Divorce buggers Money Management

[Prospector]

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

Aha, which is why I said

But when he decides to try out a sweet younger thing, .

:

 

[Agentm]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.


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]

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]

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.

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'.

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!

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]

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]

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?

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]

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

Dig in mate.

 

[Prospector]

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]

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]

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

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