Divorce settlements.Follow

Since I managed to stand in total opposition to just about every single one of the people who opinion i give a f*ck about on the forum with my last subject, i fugured what the hell lets bring up another controversial subject so you can all call me an asshat again

This one is courtsey of Mrs Tarv.

While read one the many trash pulp magazines to keep up on the celeb gossip, she ran across an article regarding the forthcoming divorce of Mr and Mrs McCartney.

It brought up the subject of how much should a partner who contributed nothing to the gaining of wealth in a direct sence, be entitled to when they split.

The ball park figure of 50/50 split can seem to be hugely in favour of the one who did not directly obtain the wealth. It seems that the individual that stayed at home and didn't work is getting an aweful lot for nothing.

Now in regular everyday people this is counterbalanced by the fact that the homemaker has to keep the home and look after the children, but in the homes that have vast wealth with hired cleaners and nannies do they really have a leg to stand on in that regard?

In a recent ruling a wife of a Sportsman was given 50%(i think it was 50% i might be out by 10%) of her ex husbands FUTURE earnings for the rest of his sports career.

Her life consisted of buying clothes, partying and not a great deal else while she lived of her husband undoubted talent.

In the case of Mr McCartney most of his generated wealth in the period of thier marrage will have come from money obtained in a previous marrage or fame obtain prior the marriage so she has contibuted exactly Zero to the generation of said wealth and cannot claim that her presence in the marriage enable him to get on with earnign while she held the fort back home

Because she didn't.

It is my opinion that by marrying Mr mcCartney she has vastly increased her own earning potential so why should she be entitled to a portition of HIS aswell.

The rumour mill whispers that she has turned down a £30 million and wants much more, she also want to take the divorce stateside despite never being a resident in America.

I read the rumors also that she was planning to file in California (land of community property) to increase her chances of gaining a better property judgment. Unless she's able to show that the California Courts have jurisdiction in some way, her Petition for Dissolution of Marriage will be dismissed. California is also a no-default divorce state, meaning that you don't have to have cause/reason to file for a divorce. So abuse, adultery, bad marriage behavior are not reasons to ask for an increase in property judgments. You could try to pursue such claims as an injured party in a garden-variety civil lawsuit.

The whole idea of property being given to a non-working spouse in California courts has to do with the idea that the non-working spouse is entitled to live at the standard of living the couple grew accustomed to during the length of the marriage. If that's going to hold true for the McCartney-Mills matter, then La Heather will be entitled to something that will help her attain that standard of living. However, except for some circumstances, most courts also assume that the non-working spouse has to do something to contribute to one's upkeep, post-divorce (i.e., get a job, go back to school, etc) and cannot rely on the ex to support 100% that standard of living. Length of marriage is also an issue. The McCartneys were married less than 10 years, which is the general number of years to ascribed to long-term marriage. Since they were married for a short period, she will be hard pressed to argue why she would be entitled to such a high-standard of living for the rest of her life when the marriage lasted ~4 years.

Of course, I expect that the child custody and child support issue is going to be a huge issue, as I have seen many a non-working spouse hide behind the child custody/support to get as high a payout as possible.

/Gbaji length off

Do prosthetics count?

Exactly. He screwed himself. It's too bad about the kid but I can't feel sorry for him when he could have protected himself from this eventuality.

Dumass.

I suppose the laws were put in place to protect spouses who had become accustomed to a certain quality of life and did not have the means to earn their own living (back in the day, I suppose, when most women had an MRS degree and not much else), but I don't see the point nowadays. Just leave with what you came in with, rest is 50-50.

I really hate marriage. And this explains why.

It is legaly and financialy binding. The legal process of divorce should be changed to make sure that both parents DIRECTLY take care of their children. Not in a "send everything you earn to your husband/wife so they can take care of your kids" way. That's ******* stupid. I don't ever see myself getting married, ever.

The legal system for marriage and divorce sucks some major donkey balls.

Marriage should just be a title, nothing else.

The system right now is abused, over and over again. And hurts the kids more than anything else.

Misogynistic poofter.




Edited, Aug 17th 2006 at 11:06am EDT by Elderon