Printable View
does a divorced lady gets everything from the husband ?
i was watching this movie and what i came across is when a lady gets divorced she can take husband's home, car, pension and almost leave him with nothing, ist correct? thats a big price for knocking some one.
if yes then no wonder why people don't get married that often there, they prefer to "live together" instead.
I'm only guessing here, however I assume the individual circumstances are taken into account when deciding the division of community property. One would imaging that, in the normal course of events if there were children and they were staying with the mother, then she would also keep the marital home.
Just presume they do..you will not be surprised that way. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BawA
Quote:
Originally Posted by BawA
as far as the living together thing, we have common laws, that state if the man and woman are living together for a certain period of time in the same dwelling sharing it, even though they aren't married their belongings become shared in a legal sense. the laws vary from state to state.
as far as divorce, i'm not really sure, because i haven't experienced it or known someone well that experienced it like that, but the judges here would probably be partial to the wife for the reason that she often wants and gets custody of the kids. some things could make it worse, for instance if you are having an affair, and you're wife finds out and divorces you, i wouldn't be surprised if that judge gave her almost everything in the divorce.
Depends on the pre-nup I suppose.
i've always wondered, is there a romantic way to ask for a pre-nup?
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaSlayer
Say it with flowers :whistling
Speaking from experience...Yes they do get the majority of the estate including the children if there are any. Even living with someone establishes a "common law marriage" rule. This means that if you have a girlfriend and you ask her to live with you and after six months she screwed your best friend,, tapped your bank accounts and is doing drugs in your living room, you can not kick her out. She could actually take you to court just like she was married to you.
Lord forbid that there are children involved. The courts lean heavily to the mother's side for custody and everything seems to go to the mother "in support" of the children. They can go after you retirement and there is a percentage chart that allows them to get more the longer they were married to you. The courts will also divide the debts. They will divide the debt between the 2 people. The order from the court is a temporary restraining order to the creditors. So say you pay all your bills and credit cards off and the X stops paying her bills or goes bankrupt... they can now come after you for the debt and also report it to your credit report.
For all the young men out there...all I can say is listen to the Tom Leykis show.
Children are property in America. That's just capitalism run mad.Quote:
Originally Posted by SHUVT
Just make marriage conditions..
Go to a lawyer..we have special ones in Holland called notarisen .
They create legal documents that describes the conditions in case of a Divorce..Who gets what. Still Bawa, I don't suppose you will have to worry too much about that.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~advocare/folder70.htm <----- Don't bother to click this link, unless you are planning to get married shortly and can read Dutch
:huh:Quote:
Restricted Partnership: The Dutch law offers the possibility of a restricted Marriage partnership and includes for example that already obtained before and during the marriage, differently than donation or law of inheritance. The partnership that the debts of everyone could have among other things been recovered from each partners within the partnership. In practise such Marriage conditions hardly ever prevent debts being incurred, such as often are made with credit cards, particularly during the divorce period
sorry it's a crappy machine translation
That's called a "pre-nup" (Pre-Nuptial Agreement)Quote:
Originally Posted by thewizeard
ok thanks Barbarossa :)
More chattels I would have thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
Fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaulMore specifically chattels, I would have thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
Quote:
Speaking from experience...Yes they do get the majority of the estate including the children if there are any. Even living with someone establishes a "common law marriage" rule. This means that if you have a girlfriend and you ask her to live with you and after six months she screwed your best friend,, tapped your bank accounts and is doing drugs in your living room, you can not kick her out. She could actually take you to court just like she was married to you.
wtf, wives cheats on husbands and instead of being asked to leave they can take all they want then leave and maybe stay. thats absolutely ridicules, thats like wives can cheat how much they can but if man is busted that would be like killing the wife.
i think its all because not having any law against husband-wife cheating.
Lord forbid that there are children involved. The courts lean heavily to the mother's side for custody and everything seems to go to the mother "in support" of the children. They can go after you retirement and there is a percentage chart that allows them to get more the longer they were married to you. The courts will also divide the debts. They will divide the debt between the 2 people. The order from the court is a temporary restraining order to the creditors. So say you pay all your bills and credit cards off and the X stops paying her bills or goes bankrupt... they can now come after you for the debt and also report it to your credit report.
For all the young men out there...all I can say is listen to the Tom Leykis show
thats not fair, specially if wife asks for divorce. what if the wife gets re-married to they still get the benefits? that would be like collecting fortune.
and whats about paying of the bills, why the feck they go after the men if the wife goes crazy on shopping.
or even if shes is busted http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/images/icons/icon7.gifQuote:
as far as the living together thing, we have common laws, that state if the man and woman are living together for a certain period of time in the same dwelling sharing it, even though they aren't married their belongings become shared in a legal sense. the laws vary from state to state.
as far as divorce, i'm not really sure, because i haven't experienced it or known someone well that experienced it like that, but the judges here would probably be partial to the wife for the reason that she often wants and gets custody of the kids. some things could make it worse, for instance if you are having an affair, and you're wife finds out and divorces you, i wouldn't be surprised if that judge gave her almost everything in the divorce.
reading through these posted i just want to ask about something is USA law written by ladies or what? http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/images/icons/icon9.gif
or this just an scam to divert ladies demands from asking to be putted in same stage as men http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/images/icons/icon3.gif
Yeah, Bawa - the same laws apply if a man cheats on his independently wealthy wife. He gets a large proportion of her wealth if they split up and no pre-nuptual agreement has been signed.
So in that sense, it's not so heavily weighted toward women.
What does seem to be a little unfair in some cases are the laws involving custody of any children. These are heavily biased toward the woman based on nothing but her possession of a vagina, following from that is her retention of the family home coupled with maintennance payments from the ex-husband and father of her children. These payments are decided by what is supposed to be an independent process and is dependent on his income.
This process is far from perfect, however.
How, I meant the number was increasing.Quote:
Originally Posted by mankerFixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
I think that may be over-simplifying the process (I know you're speaking to bAWa).
There are also considerations regarding bonding, who has spent more time with the children, who the children want to be with, who wants to have the children, will the man give up work to be with them, who knows the childrens's needs best, through experience, who has the more nurturing spirit, who can cook, clean and iron.
I think it's a bit more complex than possession, or otherwise, of a vagina.
:lol: :schnauz:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip MonkHow, I meant the number was increasing.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
All the things you mention (cooking, cleaning, ironing, nurturing spirit etc.) are dependent upon having a vagina, Shirley.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip MonkQuote:
Originally Posted by manker
I think that may be over-simplifying the process (I know you're speaking to bAWa).
There are also considerations regarding bonding, who has spent more time with the children, who the children want to be with, who wants to have the children, will the man give up work to be with them, who knows the childrens's needs best, through experience, who has the more nurturing spirit, who can cook, clean and iron.
I think it's a bit more complex than possession, or otherwise, of a vagina.
In some states it is almost impossible for the husband to get custody of the children unless they can prove the soon to be X a crackwhore sellign herself on the corner and leaving the kids at home with no food while she does it. MEn in the US have a huge disadvantage in the family courts. Men are usually the ones walking away from divorces with the biggest losses. They lose at least 50% of the estate and the children. What they do get is vaginamony payments to the X, child support payments to the X and the comfort of knowing the X will get a chunk of thier retirement after they bust thier ass for another 15-20 years to get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip MonkQuote:
Originally Posted by manker
I think that may be over-simplifying the process (I know you're speaking to bAWa).
There are also considerations regarding bonding, who has spent more time with the children, who the children want to be with, who wants to have the children, will the man give up work to be with them, who knows the childrens's needs best, through experience, who has the more nurturing spirit, who can cook, clean and iron.
I think it's a bit more complex than possession, or otherwise, of a vagina.
In most states the general rule for just child support is 20% of you net income (Before taxes and deductions) 1 child. 25% for 2 and 30%for 3 and so on. So using that as a base for what a perosn could end up paying after a divorce...
Annual Income = $100,000 USD
Children = 2
Annual Child Support Paid = $25,000 to the X and she does not have to prove what she is doing with this money. hmmmmm :angry:
This does not take into account for the requirement to carry medical insurance for the children, vaginamoney, costs of all travel for children to come visit, or the debts that this person would take on after the divorce.
It makes me sick. :sick:
Fair point, never thought that one thro'.Quote:
Originally Posted by mankerAll the things you mention (cooking, cleaning, ironing, nurturing spirit etc.) are dependent upon having a vagina, Shirley.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip Monk
But weight, does having said vagina ensure the other things. I think not, just look at you.
So, it's not simply a matter of having a vagina. However it is impossible to achieve the other requirements sans one.
I think that's better.
I can't rip the pish out of that because of the Kurt Vonnegut clause. However that won't last forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by SHUVTIn some states it is almost impossible for the husband to get custody of the children unless they can prove the soon to be X a crackwhore sellign herself on the corner and leaving the kids at home with no food while she does it. MEn in the US have a huge disadvantage in the family courts. Men are usually the ones walking away from divorces with the biggest losses. They lose at least 50% of the estate and the children. What they do get is vaginamony payments to the X, child support payments to the X and the comfort of knowing the X will get a chunk of thier retirement after they bust thier ass for another 15-20 years to get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip Monk
In most states the general rule for just child support is 20% of you net income (Before taxes and deductions) 1 child. 25% for 2 and 30%for 3 and so on. So using that as a base for what a perosn could end up paying after a divorce...
Annual Income = $100,000 USD
Children = 2
Annual Child Support Paid = $25,000 to the X and she does not have to prove what she is doing with this money. hmmmmm :angry:
This does not take into account for the requirement to carry medical insurance for the children, vaginamoney, costs of all travel for children to come visit, or the debts that this person would take on after the divorce.
It makes me sick. :sick:
Lets all become Muslims,that way the bitches get nowt,just a slap if they're lucky.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gripper
lol :lol:
yes they get it all if you work they take it right out of your pay leaving you a tiny portion
:angry:x#*x@
Quote:
Originally Posted by BawA
Even if u live together they can still take u to the cleaners
The men get hosed only due to circumstance.Quote:
Originally Posted by BawA
1. Women give birth to children so child custody is in their favor. Men in most cases have to prove the mother unfit to gain full custody and "flip the script" for the child support. There are cases of joint custody where each parent has the child(ren) an equal (or about equal) amount of time during the year. A have a friend that has the children 2 weeks on, 2 weeks off and no child support changes hands for either parent.
2. Alimony has nothing to do with gender. It has do with couples that are unevenly yoked. A housewife of 25 years married to a CEO of a Fortune 100 company gets divorced so it looks like the guy gets hosed. Again this is circumstance. I have seen the reverse happen. The woman made much more than the man (they both still had nice paying jobs). She paid most of bills yet to keep the house she had to pay half it's worth to him and give up some of pension.
All of this perceived unfairness is due to a male dominated society. I think the unfairness comes in with child support. In many cases you are supporting the mother and she doesn't have to work but that has nothing to do with marriage. I say this regarding rich folk.
I remember basketball player Juwan Howard having to pay $10,000 a moth in child support to an unwed mother. What child needs that much money per month? That's $120,000 a year!! That's more than my base salary and I'm doing fine!!
The mother doesn't have to work ffs.:dry: The unfairness of the amount in child support is another story though.
talk about getting your news right when it happens!Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul