jbar
Platinum
Reged: 12/16/06
Posts: 971
|
|
===========================================================
...In an equitable division state they can and did take every thing I had before marrriage and divided it "equitably". This means I lost it. Stocks, furniture, car, and my WHOLE IRA retirement account. Non of it was marital or comingled...
===========================================================
That's what you get for following gigi's advice, and "trusting the system". That is also why I would not do so myself--and would not advise other men to do so either.
The whole problem here is the obsolete and anachronistic legal assumption, of divorce courts, that ALL assets possessed by either party were created during the marriage and were, therefore, the result of a mutual effort on behalf of them both*. This idea resulted in some injustice, even in the day of the buggy whip where it still belongs, but at least then the woman could not clean the man out--as she can today useing "no-fault" divorce law--without demonstrable, real GROUNDS, such as adultery, etc.
It is a little known fact that "annulment" was originally created to allow divorce where the other party was guilty of no misconduct, such as in cases of sterility, etc. Under these circumstances the marriage would be CANCELLED and no property division would be made. Not surprisingly, however, this manner of terminating a marriage has, today, been rendered effectively no different than no-fault divorce, except for the law employed, and an "equitable"(?) division of assets will be made in the same way in either case. In this regard I should again point out here that the Texas "no-fault" divorce law was intended to require the agreement of BOTH partys but, again, for the same tired FINANCIAL CONVENIENCE OF THE WOMAN AND THE STATE it was implemented by the courts as it was, and all suits to correct this error were dismissed. To their eternal shame and disgrace, the Texas Legislature took no further action on the matter, and never will. One wonders, could the whole vile scenario we have become so familiar with--of "matching funds" from the federal govt. for money that could be squeezed out of the man for CS, etc., have had anything to do with this? Once the woman becomes CP, and gets the CS, then of course they have to skewer the poor slob even more for alimony because now she cannot work oweing to the need for her to stay home and take care of the kids. How convenient!
*This assumption can theoretically be disproven, but this requires a degree of evidence considerably in excess of the normal civil standard and, even if in fact disproven, courts tend to get so used to simply dividing everything "50-50" that they often ignore such evidence!
Edited by jbar (02/16/08 09:04 PM)
|
allthumbs
Platinum
Reged: 07/12/07
Posts: 346
|
|
"It should be noted that the increase in value during the marriage of gifts, inherited property, and premarital property which remain in party's name, will also be considered marital."
______________________________________________________________
Is this saying that if personal, inherited property
increases in value during the marriage, than the increased value is community property? Let's take those antique firearms for instance. Suppose a rifle was worth $1,000.00 at the time you inherited it (before your marriage) Now, years later, it's worth $3,000.00, a $2,000.00 increase in value. Does that mean the $2,000.00 is community property? That seems nuts and makes no sense.
|
Samsung
Platinum
Reged: 06/14/07
Posts: 1973
|
|
In some states that would be true.....in a few others, you also would have to split the entire $3000.
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 4702
|
|
When they're talking about increase in value of separate property during the marriage as being attributed to the marriage, what they're USUALLY talking about is the increased value of real estate that was used and maintained by BOTH parties during the marriage. USUALLY, if you have, say, a stock market account opened before the marriage, and don't contribute to it during the marriage, and it simply compounds and increases (OR decreases), the profit (or loss) is USUALLY not split by the parties in a community property state, and is USUALLY not considered "equitably" part of the jointly owned funds in an equitable property state. AND even if the equitable property state considers it jointly owned (the profit or loss), it would be rare that a judge in the case would decide that it was equitable for the profit or loss to be shared by the other spouse.
This type of law is just a guideline for how to decide what might or might not be equitable, what might be included and avaialble to divide if it seems equitable to do so, but the bottom line on what is equitable is whether or nto the judge is persuaded that this is the FAIR thing to do.
Now, there is the rare case where one spouse gets a huge inheritance and quits their job, drawing from the inheritance to create a wonderful lifestyle for the couple, and it's QUITE possible that the judges in an equitable property state might decide that it's fair to use the earnings from the inheritance as if they were joint funds, since the person who got them quit contributing earnings from employment to the joint lifestyle that they had. This would be one reason a judge might find it "equitable" to give part of the increased value of an inheritance to the other person. But even then, in an equitable state, no one is guaranteed a 50-50 split of the property even if it is obviously joint...
WHat you've got to do in an equitable state is prove that you DESERVE to get what you want out of the divorce.
I'm still waiting to hear from Hose about what were the circumstances that were used to take 100% of ALL his property from him.
There has to be more to the story. Something that would be a reason that this happened, something the judge used to justify this decision, something that made it sound equitable from SOMEONE's point of view.
|
jbar
Platinum
Reged: 12/16/06
Posts: 971
|
|
===========================================================
This type of law is just a guideline for how to decide what might or might not be equitable, what might be included and avaialble to divide if it seems equitable to do so, but the bottom line on what is equitable is whether or nto the judge is persuaded that this is the FAIR thing to do.
=========================================================
Gigi, I would like to ask any man reading this if, were he to meet a robber who felt as if he needed some amusement, and were offered by the thief to be allowed to keep the entire contents of his wallet if he would be willing to fire a pistol at his own head after one round had been placed in a chamber and the cylinder spun, would answer "yes"*(1). Any man who would so reply to such a propositon and consider it "fair" would, no doubt, agree that he would also receive "fair" treatment from a divorce court judge, decide not try to protect himself from being placed in such a situation and instead simply hire a lieyer, or (using the first instance metaphorically) be happy to listen to people like you advise him as to ways that he might try to make sure the ammo is old and may not go off, that the gun has not been proof fired and may not work, exactly how close he must hold it to his head and where he must aim, if he has the right to have emergency medical services available, etc., etc.
Considering how SUBJECTIVE divorce law is, (by your own above statement) and how often men get screwed by it (as witnessed by the comments on this site) my analogy is unquestionably valid. A man with any common sense would just give the thief his wallet, as would one with the same amount of intelligence not play any other game (such as divorce) where the amount he has to lose is overwhelmingly greater than what he may have to win!
*1. I would personally answer, "No, but here's my wallet", toss my "throwdown" wallet on the ground, as if I had accidently dropped it while giving it to him and, while he is rifling through the copies of 100's I had made on my computer just for this purpose*(2), run like hell. But then, of course, you might call this a "dirty trick"!
*2. Before you start in on me I am referring, of course, only to copies made in accordance with legal treasury dept. guidelines.
"Beat your wife every morning; If you don't know why, she does!"
...Old Egyptian saying
Edited by jbar (02/17/08 03:00 AM)
|
What will I lose
Platinum
Reged: 05/21/07
Posts: 705
Loc: PA
|
|
i dont know who subscribes to what thread so i'm trying to divvy out the info on a per thread basis...but my atty said that the 13K i put down on my house is definitely mine. The reason this is good is it puts me in the position of having that equity to deal with my wife if need be.
and she of course confirmed that all inheritances and other assets acquired before marriage are mine. But we all knew that.
--------------------
call me WWIL...PA resident 39 year old , married 11 years, together 12...splitting in 13th year.
|
What will I lose
Platinum
Reged: 05/21/07
Posts: 705
Loc: PA
|
|
boy she has periods of in and out. She went from all my grandmothers stuff being marital, to saying she would never take it and it's mine, and now she said in theory, some stuff was acquired during the marriage and she may be 'nice' and not try to claim it. she had the &alls to ask me for a cabinet my aunt gave me during the marriage (a lot of her gifts etc are in there). Thankfully there is really no other 'common' furniture like that in the house (from living relatives) and i already told her no way can she have the cabinet. So hopefully she gets the message. She whined that ill be making out in the deal and i maybe should have given it to her.
Well DUH, i had a 'mostly ' full house when i even met her. Of course i had a kitchen table, dining room table etc etc. Boy next relationship i'm taking pics of the entire house, giving the woman copies and we are getting a notarized statement that all that is mine and any piece we do acquire is going to be individually decided as we buy it ;) (just kidding of course)
I guess she has to fight back in the way she knows how, thinking what i value and trying to take it. Too bad all she has to do all day is think and im sure her mind wanders.
some good news...i checked caller ID and she got a call from her prospective atty last week. So maybe she will hire him as soon as the papers get served :) and we can move this along
--------------------
call me WWIL...PA resident 39 year old , married 11 years, together 12...splitting in 13th year.
|
What will I lose
Platinum
Reged: 05/21/07
Posts: 705
Loc: PA
|
|
yesterday she asked again for a small bureau of my grandmothers. she said since my grandmother didnt give it to me directly, it was technically my moms 'portion' that the furniture got filtered through, that it's marital property and she wants it.
So does this or does this not meet the 'inheritance' test. Depending how things go, i'd almost be inclined to go out and buy a cheap look alike or better just go appease her.
--------------------
call me WWIL...PA resident 39 year old , married 11 years, together 12...splitting in 13th year.
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
