maybe she got his gPhone as well or nicked the charger.

One of my gumshoe mates reckons if you don't show within 48hours of a disappearance you better call in the cardarver dogs. I hope he's wrong in this case. Another mate has said to check the local classifieds for cheap furnishings and household goods and chattels. Another said to check Grays online, there maybe some stuff being off loaded there. I wonder if JC of Belmont is still looking for some bargins and to even up some old scores.

I reckon we wait til this evening and if it's still negatory we contact the Bully and get them to do a full page spread. I reckon a couple of scribes owe him a couple of favours.


----------



## Solly (15 September 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> solly looks nothing like GG .......... check there avs
> 
> in fact if one looks closely .......... i even look more like GG than solly does




Thanks nun,
but I must admit Iwas sucking my gut in a bit when the pic for the av was taken.
Also ninjas don't smoke cubans


----------



## bunyip (15 September 2009)

jono1887 said:


> and the point of this is?? who would go to the effort just to do this?




An eccentric attention seeker with a warped sense of humour.


----------



## bunyip (15 September 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Google "strange psychological behavior" or perhaps ask a journalist or 3 in Townsville (hint).
> 
> Anyway enough said, this is just pure conjecture................or is it




Ask _*'The Magpie'*_ perhaps?


----------



## bunyip (15 September 2009)

Solly said:


> Just got back from Nik's place had to spend the night there, I hate it when she gets clingy, she's into this role playing thing at moment and likes to pretend she's still a cabin supervisor but that's a whole other story.
> 
> I've just checked my DMs on Twitter, the steer with the Azure on Gilford St on Maggie last night was erroneous. Looks like it was just a '77 Moke Californian with clutch problems and two Danish female backpackers who were up to hijinks in the scrub. I sometimes wish my sources were equipped with 1 lux cameras on their Crackberrys.
> 
> ...




Solly

One thing you and GG have in common is that you never let the truth stand in the way of a good yarn!


----------



## stocksontheblock (15 September 2009)

Julia said:


> Yep, possibly like this entire thread.




Maybe it’s just me yet my thought was … mmm, given some of things I have seen from GG this just sounds like another one of those provocative threads 

I see Julia has astutely asked if this is all true, to which I haven’t see an emphatic YES, OF COURSE IT IS!

I think I’m with Julia on this one


----------



## MrBurns (15 September 2009)

bunyip said:


> Ask _*'The Magpie'*_ perhaps?




Good idea

This could be the NT's version of Kyle Sandilands.......


----------



## explod (15 September 2009)

stocksontheblock said:


> Maybe it’s just me yet my thought was … mmm, given some of things I have seen from GG this just sounds like another one of those provocative threads
> 
> I see Julia has astutely asked if this is all true, to which I haven’t see an emphatic YES, OF COURSE IT IS!
> 
> I think I’m with Julia on this one




He probably just went down to the pub for a few days rumination and because we could not come up with a solution he's decided to stay because he likes the barmaid and she smiles at him in his dishevelled state.

Go GG   fifth time lucky


----------



## trainspotter (15 September 2009)

bunyip said:


> An eccentric attention seeker with a warped sense of humour.




Hah aha hahaha aha ah ha h haha *PLOP* .... there goes my bottom ... LMAO.


----------



## Stan 101 (15 September 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> you mean the ole " lolitta special" ?
> 
> where a influential member of society is kidnapped by a pretty young lady at a party meeting , spanked and tied up then photographed?
> 
> ...




I was in Townsville yesterday and could have sworn I saw a guy in a gimp mask strapped to the spout of the sugar shaker (Holiday Inn building). For a moment I thought "Garpal?...naaah" and just drove past..

Now I'm wondering.....

cheers,


----------



## skyQuake (15 September 2009)

This thread has got to be one of the weirdest on ASF.
Blood alcohol levels >0.5% prerequisite to posting ?


----------



## MrBurns (15 September 2009)

explod said:


> He probably just went down to the pub for a few days rumination and because we could not come up with a solution he's decided to stay because he likes the barmaid and she smiles at him in his dishevelled state.
> 
> Go GG   fifth time lucky




He has created that image hasn't he, deserves a spot on Neighbors.


----------



## Solly (15 September 2009)

Just got a DM to say a broad brimmed hat "of interest" has been found floating in Breakwater Marina....more to come.


----------



## Stan 101 (15 September 2009)

Solly said:


> Also ninjas don't smoke cubans




That statement has such a different meaning in the Kingdom of Siam.... Apparently


----------



## Glen48 (15 September 2009)

2 hours outside Manila .. let me know if you want 1?
Or rent a unit for 18PW but you can haggle and may get the price down


----------



## Solly (15 September 2009)

Solly said:


> Just got a DM to say a broad brimmed hat "of interest" has been found floating in Breakwater Marina....more to come.




Does anybody know if there are any 'working girls' down that way ?


----------



## Solly (15 September 2009)

I've been informed that the hat has been confirmed as a size 7 1/8 white coloured Fedora. 

A gold coloured Duck Bill Money Clip with an indecipherable family crest containing a single mint condition $100 note, a black ebonite Palladium Fountain Pen with a broken nib and an empty Filofax personal organizer, have been found propped against a light pole in a nearby street.

Speculation is mounting.


----------



## Stan 101 (15 September 2009)

Solly, I collect money clips. It's the only thing I do collect. If no one claims it, can I have it? You can keep the coin in it.

I've bought one in nearly every country I've gone to. I always keep a half eye out for them. That and hats. I like custom made or local authentic hats. My favoutie is a custom made reversable bucket hat I got made in Cambodia. I got them to make two for me. One stays in the small storage area under the pillion seat of my bike, the other is stored for safekeeping.

cheers,


----------



## trainspotter (15 September 2009)

O Garpal, Garpal, where for art though Garpal?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love
And I'll no longer be a Capulet.

Apologies to the Bard.


----------



## Solly (15 September 2009)

Just got another tweet, a burnt out car has been found on a side track just off Hervey Range Rd. Initial reports indicate that it appears to be a large convertible looks like it is a Walter Owen, maybe an Azure. 

There's personalised plates, looks like they say "66" but it's too hot to go near.

Maybe things will become clearer by day break.

The mystery is deepening.


----------



## Julia (15 September 2009)

This thread has gone from the bizarre to the simply silly.

I've been much amused by some of gg's quite outrageous posts in the past, but somehow this thread descends into the 'tacky' in that it's a topic which has - at least initially - engendered some quite heartfelt expressions of concern and sympathy from ASF members.

To continue the mockery, is to mock those people and their genuine responses.


----------



## MrBurns (15 September 2009)

Julia said:


> This thread has gone from the bizarre to the simply silly.
> 
> I've been much amused by some of gg's quite outrageous posts in the past, but somehow this thread descends into the 'tacky' in that it's a topic which has - at least initially - engendered some quite heartfelt expressions of concern and sympathy from ASF members.
> 
> To continue the mockery, is to mock those people and their genuine responses.




I agree Julia, however I think the perpetrators of this charade prefer to turn it into a joke , or more precisely into a bizarre comment on how people relate on forums in as much as they befriend people who may not actually be real. as perhaps in this case.

In any case I think a few confessions are in order to get closure here.


----------



## nunthewiser (15 September 2009)

Nice to have you back GG 

can you please  put a stop to these vicious rumours that have been floating around regarding your good self


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 September 2009)

Solly said:


> I've been informed that the hat has been confirmed as a size 7 1/8 white coloured Fedora.
> 
> A gold coloured Duck Bill Money Clip with an indecipherable family crest containing a single mint condition $100 note, a black ebonite Palladium Fountain Pen with a broken nib and an empty Filofax personal organizer, have been found propped against a light pole in a nearby street.
> 
> Speculation is mounting.




Reports of my demisse are highly exaggerated.

gg



trainspotter said:


> O Garpal, Garpal, where for art though Garpal?
> Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
> Or if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love
> And I'll no longer be a Capulet
> Apologies to the Bard.




I am with Dharma, quite an enchanting Green supporter whose arguments on the evils of capitalism, global warming and the rights of the oppressed of the world make quite an exquism of sense when she gazes into my eyes with her blue eyes and ruffles her blonde locks with abandon about our cabin on Orpheus.

Back to Townsville tomorrow and the dreaded legals and the venom of Mrs Gumnut the fourth.

gg

gg


----------



## Stan 101 (15 September 2009)

MrBurns said:


> I agree Julia, however I think the perpetrators of this charade prefer to turn it into a joke , or more precisely into a bizarre comment on how people relate on forums in as much as they befriend people who may not actually be real. as perhaps in this case.
> 
> In any case I think a few confessions are in order to get closure here.




If Anyone takes what GG says as real or even remotely real, they need to think again. Townsville is a small place. There are only so many streets, not suburbs where the "Garpul mansion" could exist. Four times married, wealthy and lad about town types narrows down the likely suspects. There really aren't that many independantly wealthy movers and shakers in Townsville, no matter what the local " in crowd" may choose to believe.

I've always humoured Garpul as he does have a little flair with a story. His one about narrowing down Osama Bin Laden ready for capture was a gem.

What I have noticed is a few people now starting to mimick (sp?) Garpul's style here. The turn of phrase is similar. I don't put it down as multiple account by Garpul, just followers.

Anyways Garpul, if you have lost your 4th, I'm happy to have a beer with you at the Metropole on Palmer next week. The Indian next door is good and reasonably authentic.


Maybe just leavce him/her alone and accept him for the entertainment he/she brings here.


cheers, 

If


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 September 2009)

Stan 101 said:


> If Anyone takes what GG says as real or even remotely real, they need to think again. Townsville is a small place. There are only so many streets, not suburbs where the "Garpul mansion" could exist. Four times married, wealthy and lad about town types narrows down the likely suspects. There really aren't that independantly wealthy movers and shakers in Townsville, no matter what the local " in crowd" may choose to believe.
> 
> I've always humoured Garpul as he does have a little flair with a story. His one about narrowing down Osama Bin Laden ready for capture was a gem.
> 
> ...




Thaks for your faith in my authenticity.

I prefer the Ross Island Hotel.

Leave a note about Garpaldogs neck, he's tethered there most days and we'll arrange to meet.

And I haven't lost my fourth.

One never loses an ex. 

t'would be easier if she were lost.

And to get back to the real point of the thread it does bugger up your money management.

All these bloody Family lawyers, barrister and judges live off honest folk like me.

gg


----------



## Stan 101 (15 September 2009)

I'll drop into the Ross one day and look for a dog with a collar. 

I have a mate in the trucking business with 4 ex wives and 6 kids. He says he still loves them all and I believe him.
The weird thinkg is he is still on speaking terms and I've been in the same room with three of them at the same time. It was weird to say the least.

He's looked after all of them, they all have houses and the children want for nothing. from the experience of my mate I can fully believe it when you say you haven't lost them..


Cheers,


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 September 2009)

Stan 101 said:


> I'll drop into the Ross one day and look for a dog with a collar.
> 
> I have a mate in the trucking business with 4 ex wives and 6 kids. He says he still loves them all and I believe him.
> The weird thinkg is he is still on speaking terms and I've been in the same room with three of them at the same time. It was weird to say the least.
> ...




The dog is outside the hotel most days.

More kids equals a healthy society.

Only the rich can't afford to have more kids.

gg


----------



## jono1887 (16 September 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> And to get back to the real point of the thread it does bugger up your money management.
> 
> All these bloody Family lawyers, barrister and judges live off honest folk like me.
> 
> gg




i would think that someone like you or most people on these forums would probably be more well prepared. I think your initial post made it sound far worse than would it would probably have been.

I'm not married but I was.. only a very small amount of our assets would be held in joint cash accounts. I would say less than 5%.. you only need enough cash in there to pay for day to day transactions. Even then.. most of my current transactions are on credit anyway so no big deal there... i would expect a joint account to only hold less than 10k.

Any other cash that I'd be holding would be in term deposits, saftey dep boxes, international accounts and burried in the ground.. even then, cash holdings of your net assets should not be incredibly high as they generally have low returns...

The remaining 80-85% of our assets would probably be in a variety of govt bonds, gold bullion, diamonds, property, stocks and any remaining cash in the trading account.

You should never expose your self to that kind of situation you described where your financial management is totally buggered because an angry spouse has decided to run away with everything.


----------



## Mr J (16 September 2009)

Most of my assets won't be in my own name, and therefore any potential ex-wife will not be able to run away with them nor have a settlement including them. As insurance, no potential wife would be greedy or materialistic, and hopefully not unreasonable enough to conduct vengeance by dragging it through the courts.


----------



## Solly (16 September 2009)

gg, thank goodness your are back mate, within that 48 hour window, no need for the cadaver dogs and we can stand down the SES.

Just got more info on some of the items scattered around the burbs. I've now learnt it's not wise to jump to conclusions with out investigating all the facts. 

Appears the Fedora found floating was a knock off, the money clip was brass and the note a fake, the pen was just plastic and the Filofax was a prop. All left over from a weekend backpackers fancy dress do in Carter St. 

I've deleted my draft email requesting assistance from Mr Raggatt at the Bully.

The smoldering wreck was a '78 Marque that has been torched many times before.

I sincerely wish you well in your current difficult unpredicted turn in your life. 

Let me know if things get too tough, I'll arrange to ship a carton or two up your way and a box of Pal for Garpaldog. I try to send them express on a Jungle Jet.

BTW does Dharma have a sister.....just askin'


----------



## bunyip (16 September 2009)

Solly said:


> gg, thank goodness your are back mate, within that 48 hour window, no need for the cadaver dogs and we can stand down the SES.
> 
> Just got more info on some of the items scattered around the burbs. I've now learnt it's not wise to jump to conclusions with out investigating all the facts.
> 
> ...




Solly mate.....you think you're being pretty funny but take it from me, it's got to the stage where your repeated attempts at humour are becoming tiresome and are causing you to make a complete fool of yourself.
Know when to stop, before you lose even more credibility.


----------



## MrBurns (16 September 2009)

Glad we've established the myth that is gg

One thing for sure whoever he is has a gift with words, I don't think you learn that as in journo, it comes from inside, gg has a large following oh here for that very reason and it's testimony of the power of the "word"

Why don't you go into politics gg, you could be PM

Lawyers - 

Lazy slackers many of whom should have been identified at birth and drowned - the first one I used racked up a bill of $8k for nothing including $1500 to read a Family Trust document  - I sacked him and replaced him with a decent bloke who completed the job in a different way for a few grand.

Mr J - If the ex in question has done the dirty on you and you have made all the money get a Binding Financial Agreement done instead of taking it all to court where they unfairly determine if the split is fair.

Give her what she deserves not necessarily half.


----------



## Prospector (16 September 2009)

jono1887 said:


> Any other cash that I'd be holding would be in term deposits, saftey dep boxes, international accounts and burried in the ground.. even then, cash holdings of your net assets should not be incredibly high as they generally have low returns...
> 
> The remaining 80-85% of our assets would probably be in a variety of govt bonds, gold bullion, diamonds, property, stocks and any remaining cash in the trading account.
> 
> You should never expose your self to that kind of situation you described where your financial management is totally buggered because an angry spouse has decided to run away with everything.




Hmm, glad my partner doesnt think along those lines......


----------



## jono1887 (16 September 2009)

Prospector said:


> Hmm, glad my partner doesnt think along those lines......




Why should such a large proportion of your assets be in liquid form that is so easily acessable? Unless you own a business with very high turnover where you need access to such liquid assets. It would be unwise to have a large % in cash.


----------



## Prospector (16 September 2009)

jono1887 said:


> Why should such a large proportion of your assets be in liquid form that is so easily acessable? Unless you own a business with very high turnover where you need access to such liquid assets. It would be unwise to have a large % in cash.




Sorry, this bit:


jono1887 said:


> You should never expose your self to that kind of situation you described where your financial management is totally buggered because an angry spouse has decided to run away with everything.




The thing is, in order to do what you suggest, you need to do this at the start of the relationship.  If you both come as equals and mortgaged to the hilt,(eg first marriage etc etc) should you still make your financial arrangements on the basis that eventually you will be angry with each other?  And let's face it, most people in their twenties, come into marriage with not much else but each other.


----------



## jono1887 (16 September 2009)

Prospector said:


> Sorry, this bit:
> 
> The thing is, in order to do what you suggest, you need to do this at the start of the relationship.  If you both come as equals and mortgaged to the hilt,(eg first marriage etc etc) should you still make your financial arrangements on the basis that eventually you will be angry with each other?  And let's face it, most people in their twenties, come into marriage with not much else but each other.




No, but you can take the precautions later on in the marriage. I wasnt talking about hiding things from each other. I was just stating that assets should not be so easily taken by one partner in the relationship.  Like cash in joint accounts can be cleared almost instantly in under an hour.


----------



## trainspotter (16 September 2009)

Good to see that the lines between reality and fiction are just as blurred in here as in the "real" world. Also very pleasing to read that GG is still in the ring and punching for all he is worth. Go you good thing !


----------



## Solly (16 September 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Good to see that the lines between reality and fiction are just as blurred in here as in the "real" world. Also very pleasing to read that GG is still in the ring and punching for all he is worth. Go you good thing !




Sometimes a little diversion from "reality" is truly refreshing and cleansing for the soul, especially during times of intensity...


----------



## Prospector (16 September 2009)

This raises an interesting question for me in the likes of Greg Norman.  He and his wife were married for many many years and (most likely) when they married Greg Norman certainly wasnt the name he is now.  They raised children together, and shared the highs and lows of their married life.  But when he decides to try out a sweet younger thing, he is angry that he had to share (and not by half, either) his company, cars, houses and $$.  Well, for mind, he should have given her half after all those years and he was the one who wanted out.


----------



## justjohn (16 September 2009)

At 55 I wouldn't rate Chris Evert a SWEET YOUNG THING maybe 30 years ago ''YES'.Now she has more lines on her face than a doubles court ,but she has that one ingredient MONEY


----------



## gooner (16 September 2009)

Prospector said:


> This raises an interesting question for me in the likes of Greg Norman.  He and his wife were married for many many years and (most likely) when they married Greg Norman certainly wasnt the name he is now.  They raised children together, and shared the highs and lows of their married life.  But when he decides to try out a sweet younger thing, he is angry that he had to share (and not by half, either) his company, cars, houses and $$.  Well, for mind, he should have given her half after all those years and he was the one who wanted out.




Sounds fair to me that he should give his wife half. Don't see why people get so hung up about splitting assets like that.  I have earned nearly all of the financial assets accumulated by me and my wife (like most, we had nothing when we met). Partly, this is because she has spent the last 5 years focussed on caring for our young children but mainly is because I had a high paying job and she did not.  If we ever split (very unlikely), I'd happily let her have half of the assets.


----------



## Mr J (16 September 2009)

Prospector said:


> This raises an interesting question for me in the likes of Greg Norman.  He and his wife were married for many many years and (most likely) when they married Greg Norman certainly wasnt the name he is now.  They raised children together, and shared the highs and lows of their married life.  But when he decides to try out a sweet younger thing, he is angry that he had to share (and not by half, either) his company, cars, houses and $$.  Well, for mind, he should have given her half after all those years and he was the one who wanted out.




I'm sure you would argue that they built the name together. Yes, she very likely was responsible for some of the success, but half? Probably not. After all those years? Not quite half is a pretty good deal, financially. More than fair.


----------



## Agentm (16 September 2009)

gooner said:


> Sounds fair to me that he should give his wife half. Don't see why people get so hung up about splitting assets like that.  I have earned nearly all of the financial assets accumulated by me and my wife (like most, we had nothing when we met). Partly, this is because she has spent the last 5 years focussed on caring for our young children but mainly is because I had a high paying job and she did not.  If we ever split (very unlikely), I'd happily let her have half of the assets.




well she is entitled to more and will get it if you have children

be prepared to drop about 60 -70%...  and dont whinge about it..

by the time you add legals be happy if you see 10 or 15%

again dont whinge or moan.. its how it is..


----------



## gooner (16 September 2009)

Agentm said:


> well she is entitled to more and will get it if you have children
> 
> be prepared to drop about 60 -70%...  and dont whinge about it..
> 
> ...




I doubt it - we would share custody, so 50:50 it would be. And we would not waste money on lawyers


----------



## Prospector (16 September 2009)

justjohn said:


> At 55 I wouldn't rate Chris Evert a SWEET YOUNG THING maybe 30 years ago




Aha, which is why I said



Prospector said:


> But when he decides to try out a sweet young*er* thing, .




:


----------



## Agentm (16 September 2009)

gooner said:


> I doubt it - we would share custody, so 50:50 it would be. And we would not waste money on lawyers




lol

thats what they all say!    anyone in a happy marriage will say the partnership, should it dissolve, will end amicably.. 

once you have been there, and done that, your views on human nature gets a rude awakening and you dont live in a brady bunch / disney fantasy anymore

but enjoy the times when they are around.. no harm in that


btw it rare that 50/50 child rearing is a success, like a few %..  the women rule in divorce, and its a hell of place no one wants anyone to go through

go pussy power!!


----------



## cuttlefish (16 September 2009)

Prospector said:


> This raises an interesting question for me in the likes of Greg Norman.  He and his wife were married for many many years and (most likely) when they married Greg Norman certainly wasnt the name he is now.  They raised children together, and shared the highs and lows of their married life.  But when he decides to try out a sweet younger thing, he is angry that he had to share (and not by half, either) his company, cars, houses and $$.  Well, for mind, he should have given her half after all those years and he was the one who wanted out.





I don't agree with this at all.

Just because someone is married to another person that doesn't mean they are 50% responsible for all of their successes.  

Each situation is different, but if one individuals exceptional talent or perserverence is the key reason for the wealth that was created then that person is entitled to a greater share of it in my view.   I completely agree that acknowledgement needs to be given for the other partner providing love and support, and in the case of raising children then the effort involved in raising children and the ongoing responsibility all need to be accounted for in dividing up the finances - but it shouldn't be automatic that its a 50/50 split.

I also don't believe it makes sense to punish someone for wanting to leave a marriage that that they are unhappy in - who cares who decides to leave the relationship/marriage when it comes to dividing up the money. It takes two people to make an unhappy marriage just as much as it takes two people to make a happy one.

I know how the law works but I completely disagree with it and I think its a big reason many sucessful people are afraid to commit in relationships and also why a lot of people can end up feeling trapped financially in a relationship that they become unhappy in.


----------



## Prospector (16 September 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> I don't agree with this at all.
> 
> Just because someone is married to another person that doesn't mean they are 50% responsible for all of their successes.
> 
> ...




And perhaps in this situation, Norman's wife basically raised the children on her own as he travelled around the world giving him the freedom to concentrate on his career?  It just isnt as simple as saying 'she made some contribution' - without the 'assistance' and blessing and support of his (now ex) wife, he simply couldnt have done it!  

I agree with you about not punishing people for leaving, but I mentioned that because Norman's ex therefore could not be seen as someone who married him for the money and then rack off with half - she wanted the marriage to  last.


----------



## Mr J (16 September 2009)

gooner said:


> Don't see why people get so hung up about splitting assets like that.




Like what? Anything other than 50:50? Because many will feel cheated as they feel their contribution was worth more than that.


----------



## cuttlefish (16 September 2009)

Prospector said:


> without the 'assistance' and blessing and support of his (now ex) wife, he simply couldnt have done it!




Why could he not have done it without the assistance and blessing of his wife?

There are plenty of single mothers out there with succesful careers that are doing it without the assistance and blessing or financial support of a husband.


----------



## Absolutely (16 September 2009)

gooner said:


> I doubt it - we would share custody, so 50:50 it would be. And we would not waste money on lawyers




Mate,

Speaking from experience 50:50 custody of the kids doesn't mean 50:50 split of assets.

You're the earner and apparantly have the capacity to earn a reasonable income. She needs to be housed when she has the kids and she needs to be able to look after them.

Thus she'll get 70-80% of the assets regardless of how custody of the children is divided. In addition you are up for child support. As you are the major earner you'll be paying for the kids upkeep, sure they'll take in to account the number of nights you have the kids but if you're a decent earner, she can earn up to $40K per year before her earnings are even considered towards the kids upkeep - you pay. In addition mate you'll be up for maintenance of your ex. Well you know how it is, you have provided a lifestyle for her and she will become depressed if she can't maintain that lifestyle following divorce and well, that's not good for anyone is it, and you have this high income so unfortunately for you, you will have to pitch in to maintain her lifestyle with a regular payment from your income in addition to the monthly child support.

Now it's good that you think you wont use lawyers to sort it all out and that you will all be nice and civil but in my experience divorce doesn't regularly come on good terms and she will likely want her share in accordance with what the law says she is entitled to. So if you can't agree then expect legal bills on top of the above which in my case hit about $100K but in some cases can go on for years and amount to life destroying totals.

I got out of my whole thing pretty cheap fortunately (due to an alignment of the planets and her poor legal team) and would not be stupid enough to end up in the same position again in the future (sorry GG), but divorce, without a doubt, buggers money management.


----------



## Prospector (16 September 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> Why could he not have done it without the assistance and blessing of his wife?
> 
> There are plenty of single mothers out there with succesful careers that are doing it without the assistance and blessing or financial support of a husband.




What single mothers do is irrelevant in a discussion about contributions to marriage and how that equates to financial distribution in the event of a breakdown.

My point is not that she was raising the children as a single woman, but that she was raising the children in a marriage that meant the husband was travelling while she was raising the children.  So while she did not have the skills, talent etc of her husband as he earned the dosh, she was in a marriage and she was raising their children.  Whether single mothers do that or not is totally irrelevant as we are talking about contributions to the marriage, whether that be financial, emotional, physical.  

If marriage is about making decisions together, then Norman could not have done all that he did without the support of his wife.  He was a married man, with children, not a single man without a care in the world.


----------



## Mr J (16 September 2009)

> she was in a marriage and she was raising their children




And so were many other women, many of which received half of far, far smaller amounts.



> we are talking about contributions to the marriage, whether that be financial, emotional, physical.




And you think her raising the children and possible advice would likely have been worth half of his wealth? I strongly disagree with that. She may have been, but I don't think it is likely. I'm sure she helped, as most people do need support in some way, but half?


----------



## gooner (16 September 2009)

Mr J said:


> And so were many other women, many of which received half of far, far smaller amounts.
> 
> And you think her raising the children and possible advice would likely have been worth half of his wealth? I strongly disagree with that. She may have been, but I don't think it is likely. I'm sure she helped, as most people do need support in some way, but half?




Suspect you look at it differently to me and Prospector. To me a marriage is a 50/50 partnership. Sure you work out who does what work including who does the most paid work, who does most unpaid work, who is primary carer for children etc etc, but this is just part of the partnership. Just like a business partnership, each brings different strengths, but it is 50/50.

Thus assets should go 50:50


----------



## cuttlefish (17 September 2009)

Prospector said:
			
		

> What single mothers do is irrelevant in a discussion about contributions to marriage and how that equates to financial distribution in the event of a breakdown.




Prospector - just to clarify my single mother example - I made it because you made the comment that 'without the blessing and support of his wife, he could not have done it'.  I disagree with that, because I don't think anybody can know whether or not Greg could have achieved his successes without the blessing and support of his wife, or guage how much her blessing and support did actually contribute to his success as a golfer or as a businessman (or even whether she did actually give him much blessing and support).

That was the reason for my point about single mothers being able to juggle a succesful career (whether it be in business or sport or whatever) while also raising children.  It is an example whereby an individual can be both succesful in their career and also raise children without a partner or financial support. 

So along the same lines, its equally reasonable to expect that Greg Norman in a hypothetical scenario could have raised children and managed a succesful golfing career without a partner or financial support.

In an ideal marriage both partners lovingly contribute unselfishly to each others success and happiness, but what about all of those marriages that are far from ideal and where the contribution by each partner is far from equal - both in financial terms and in terms of emotional commitment and support.  

The law doesn't seem to take any of this into account, its pretty much 50/50 regardless.

In theory, even if Greg Norman had hired three full time nannies,  a cleaner, a cook and a candlestick maker to wait on his wife hand and foot for the entire duration of his marriage, while she did nothing but lay on the lounge drinking champagne, watching daytime soapies and whinging to her friends about what a loser he was, she would still be entitled to half or more of the wealth generated during the marriage.


----------



## Bobby (17 September 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> .
> 
> 
> In theory, even if Greg Norman had hired three full time nannies,  a cleaner, a cook and a candlestick maker to wait on his wife hand and foot for the entire duration of his marriage, while she did nothing but lay on the lounge drinking champagne, watching daytime soapies and whinging to her friends about what a loser he was, she would still be entitled to half or more of the wealth generated during the marriage.




Liked that C/Fish , great point


----------



## Junior (17 September 2009)

Bobby said:


> Liked that C/Fish , great point




If that was the case, he should have filed for divorce earlier rather than continuing to expand his wealth prior to divorce!


----------



## Prospector (17 September 2009)

gooner said:


> Suspect you look at it differently to me and Prospector. To me a marriage is a 50/50 partnership. Sure you work out who does what work including who does the most paid work, who does most unpaid work, who is primary carer for children etc etc, but this is just part of the partnership. Just like a business partnership, each brings different strengths, but it is 50/50.
> 
> Thus assets should go 50:50




That is it entirely, gooner. 



cuttlefish said:


> It is an example whereby an individual can be both succesful in their career and also raise children without a partner or financial support.
> 
> So along the same lines, its equally reasonable to expect that Greg Norman in a hypothetical scenario could have raised children and managed a succesful golfing career without a partner or financial support.




Except he didnt - he was married.  He travelled the world playing golf; his wife stayed around and raised the kids.  We dont know if he could have raised the children alone, because he simply didnt. So the Courts have to decide on what actually happened - these are called 'facts', as opposed to what might have happened - this is called 'conjecture'.



cuttlefish said:


> In theory, even if Greg Norman had hired three full time nannies,  a cleaner, a cook and a candlestick maker to wait on his wife hand and foot for the entire duration of his marriage, while she did nothing but lay on the lounge drinking champagne, watching daytime soapies and whinging to her friends about what a loser he was, she would still be entitled to half or more of the wealth generated during the marriage.




Except he didnt do that for her, yet he still complained, publically, bitterly, about how much he had to give her; and it wasn't half either!



Junior said:


> If that was the case, he should have filed for divorce earlier rather than continuing to expand his wealth prior to divorce!




Exactly.  Have some of you ever considered that your 'non equal partnership' thoughts about marriage have perhaps contributed to difficult moments in your relationships?


----------



## trainspotter (17 September 2009)

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Meaning: A woman rejected in love can be very angry and dangerous. Divorce. Meaning: Having your testicles ripped out through your wallet.


----------



## Mr J (17 September 2009)

gooner said:


> Suspect you look at it differently to me and Prospector. To me a marriage is a 50/50 partnership. Sure you work out who does what work including who does the most paid work, who does most unpaid work, who is primary carer for children etc etc, but this is just part of the partnership. Just like a business partnership, each brings different strengths, but it is 50/50.
> 
> Thus assets should go 50:50




I don't view income as part of the marriage. I don't see why someone who earns multiple times the amount that their spouse earns should have to split the assets 50:50. Why should marrying someone entitle you to 50% of their income? All that does make marriage a financial burden for one, and profitable for the other. I do not believe a marriage should ever be profitable. Why should a women who has a housekeeper and nanny and spends her days at the cafes and shopping, be entitled to any reasonable amount of her husband's fortune?



			
				Prospector said:
			
		

> Except he didnt do that for her, yet he still complained, publically, bitterly, about how much he had to give her; and it wasn't half either!




Oh yes, the nerve! He makes a fortune, and is upset when he has to split it, even though it's not even half! She may have been responsible for some of it by supporting him, but I'm sure she received more than her contribution.

I view financial contributions as independent of the marriage. Instead, I view them as part of a business relationship that allows the marriage to exist, but I would never count them as a part of marriage.


----------



## Solly (17 September 2009)

Let's hope gg's holding ground in the current circumstances.

Dig in mate.


----------



## Prospector (17 September 2009)

Mr J said:


> I view financial contributions as independent of the marriage. Instead, I view them as part of a business relationship that allows the marriage to exist, but I would never count them as a part of marriage.




Are you talking in general or just extremely wealthy people who have housekeepers, gardeners, cleaners, nannies and the like.  If you are talking about every marriage then I hope that your lucky  wife charges the going rate for cleaning (I think around $30 an hour) for everything she does for you, as well as cooking - hm, lets say $50 an hour plus overtime.  Oh yeah, and pregnancy, 9 months at 24/7 plus childbirth, then there is payment for disability caused by pregnancy, the feeding, cleaning etc etc.

Add all these up and she may be entitled to far more than half your income.  How can you sincerely argue that financial contributions should be independent of marriage


----------



## Mr J (17 September 2009)

Prospector said:


> Are you talking in general or just extremely wealthy people who have housekeepers, gardeners, cleaners, nannies and the like.  If you are talking about every marriage then I hope that your lucky  wife charges the going rate for cleaning (I think around $30 an hour) for everything she does for you, as well as cooking - hm, lets say $50 an hour plus overtime.  Oh yeah, and pregnancy, 9 months at 24/7 plus childbirth, then there is payment for disability caused by pregnancy, the feeding, cleaning etc etc.
> 
> Add all these up and she may be entitled to far more than half your income.




When I talk of income being outside of a marriage, I mean that simply being married to someone does not entitle you to their income. Do I believe someone should be compensated for unpaid work? Yes, but there needs to be consistency and fairness. In Norman's case, why should his wife by entitled to half of his fortune for raising his children and maintaining the house? I can only guess that whatever she received was far, far more than nannies, housekeepers and psychologists are paid.


----------



## Knobby22 (17 September 2009)

You know that dentist, Robert, in "Mother and Son"? 

Somehow he seems relevant here but I can't put my finger on it.


----------



## waza1960 (17 September 2009)

In my case Divorce actually improved my Money Management no end.My ex was a serial spender running up bills continually expecting me to pay for them, because we were in a country town trying to protect my name I paid the bills.  I was relieved when we separated because I knew she would not get at me anymore even though she tried re settlement etc. but she never got anything the sad truth was that she virtually sent me broke  before she left. BTW my posts are always non-fiction.


----------



## cuttlefish (17 September 2009)

Prospector said:


> Except he didnt - he was married.  He travelled the world playing golf; his wife stayed around and raised the kids.  We dont know if he could have raised the children alone, because he simply didnt. So the Courts have to decide on what actually happened - these are called 'facts', as opposed to what might have happened - this is called 'conjecture'.
> 
> 
> 
> Except he didnt do that for her, yet he still complained, publically, bitterly, about how much he had to give her; and it wasn't half either!




Ok - though I did say it was hypothetical, and my points were to illustrate that there are plenty of hypothetical situations whereby the 50/50 split doesn't make sense.  I can't comment on the particular circumstances of Greg and his wife as I don't have a clue what went on there - but I understand that it can cut both ways  (i.e. she may have been hard done by and he no saint).



> Exactly.  Have some of you ever considered that your 'non equal partnership' thoughts about marriage have perhaps contributed to difficult moments in your relationships?




I'm not sure what place this comment has in the debate, and I'll assume its not directed at me. Whoever it is directed to may just find it a little presumptuous and condescending though...   (regardless of how valid a point it might be ).

For what its worth I can understand some of the points made but I think this is a complex topic and a potential source of friction so I intend to bow out of the debate. utthedoor:


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 September 2009)

waza1960 said:


> In my case Divorce actually improved my Money Management no end.My ex was a serial spender running up bills continually expecting me to pay for them, because we were in a country town trying to protect my name I paid the bills.  I was relieved when we separated because I knew she would not get at me anymore even though she tried re settlement etc. but she never got anything the sad truth was that she virtually sent me broke  before she left. BTW my posts are always non-fiction.




Waza that is an excellent point. Its like a monster stop loss you are saying?

gg


----------



## Mr J (17 September 2009)

Prospector said:


> Exactly.  Have some of you ever considered that your 'non equal partnership' thoughts about marriage have perhaps contributed to difficult moments in your relationships?




I missed this. Like I said, I don't consider my income to be part of the marriage. If I get married, I will adore my wife and treat her well, but she will not be entitled to the majority of my income. Why? Because she will not have been responsible for it. You suggest that 'non equal partnership' thoughts may have contributed to difficulty in relationships, and I'll raise you with mixing financial issues and marriage. I think those who lay out their feelings on this early on have a much greater chance of success. As unromantic as it is to talk about finance, the fact is that marriage is not just a 'union of souls', but is also a business relationship. Best to seperate them, in my opinion.


----------



## gooner (21 September 2009)

Mr J said:


> I missed this. Like I said, I don't consider my income to be part of the marriage. If I get married, I will adore my wife and treat her well, but she will not be entitled to the majority of my income. Why? Because she will not have been responsible for it. You suggest that 'non equal partnership' thoughts may have contributed to difficulty in relationships, and I'll raise you with mixing financial issues and marriage. I think those who lay out their feelings on this early on have a much greater chance of success. As unromantic as it is to talk about finance, the fact is that marriage is not just a 'union of souls', but is also a business relationship. Best to seperate them, in my opinion.




Mr J

So if we assume you have a relationship where you earn the $$$$ and your wife spends most of her time looking after the children (this is similar to my situation, well before I was unemployed anyway).

So you get divorced, you keep most of the money as you earned it. So being fair, your wife gets custody of the children and you get very limited visitation rights due to you only having spent a small amount of time raising them compared to your wife.

This would appear to be the logical conclusion of your position. Do you agree?


----------



## Absolutely (21 September 2009)

Mr J said:


> I missed this. Like I said, I don't consider my income to be part of the marriage. If I get married, I will adore my wife and treat her well, but she will not be entitled to the majority of my income. Why? Because she will not have been responsible for it. You suggest that 'non equal partnership' thoughts may have contributed to difficulty in relationships, and I'll raise you with mixing financial issues and marriage. I think those who lay out their feelings on this early on have a much greater chance of success. As unromantic as it is to talk about finance, the fact is that marriage is not just a 'union of souls', but is also a business relationship. Best to seperate them, in my opinion.




Well mate if you do get married you will need a prenup as the law does not support your approach. And in all honesty, think you will struggle to find a female who would support your view too. Her non-financial contributions may well be considered as valuable or more valuable then your financial contributions. And in the event of marriage beakdown, most women would want to be compensated for that.


----------



## Mr J (21 September 2009)

gooner said:


> This would appear to be the logical conclusion of your position. Do you agree?




No. My position would include fair custody and child support. I think someone would have to be naive to think that these are usually fair.



Absolutely said:


> Well mate if you do get married you will need a prenup as the law does not support your approach. And in all honesty, think you will struggle to find a female who would support your view too. Her non-financial contributions may well be considered as valuable or more valuable then your financial contributions. And in the event of marriage beakdown, most women would want to be compensated for that.




I'm not talking about myself. As for finding a girl who would support my views, there are plenty of women who are comfortable with fair contribution, and I wouldn't want to be with someone who isn't. I'm also not looking for a housewife, and I will almost certainly be the primary carer for any children. My income won't be a factor, because for the foreseeable future, the majority of my income will not be in my name.


----------



## jono1887 (21 September 2009)

Mr J said:


> I'm not talking about myself. As for finding a girl who would support my views, there are plenty of women who are comfortable with fair contribution, and I wouldn't want to be with someone who isn't. I'm also not looking for a housewife, and I will almost certainly be the primary carer for any children. My income won't be a factor, because for the foreseeable future, the majority of my income will not be in my name.




So whose name will this income be under? A few dead people whose TFNs you've manage to find :

Just because a women is happy with fair contributions going into a marriage.. doesn't mean they feel the same way going out.


----------



## Glen48 (21 September 2009)

Trouble is with a Pre Nup is they don't stand up in the Family Court when it comes to CSA, also she get a larger % of the home because she has the kids and you pay her to raise them but once the kids leave home she still has the house and you can't go back and say now I want it to be 50/50.


----------



## awg (21 September 2009)

Glen48 said:


> Trouble is with a Pre Nup is they don't stand up in the Family Court when it comes to CSA, also she get a larger % of the home because she has the kids and you pay her to raise them but once the kids leave home she still has the house and you can't go back and say now I want it to be 50/50.




Glen is 100% correct.

pre-nup is of very little value, unless you have some exceptional situation


----------



## jono1887 (21 September 2009)

Glen48 said:


> Trouble is with a Pre Nup is they don't stand up in the Family Court when it comes to CSA, also she get a larger % of the home because she has the kids and you pay her to raise them but once the kids leave home she still has the house and you can't go back and say now I want it to be 50/50.




Really?? So theres no such thing as an iron clad prenup?? 
You sure theres no way of writing up such an agreement??


----------



## MrBurns (21 September 2009)

jono1887 said:


> Really?? So theres no such thing as an iron clad prenup??
> You sure theres no way of writing up such an agreement??




Family court rips them up by the truckload, they dont get anywhere, but check with a lawyer.


----------



## jono1887 (21 September 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Family court rips them up by the truckload, they dont get anywhere, but check with a lawyer.




So why do people have them written up if thats the case?? And why does it become worthless in the courts? dont they uphold legal documents these days??


----------



## Mr J (22 September 2009)

jono1887 said:


> So whose name will this income be under? A few dead people whose TFNs you've manage to find :
> 
> Just because a women is happy with fair contributions going into a marriage.. doesn't mean they feel the same way going out.




Nothing dodgy, just taking advantage of trusts. I agree that she might not feel that way on the way out, but that's what protective measures are for. The biggest protective measure is to make sure a marriage never comes to that. My personality and the sort of personality I like would not easily lead to that sort of situation.


----------



## MrBurns (22 September 2009)

jono1887 said:


> So why do people have them written up if thats the case?? And why does it become worthless in the courts? dont they uphold legal documents these days??




Mainly done in the US, the Family Court here can rip through such agreements , Trusts , you name it , it has enormous powers.


----------



## Absolutely (22 September 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Mainly done in the US, the Family Court here can rip through such agreements , Trusts , you name it , it has enormous powers.




As a regular reader of the Family Court website's judgments page, I can tell you that prenups carry weight as far as splitting of assets goes. As far as Child Support goes however I don't think a prenup has any value at all as, critically, the children must be cared for and the party with the income means (usually the father) must step up to provide for them, regardless of any prenup.

A prenup will generally govern when it comes to splitting the assets. However I have read cases where there are attempts by one party to overturn the prenup. There has to a very solid reason for that to succeed.


----------



## awg (22 September 2009)

jono1887 said:


> So why do people have them written up if thats the case?? And why does it become worthless in the courts? dont they uphold legal documents these days??




with respect to child support, they wont help you.

with respect to asset protection, the way it works is basically like this

the pre-nup will protect (somewhat) you Jono, if you bring $5million of assets and yr wife brings $20...except, any appreciation of capital while u r married is 50/50

because most people dont have a lot when they get married young, then have kids, that is why they are not much chop.

yr legal bills will eat up what u r worth, if u contest matters

with respect to income earned, if u had kids, pre-nup wont help much

if u were a fabulous wage earner, and she sat on her ass, spending yr dosh, just make sure u kept all the receipts

as well, most people dont like pre-nups that much, not very romantic

the case where they may be of value, is in mature couples, with assets, still not romantic, but could save you a bundle


----------



## 888 (22 September 2009)

gooner said:


> Mr J
> 
> So if we assume you have a relationship where you earn the $$$$ and your wife spends most of her time looking after the children (this is similar to my situation, well before I was unemployed anyway).
> 
> ...




If you don't think you'll be able to share 100% of your wealth to the woman you love and if you don't believe that she will share 100% of her wealth to you, then you shouldn't get married, simple as that.


----------



## Absolutely (22 September 2009)

888 said:


> If you don't think you'll be able to share 100% of your wealth to the woman you love and if you don't believe that she will share 100% of her wealth to you, then you shouldn't get married, simple as that.




OR even move in with them. Defacto = Married now under Australian law. Something which I think is ludicrous.


----------



## jono1887 (22 September 2009)

Absolutely said:


> OR even move in with them. Defacto = Married now under Australian law. Something which I think is ludicrous.




really.. so my moving in and living with someone you are entitled to half their wealth? What happens if your sharing an apartment with some rich foreign exchange student? Are you entitled to 50% of their assets as well?


----------



## explod (22 September 2009)

I am very concerned, heightened by 2 shots of whisky and a few reds.

We have lost the the tenet of the thread.   We are supposed to be commiserating our ole Pal Garmat's demise on the loss of Gumnut (was it 4 or 5) and her temerity of taking his money to the cleaners.

Remember as a kid there were folk who would bless your money, five quid to a guinee and that sort of thing.  So maybe mrs gumnut 5 meant well (sort of a blessing) but the result has been catastrofic for my Pal garpal.

So stop being selfish in discussing how much you can screw out of you r   t etc., and concentrate on the real point here.

Hope you are not embarrassed by me airing you deserved defence in public Garpal but some jobs just have to be done.

expolding again


----------



## Julia (22 September 2009)

jono1887 said:


> really.. so my moving in and living with someone you are entitled to half their wealth? What happens if your sharing an apartment with some rich foreign exchange student? Are you entitled to 50% of their assets as well?




Well, not yet, jono, but who knows in the future?

It's one of the more bizarre changes to the law imo.  Means a couple can't see how living together works for them for a decent period of time, without being encumbered by the State interfering again.

It's as well to remember, though, that amongst all this discussion it's only when couples can't agree in private on the splitting of assets, custody, maintenance etc, that the law gets involved.


----------



## matty2.0 (22 September 2009)

I've never been married, but I've always had my reservations about marriage. 
This has been an interesting thread for me. Especially w/ re; to divorce lawyers and the waste that goes to them. 


I have a strong sense that I will remain a bachelor for a very long time, maybe till the end. 


Life gets complicated when you get older, unfortunately. This can be depressing, depending on how you look at it.


----------



## Mr J (22 September 2009)

Julia said:


> It's as well to remember, though, that amongst all this discussion it's only when couples can't agree in private on the splitting of assets, custody, maintenance etc, that the law gets involved.




It seems that the goal is actually to prevent marriage and normal family structure . Longterm relationships and marriage is a poor trade. It has a negative expectation, and the bet can bankrupt us. I hate to view marriage this way, but it is forced upon me by an unfair system that can easily be abused.


----------



## overit (22 September 2009)

Looks like hookers are your best option! WTF is spousal maintenance anyway! 



> 'Spousal maintenance' for mistresses
> 
> PHILANDERING husbands could soon be forced by the courts to keep paying for their mistresses after an affair ends.
> 
> ...


----------



## matty2.0 (22 September 2009)

Dumb legislation. 
People are in defacto relationships or just co-habitate and not get married b/c the legal requirements of the institution of marriage are so onerous.


----------



## overit (22 September 2009)

A person would be stupid for not knowing where they stand on these issues and not trying to protect themselves. Was a story in the paper a year or so ago about army wives cleaning out their husbands whilst they were away overseas on tour. Gone for 6mths on tour and come back to an empty house and empty bank account. Got so bad the army had to do something to protect their pays! There doesnt seem to be any laws out there anymore to protect the honest person having a go for themselves.


----------



## Glen48 (23 September 2009)

Like every thing else In Australia it all needs to be thrown out and start again.. the Femnazi have taken over the Rooster's house.


----------



## Absolutely (23 September 2009)

overit said:


> Looks like hookers are your best option! WTF is spousal maintenance anyway!




In reality the law is aimed at protecting children of a de facto relationship. Until now, the Family Court did not have powers to split the assets of de facto partners. So up to now in NSW for instance, the state laws governed for de facto cases which were heard in the district or supreme courts. The state laws did not take in to account the "future needs" of the parties, thus when assets were split, the court was not allowed to account for the fact that one party (the mother usually) would have predominant care of the children in future, which in turn affected her ability to earn a sustainable income. Assets were merely split on the basis of contributions. ie you contibuted 40% to the final asset pool you are returned 40% of the asset pool. (although caring for the children was considered a non-financial contribution during the relationship, the effect of which is that the mother would be entitled to half the earnings of the father during the relationship.) Under the state laws, the mother (assuming she ended up with predominant care of the kids) could not get her future needs accounted for, could not get at his superannuation (even if she gave up her career to care for the kids), and was generally not entitled to maintenance.

So by bringing de factos under federal law that is heard in the family court the changes are mostly aimed at changing the above, though they potentially may in theory have some unforeseen knock on effects.


----------



## drsmith (23 September 2009)

explod said:


> I am very concerned, heightened by 2 shots of whisky and a few reds.
> 
> We have lost the the tenet of the thread.   We are supposed to be commiserating our ole Pal Garmat's demise on the loss of Gumnut (was it 4 or 5) and her temerity of taking his money to the cleaners.
> 
> ...



A good 5th partner for GG would be Rose P------s. For a start she would most likely have more money than him and the 5th marriage would definitely be the last, one way or the other.

He would however need a trusted food tester before anything passes his lips.


----------



## Julia (23 September 2009)

Absolutely said:


> In reality the law is aimed at protecting children of a de facto relationship. Until now, the Family Court did not have powers to split the assets of de facto partners. So up to now in NSW for instance, the state laws governed for de facto cases which were heard in the district or supreme courts. The state laws did not take in to account the "future needs" of the parties, thus when assets were split, the court was not allowed to account for the fact that one party (the mother usually) would have predominant care of the children in future, which in turn affected her ability to earn a sustainable income. Assets were merely split on the basis of contributions. ie you contibuted 40% to the final asset pool you are returned 40% of the asset pool. (although caring for the children was considered a non-financial contribution during the relationship, the effect of which is that the mother would be entitled to half the earnings of the father during the relationship.) Under the state laws, the mother (assuming she ended up with predominant care of the kids) could not get her future needs accounted for, could not get at his superannuation (even if she gave up her career to care for the kids), and was generally not entitled to maintenance.
> 
> So by bringing de factos under federal law that is heard in the family court the changes are mostly aimed at changing the above, though they potentially may in theory have some unforeseen knock on effects.



You seem to have a good grasp on the law, Absolutely.
As you explain it here, then it seems quite reasonable I suppose.

But from what Overit (I think) quoted above, it sounds as though it can apply where no children are involved and/or a couple are not even living together, which seems quite bizarre.

And I think we may assume that it's not just going to be the bloke who gets pinned for payments in this situation.  I have a friend who has endured (foolishly she now realises) a 30 year marriage to an alcoholic.  He has never held down a job in all this time and she has supported him from her own earnings.   She finally left him about a year ago and now her lawyer is telling her she may be liable for continuing to pay 'spousal support'.  
Bloody hell!

He gets a Disability Pension now, and drinks all of it.   Seems completely unreasonable that she should have to give him a cent.


----------



## awg (23 September 2009)

heres one way for you to save on the defacto problem perhaps

Once was involved in investigating an alleged de-facto relationship, 2 persons living together, one a outlaw bikie official.

He provided a written statement.

a short summary was:

"yes I allow this women to live at my place, yes, I have sex with her.
(I have sex with other women too), of course I let her cook and wash for me, why I else would I let her stay?
I give her no financial or emotional support.
I dont regard her as my defacto, I dont care whether she stays or goes.
I dont know or care what other people think"

the outcome of this matter was that no legally provable defacto relationship existed..gave me a laugh at the time


----------



## gav (23 September 2009)

You've probably all received an email of the picture of a Porsche with the number plate "WASHIS".  I always thought it was just a photoshop, but today I actually seen a Merc with the plates "WAZHIS"


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 September 2009)

explod said:


> I am very concerned, heightened by 2 shots of whisky and a few reds.
> 
> We have lost the the tenet of the thread.   We are supposed to be commiserating our ole Pal Garmat's demise on the loss of Gumnut (was it 4 or 5) and her temerity of taking his money to the cleaners.
> 
> ...




Thanks explod, mate but I am in quite a blissful state with Dharma and am in training for a possible perch on the Steve Irwin down the track chasing the Japs.

She has allowed me keep the Arnage, I have learnt so much from her about what matters in life and she is learning from me about the pleasures of capitalism.

The 4th Mrs Gumnut can have all that is visible to her Family lawyer as far as I am concerned, which will be very bloody little.. 

gg



drsmith said:


> A good 5th partner for GG would be Rose P------s. For a start she would most likely have more money than him and the 5th marriage would definitely be the last, one way or the other.
> 
> He would however need a trusted food tester before anything passes his lips.




Garpalmansion does have two Dysons, so no thanks.

gg


----------



## MrBurns (23 September 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The 4th Mrs Gumnut can have all that is visible to her Family lawyer as far as I am concerned, which will be very bloody little..
> gg




ROFL......you are a bloody hero gg


----------



## drsmith (23 September 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Garpalmansion does have two Dysons, so no thanks.
> 
> gg



If you were around in the 19th century you could have joined the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints and got the pain of 4 wives over in one go.

I'm not sure of their views on multiple Dysons though.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 September 2009)

drsmith said:


> If you were around in the 19th century you could have joined the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints and got the pain of 4 wives over in one go.
> 
> I'm not sure of their views on multiple Dysons though.




No thorns on a Dyson.

gg


----------



## Bobby (23 September 2009)

Hey GG, 20 years ago I was interested  in antique porcelain that was being found on old Spanish wrecks in Filipino waters .

On my adventures over-there I remember eating at a rough sort of restaurant run by an old Aussie with heaps of young  females attending , he was kinda proud that they were all his girls , I did question him some on how he did it , his explanation was that he fed them so they did his bidding .

That guy was on a Aussie disability pension , the money was sent over and
he seemed to live like a porno king .

I never did fancy the locals myself being a " possible racist "  

Funny how it works for some


----------



## Absolutely (24 September 2009)

Julia said:


> You seem to have a good grasp on the law, Absolutely.
> As you explain it here, then it seems quite reasonable I suppose.
> 
> But from what Overit (I think) quoted above, it sounds as though it can apply where no children are involved and/or a couple are not even living together, which seems quite bizarre.
> ...




Yes what Overit describes would be one of the potential knock on effects. But you have to realise that whilst the law sets the guidelines, the court has a certain amount of discretion on how to apply the laws. So for someone to take on the expense of the court process, they would want to be petty sure that they are going to achieve the outcome they desire.

I know a bit about it because I have been through it. Whilst I used a lawyer I found it advantageous to learn the laws myself and how they seemed to be applied by the court, and therefore I could be independently confident that it was even worth spending the money to defend my case . My ex put in a claim for a huge relief and then just left it to her lawyers to work out how to justify it for her. She failed dismally to the point that the judge felt it wasn't even necessary to put me on the stand after she had spent an embarrassing (for her) hour up there being cross-examined by my barrister.


----------

