Sarah1014
Platinum
Reged: 04/12/07
Posts: 2354
|
|
Stoltz,
That's ok then. Do as you please.
This time though, I promised myself I would listen to my friends. I would take their opinions seriously.
I didn't before and got burned. I was told that he had a drinking problem, etc. I brushed it off. I ignored the red flags.
This time, no way! I am all ears!! I've met someone wonderful and everyone else says so too!!
|
RemLex
Gold
Reged: 04/22/07
Posts: 146
Loc: Chicago, Illinois
|
|
[quote] BTW, what are your (and anyone else's) thoughts on the Trojan commercial that depicts men as disgusting, dirty animals (pigs, to be specific) until they plop down some money for a condom? It's interesting that the women in the commercial are depicted as model-esque types, too, eh? More sexism in the media, IMHO, which is crammed down the public's throats. [/quote]
Stoltz -
I have seen this advertisement and must admit that it gave me a good laugh, however, to defend the men a little bit here; MOST women are no less the pig the commercial is depicting of men! I've seen groups of women in clubs, as well as been within a group of single women friends who are out on the "Prowl" looking for their next victim of circumstance to HOOK-UP with! A pig is a pig! Both genders have this quality, though both will deny having it.
Stoltz...any idea as to which gender was behind the making of this?
And - As far as the women being "depicted as model-esque types"...THAT'S A JOKE! What decent woman (or man for that matter) searches for a GOOD relationship in a BAR for god sakes? The answer..they are not...they are looking for a little sexual satisfaction, nothing more, nothing less.
--------------------
~a clear conscience is the sign of a bad memory~
|
jbar
Platinum
Reged: 12/16/06
Posts: 1074
|
|
===========================================================
A marriage should be a partnership. Even if the contributions of both parties are not equivalent financially, I think my husband deserves a claim to at least half of my income because 1) he's my partner in life and my best friend, 2)he listens sympathetically to me complain about my job, 3) he is my #1 cheerleader whenever I get down and 4) I work some evenings, and he has to watch our two toddlers by himself ... I could go on and on about all the contributions he makes to our "partnership" that have nothing to do with money, assets, or "stuff".
===========================================================
I'm sorry, but I have to say that that is about the most foolish and naive post I have ever read. The thing that matters is not the way people feel about their property and any division of it while they are happily married, but at the time of a divorce! If the divorce ever comes, you will want to eat those words, and will be ready to fight to keep everything you have.
===========================================================
if I were to try and parse out on a daily weekly monthly basis what is his and what is mine, our marriage would surely collapse. What stuff is whose? I paid for his snowmobile last year, but dont' ride the thing - is it his or mine? He bought his house 15 years ago for 1/10 what it is worth today, partly because of improvements I paid for (although he did most of the labor himself). He does all the exterior maintenance, I've paid the mortgage for the last 5 years. IS it his house or mine? Who cares
===========================================================
Again, you don't care now but you will when when the divorce comes. The answer to your above questions is very simple, and I have already gone to great lengths in this board to explain it:
1. Any titled asset is and remains the exclusive property of the title holder, before, during and after a divorce.
2. The ownership of untitled assets is determined by provenance (inheritance, receipts, cancelled checks, etc.) or by common sense (men's clothing would not belong to the woman). This would leave very little, indeed, to really argue about.
3. Notwithstanding the above, assets produced as profit from operating a bona-fide business (not employment) could be considered the proceeds of an implied partnership, provided that the party wishing control of any such assets could PROVE, to the normal civil standard, that he or she contributed substantially to the effort used to produce the assets. Division would be PROPORTIONAL to the PROVEN contribution made. The burden of proof that a given asset, or dollar, is in fact the proceeds of the business would be upon the party wishing award of some portion of control of the asset
4. Any other transfer of anything of value, whether tangible or in the form of work or other behavour, if not covered by any of the above enumerated conditions was, is and will forever remain a BONA-FIDE GIFT!
I hasten to add that none of this has anything to do with the equal responsibility of parents to their childen, which is part of a clear PARENTAL partnership.
Edited by jbar (07/11/07 09:34 PM)
|
GuinnessGirl
Platinum
Reged: 06/01/07
Posts: 355
|
|
Props to HardKnox for at least admitting to an unjustifiable feeling instead of turning it into a political rally.
C'mon...we all have a knee-jerk reaction to the opposite sex when we have been sliced and diced. I recently stunned myself with some really unhealthy and not nice thoughts when sitting next to a perfectly innocent guy on a flight. It was very tight quarters and he was lounging back, elbows out and legs splayed out, making me lean into the aisle so I didn't have to have him sitting in my lap. I actually said to myself "Back off, a**hole! Your [censored] ain't big enough to need that much air."
I have no idea where that came from! I truly don't. I know not all men are bad and know it was just a bad thought on a bad day. But it scared me that I would become one of those man-bashing, ball-busters if I didn't get a grip.
Commercials like the one mentioned don't make it any better. But I realize they are just commercials, they do not represent the entire gender. I think most sane people would recognize that.
--------------------
We cannot direct the wind, but we can adjust the sails -Bertha Calloway
|
hose
Bronze
Reged: 10/08/06
Posts: 32
|
|
JBAR, I brought a lot into my marraige. Eleven years. Car, bikes, and property. My STBX is under the impession she can have one half. My lawyer isn't scared but I seem to keep getting comflicting info. We live in a equitable state. She deservse something but.. She worked outside of home too. Thanks
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 5173
|
|
Don't get all freaked out over anything JBar says. His situation is unique & strange, and he's not here for support as much as he thinks this is some political forum for his campaign to change the laws to suit his particular situation. He married a foreigner who turned out to be certifiably crazy, but at least she worked through the marriage (and we presume she still does). He is disabled & had to fight the government for his disability payment, and from what we can tell he hasn't worked in more than a decade. He became terrified that she might get some part of what he considers his own (basically everything), and so he told her that he'd falsely swear out a warrant that she was actively crazy and they'd put her in a mental institution, and there wouldn't be a lawyer around who would represent her becasue she is crazy and under his reading of the laws, lawyers are not ethically allowed to represent crazy people (despite that the law specifically says that crazy people are to be given representation). He doesn't much care about what the law actually says as he cares about what he fears will happen to his own property. He occasionally talks about issues involving how Dads are so put upon as parents so that he can get teh support of some of the dads on this forum (and this really IS the area where most of the divorce laws seem to be unfairly applied in favor of women)... but he has no clue.
He convinced his wife that she'd be committed if she stayed here, so she fled to her home country and has been living there for years. He keeps consulting attorneys, but he won't file for divorce because there is no one willing to give him promises that nothing horrible will happen (any lawyer who gave him a guarantee would be subjecting themselves to ethics violations, because there truly are no guarantees in life)...
His advice is not something should be taken. I didn't say anything when he originally posted that post a few up on this thread, but I suppose everyone needs to know that this is NOT the law, it's just his dream version of the law. In his dreams, he'd get to protect everything he thinks is his if he got this law passed. He believes that no lawyers would dare to enter into the cases to review, define, or try to distinguish various things, he simply believes he has all the answers (can you say, "narcissist"?)
The true state of the law is actually much more fair than he chooses to believe, and though there are rare stories where someone loses their home in a divorce that had been in thier family through several generations, we usually find the story BEHIND the story on those sitautions is something like that the heir to the family fortune mortgaged it to pay for their lifestyle, did not pay off the mortgage, and the soon-to-be-exes are able to pay them off... (or some other such behind the scenes story that woudl explain why the result in court is fair).
Even the situations that seem TRULY unfair... well, first of all, they're newsworthy becasue they're so rare... but when you look at them, it's generally a matter of things happening while they stuck their heads in the sand, and they didn't bother answering the unfair requests of thier exes until years later, after the deadlines for answering stuff was well passed.
For nearly every type of injustice, one way or the other, there is probably an infamous case that on the surface looks horrible... and you've got to scratch your head & wonder how anyone could let that happen ... and so no matter what anyone wants to say about laws being unfair, there is probably some example they could come up with to support their point of view. This does NOT mean that their point of view is accurate, just that a surface review of one oddball case (or two) might support it.
So be careful about who you allow to make you get all worried or up in arms. You're a whole lot better off if you walk into court with your lawyer, relying on their advice, rather than believing all is lost because you listened to someone like JBar.
For your situation, if you came into the marriage with a lot of stuff, and that stuff still exists, hasn't been used as collateral for a loan, given away to your spouse as a gift, etc., then your lawyer's decision not to be concerned about it is probably more appropriate than JBar's "the sky is falling" claims about all property laws.
Don't let JBar's delusions about the property laws make you crazy.
I'm not saying all the laws are applied fairly in every case, or that you don't have to be prepared, or even that you don't have to keep records of your property (which seems to be one of the things that JBar believes will catch him, because he apparently owns a bunch of stuff that has been kept buried in a hole in his back yard rather than in any institution where there might be records of the fact that he owned it at the time of the wedding). There are some laws which are applied in a questionable fashion, with some blanket statement such as "it's in the best interests of the children", as though some judge knows what's really in this child's best interests, better than the child's own father knows, just because the child's mother says so. There will always be pitfalls... but this property issue that you're worried about is not one of them, and don't let JBar make you think otherwise.
|
stoltz
Platinum
Reged: 01/29/07
Posts: 1493
Loc: Texas
|
|
I disagree about your assessment about how things average out, so-to-speak. If the laws were truly gender-equal, I would see buying into your "theory", but we live in a society - where through bad legislation brought on by feminist half-truths - that favors one gender over another when it comes to many domestic issues, including divorce, custody, and abuse.
For example, using your position, domestic abuse is not only very rare, but equals over the long run between genders. However, this goes totally against the laws, media, and other communication outlets that trumpet ONLY women as victims of domestic violence.
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 5173
|
|
I didn't say there aren't inequities, but that they're not what JBar says they are. There laws on the books are supposed to be gender neutral, but they're not applied that way because of personal biases fo lots of people, men and women alike, about the roles of men and women in the family. You, yourself, have organized your own family according to preconceived notions about how the division of labor should be between men & women in the family, and yet you resent the result that the judges will be trying to protect your wives with the laws more than they protect you.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying a LOT of people do it.
And it most seriously affects the disposition of children, who they spend their time with & etc...
But regards to the flat-out property law issues of what is sole & separate, when there are no children involved in the divorce, it's NOT as difficult or frightening or improperly applied as JBar would have everyone believe. If this guy owned property before he was married then it's not all that hard to prove he owned it before he was married & the only part of it that she'll get will be if the maintenance or upkeep or increased value of the property received a contribution of joint efforts during the marriage (and despite that you don't think it's fair, when either party works & earns more than teh other party, whether they're working outside the home or inside the home or simply spending their days at the spa, it's called "joint efforts"... and there's good reason for that... but that's too long a discussion right now).
If he came into the marriage with a paid off car and there's been no change of that so that he gave it to her or whatever, then it's still his. If she came into the marriage with a little paid off condo, then it's hers to take when she divorces him and he doesn't get a bit of it. It's not that tough and JBar is wrong to be working to scare men that they'll lose everything if they try to get divorced... that "sky is falling" attitude could cause some men to put themselves in some very bad positions that very well WILL end up with thier own skies falling, when they finally get around to it.
I've never taken the position that the laws are equal. Just that JBar's nutty version of what is and what should be is neither real nor realistic.
|
jbar
Platinum
Reged: 12/16/06
Posts: 1074
|
|
===========================================================
JBAR, I brought a lot into my marraige. Eleven years. Car, bikes, and property. My STBX is under the impession she can have one half. My lawyer isn't scared but I seem to keep getting comflicting info. We live in a equitable state. She deservse something but.. She worked outside of home too.
===========================================================
Of course your lawyer isn’t scared. He still makes out like a bandit no matter how bad YOU get screwed! If lawyers were to tell their clients the truth about the disgraceful, vast maze of overwhelmingly anti-male, ambiguous and self-contradictory divorce law that exists--in every state--the following things would happen:
1. He may never get another client. Unless female, they would resolve to either "stick it out" or leave the country instead.
2, If he did, he would never “win” another case (the judges are in on it)
3. He would be disbarred on some trumped-up charge (“How dare he derail our gravy train?”)
4. His wife would divorce him and take at least half of everything he has, including the house, kids, alimony, etc., etc. (This is called being “hoisted on his own petard”). After all, if items #1 through #3, above, are going to happen, she had better “get while the getting is good”!
The only thing anyone has to do to realize the sorry state of things is to take a trip to your local super market and look at the tabloids at the check-out lanes. It is almost impossible to avoid reading a headline on the front page of at least one, telling you about the latest exploits of some professional divorcee, who has married and divorced a string of men–usually celebrities--and invariably taken everything they had. Yet, the men somehow never seem to learn! Rather than avoiding women like this–or better yet avoiding marriage altogether in this country–to the extent they may try to actually do something about the situation it is all too often, albeit understandably, through resort to violence!
If it is too late for you to completely protect yourself from the kind of law and the kind of people I have spoken of above, I am sorry to hear it. However it cannot be too late to avoid being totally taken for a fool by believing the naive nonsense that some posters on this site are selling. Where will they be and what will they say when you have lost everything? You may not even have a computer left with which to ask them!
If you believe that your wife JUSTLY deserves anything from you then by all means VOLUNTARILY give it to her. Do not, however, allow yourself to be deceived or tricked out of what you have worked hard for by sophistry, "guilt trips", greedy lawyers or laws which were made by living demagogues or in another age, by long-dead ignoramuses! Defend yourself!
Disclaimer: Not legal advice
Edited by jbar (07/18/07 12:28 AM)
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
