Divorce Settlements
- Thread starter No1newts
- Start date
Its a fair point groen makes though. Marriage states that you support eachother for better or worse not for D amount of years post marriage because you couldn't get on.
I agree wholeheartedly that children should be looked after and given the best possible standard of life but I fail to understand why someone should be supported for free for the rest of their life merely for having married the right person. If you separate you should start looking after yourself as you are no longer together.
I agree wholeheartedly that children should be looked after and given the best possible standard of life but I fail to understand why someone should be supported for free for the rest of their life merely for having married the right person. If you separate you should start looking after yourself as you are no longer together.
Jail for 6 months to save 35M? Tough one!
Someone who knows more will know better but does 6 months probably mean 2.5 months with good behaviour?
So he stays in a crap hotel for a few weeks and dodges paying his money grabbing ex lots of moola.
Some might say it's not a terrible deal.
Someone who knows more will know better but does 6 months probably mean 2.5 months with good behaviour?
So he stays in a crap hotel for a few weeks and dodges paying his money grabbing ex lots of moola.
Some might say it's not a terrible deal.
I disagree, his PoV seems to be predicated on the fact that it is always a wealthy male and gold digging female.
Marriage is about best intentions; vows are unlikely to acknowledge the likelihood of matrimonial failure. It also says for richer and poorer, and statements like these can be contorted into any which fashion.
Regarding your complaint on supported living standards, it does depend on the case and circumstances. Where children are involved it is invariably more complicated, as children with subsidence cannot provide for them self a lifestyle they may be entitled to without the custodian parent having to at least facilitate it especially with regards to housing and education.
Marriage is about best intentions; vows are unlikely to acknowledge the likelihood of matrimonial failure. It also says for richer and poorer, and statements like these can be contorted into any which fashion.
Regarding your complaint on supported living standards, it does depend on the case and circumstances. Where children are involved it is invariably more complicated, as children with subsidence cannot provide for them self a lifestyle they may be entitled to without the custodian parent having to at least facilitate it especially with regards to housing and education.
I wasn't so much agreeing with his wording but the general point, applied to either gender.
Then perhaps there is an argument that marriage vows should be updated because it is a sad fact that a lot of marriages do fail.
Again I agree and I think this is something that needs to reflected in legal terms, some system set up to provide suitable care for children and differentiating that from general severance.
I think looking at this solely I cannot accept the amount is what is needed to support children and her, it's a reflection on the current divorce situation which grants excessive amounts of money for simply being married in the first place.
For the record I am married with children and if, god forbid, we ever separated I would not hesitate or begrudge supporting my children, I would go above and beyond what is expected. However, I would begrudge supporting my (then) ex so she could live an easier life whilst my own lifestyle and ability to move on was hindered by someone who had agreed to seperate.
/That was supposed to be subsistence, not subsidence. 
Anyway regarding the settlement, it's subjective. That's all I'll say.
For the record I am unmarried with no children. I'd certainly be thinking of my own skin at that level of commitment. Like any contract, there are risks. The fact this one is primarily based on emotion, but has cross over into material wealth makes it all the more important.
Life's a risk, and not everything can mitigated against. Unfortunately with most things, you have to draw a compromise and it is often one that clearly doesn't make everyone happy and brings to the fore unusual outcomes.
Marriage is ancient; the sentiments and results are going to be quite similar too.
They may be unequal materially entering, but the premise is half of everything on ending the partnership is there for a reason. It might be becoming outdated in certain respects but the arguments still exist.
Anyway regarding the settlement, it's subjective. That's all I'll say.
For the record I am unmarried with no children. I'd certainly be thinking of my own skin at that level of commitment. Like any contract, there are risks. The fact this one is primarily based on emotion, but has cross over into material wealth makes it all the more important.
Life's a risk, and not everything can mitigated against. Unfortunately with most things, you have to draw a compromise and it is often one that clearly doesn't make everyone happy and brings to the fore unusual outcomes.
Marriage is ancient; the sentiments and results are going to be quite similar too.
They may be unequal materially entering, but the premise is half of everything on ending the partnership is there for a reason. It might be becoming outdated in certain respects but the arguments still exist.
Last edited:
Problem being main wage earner is normally the man, or if not he will be statistically the best off, but it is still run on the premise that a mother provides the best and most appropriate care.
In any event, I think the children's wishes should really be paramount as far as practical or safe.
No I don't think it is bad taste because she isn't getting half "his" wealth, she is getting half "their" wealth. Until recently I have always earned more than my wife but I don't consider the house, car or whatever other possessions to be more mine than hers, they are ours.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
It was 'their' money whilst they were married. Now it's 'his' money again.
It doesn't work like that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Well, it should.
Why?
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Because they aint together anymore.
If I sell my car, should I have to pay half of the next owner's MOT tests, petrol and insurance?
Yes I know, but why?
There is a clear difference between a marriage settlement and a private sale.
Yes. Those are the terms of marriage in the main. If you aren't comfortable with the potential outcomes of a certain choice; don't do it.
How some people consider marriage has changed, but that doesn't change the institution of marriage itself. It is a joining of two people, in almost every sense possible, even if the ratio of assets brought into the partnership was unequal. It was a compromise a person was willing to make. To then seperate their estate, but all of a sudden pretend that you have never been married and actually I've been an individual all along.. why get married?
There is no doubt people who don't feel entitled, and don't press for it, those who do who perhaps aren't entitled but do.. that's not what we should be focusing on. It's why it's their in the first place, the principle of entering equal partnership and a lot of it had to do with the inequality in the first place between the sexes and to prevent destitution of women and children given the horrors of previous centuries with male ownership of estates (caveat for upper class).
I don't think outcomes are always equitable and clearly 50/50 split isn't always fair, but in general terms casting off the old responsibilities (or pitfalls) or marriage it makes it as a concept rather hollow imo.
It's not only because he married her. It's because she's stayed had home, spitting out his kids, washing his cloths, cooking his tea, doing his shopping, helping make him successful.
Biohazard said:
Thats pretty crappy too. Again, I don't think marriage should be the deciding factor and in reality it isn't always.
If I marry a woman and we both work full time, never have kids, and never need to support each other, then I should get to keep my self earned wealth.
If I marry a woman and we decide together that we to have kids and that the wife should stay at home and look after then, you're having a much different argument.
Inherited wealth shouldn't typically need to be shareble either.
Course, the second things start getting messy, it's much easier for the courts to move directly towards a 50% cut and after a good 10-20 years, thats probably OK. In reality it's not that bad though. Marriage is still bias towards Women, like a lot of things in life really, but it's not as ridiculously so as often suggested.
nice turn of phrase
Not sure thats what I meant to type, but screw you it works.
With also getting a 50% of all the wealth, sure, we'll take 50% of the debt. Think about it.
Last edited: