Divorce buggers Money Management

[waza1960]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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?