#41101 - 07/30/10 01:37 PM
Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ...
[Re: XiaoGui17]
|
ceruleansteel
member
Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 549
|
"many" is a vague, indefinite term
Well at least you admit to being vague and indefinite
(Oh, your wife sat around watching TV instead of doing the dishes? Can you prove that?)
Aside from the fact that you know this is a gross misinterpretation of what I was saying, personal conduct IS easy to prove.
Either you are stupid, or you just don't know how to read law. Your statute says: "Except as otherwise provided by law, a husband and wife cannot, by a contract with each other, alter their legal relations, except as to property" What do you think the "except as otherwise provided by law" refers to, if not the statute that I pointed out? Not to mention the fact that legal definitions and lay definitions are not always the same. This use of "relations" refers to the actual divorce itself, not the relationship between the two people during marriage. This is backed up by the part about property. Two people can legally define their specific roles in the relationship with a premarital agreement, but they cannot use custody of the children as a penalty for failure to comply, they can only use property rights in the divorce as a penalty.
If I sign a prenup saying that I'm going to finish school and get a job within 5 years and instead I sit around mooching for the duration of those years, my husband can divorce me on those grounds and withhold the loot that he had and accrued during our marriage because I didn't keep my end of the deal. Likewise, if we have an agreement that says I will stay home and raise the kids and take care of the house, and instead there are 25 witnesses to me staying drunk, keeping a toxic waste site inside my home and neglecting my children, then he can likewise withhold the loot, because I DIDN'T KEEP MY SIDE OF THE CONTRACT.
I mentioned the fact that you only brought up California because your own words continually refer to other states in addition to California. If you are only talking about California, then only talk about California. Don't drag the rest of the states into if your not willing to back up a claim about them as well. You are attempting to filter the information in order to back up your hasty claim and it's not going to work, especially in this particular area and with this particular person.
Over and over again, premarital agreement law states:
Any other matter, including their personal rights and
obligations, not in violation of public policy or a statute imposing a criminal penalty.
This is backed by your referenced statute because that statute says that "except as otherwise permitted" and this one does NOT contradict yours because it states "or a statute imposing a criminal penalty". There is no criminal penalty for making an agreement as to whether one will rear the kids or both will work, etc. I couldn't put a clause in that says my husband will provide me with cocaine because that's illegal. I can however, put in a clause that says if he beats me then I get it all and he's out on the street. Whether or not I can prove it in court is my own problem, but if he signs the contract, he agrees to the clause - so long as I can prove I didn't hold a gun to his head when it was signed and THUS the reason why it is also required that both party have a lawyer present during the review and signing of the agreement.
In short, you can stipulate any damn thing you please in your premarital contract, so long as it does not force the other person to commit a criminal act in order to maintain their side of the agreement.
Edited by ceruleansteel (07/30/10 01:42 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#41200 - 08/01/10 10:58 AM
Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ...
[Re: ta2zz]
|
Nyte
member
Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 360
Loc: Ohio
|
I was being sarcastic Ta2zz. Me too… 
Well, since we're both on the same page and all.... 
I comment on what I think should have been a common sense decision prior to the passage of a bill and you're telling me I don't understand our process of law in the US? Yes I am. You assume the law works on commonsense?
I know it doesn't. That's what gets so fucking irritating for me. Judges interpret the laws all the time and set precedences with their rulings on many occassions. It makes me nuts when something like this does take an actual bill to fix.
Ya know, judges can set precedence with their decisions and the fact this took an actual bill being passed to make sure it doesn't happen is exactly why I believe our system is messed up. I’m no law student nor do I wish to suggest that I’m very learned in law, but we are talking basics here and commonsense. Watch MeRead MeRight or wrong it is our system there are ways to legally change it. Unless you are working to change this system it would do best to at least try to understand it.
Yes, I know. It just seems that sometimes this country is so concerned about "paperwork" after something like the ruling in this particular case, when it should have been a "given". It's a headdeskbang moment for me.
You're right about your last statement. Having children does not mean you should automatically get a hand out (from the system). I think I have more of a problem with those who at work think or expect to get more jobs or more hours because they chose to have children. Single or struggling parents should get help from the system if they are really providing for the child. I am also all for forced sterilization after two children in career welfare recipients.
I hate the ones that think they don't get paid enough to do their jobs and have found those are the ones that don't have any financial ties what so ever. They walk or stand around and bitch because they're suppose to do the same things as everyone else and some how manage NOT to get one thing done. They can't work nights, weekends, holidays, or birthdays, etc. But as I've stated before, it's that "entitlement" attitude that so many are exhibiting (even the group we're talking about) anymore. Just because they eat, breath and shit like everyone else, they deserve so much more. It makes me want to seriously kick their asses, the whole lot of them. But that would take entirely too much energy and way more time than I've got right now.
I sometimes wonder about forced sterilization and career welfare recipients. What bothers me about that thought process, is kind of like what we're seeing with the smokers and now the medical "cases". First it started with smoking and banning that anywhere and everywhere. Now, they're banning foods with sugar and sugar derivatives. I'm highly allergic to Splenda and other substitutes like that, so I can't drink or eat things with that crap in it. We'll hear next, it will be mandatory excersize programs, banning things like chips, and over weight people from the medical field. This country is on a serious roll of regulating everything and as much as I like the idea of sterilization for career welfare cases, I worry about what that will lead to next.
He laid down just as easily as she did, so they BOTH should be responsible and not our system. The woman chooses to have the child much later than the laying this is why I suggest she has the most responsibility. I am all for forcing deadbeat parents into labor camps and giving the children to loving people who want and can afford to have children. But alas such is just fantasy. The work involved in passing such a law is much greater than my care or need for such change. Arnold started the process of changing a law I think we all agree it is for the best? ~T~
As for forced labor camps, I wish someone would have done that to my ex. He is self employed (what a full blown crock of shit) and because of that, it took years to get him to pay his support. He started the support proceedings and wanted his son until it became too much "work" for him. Too much work for him to come spend time with him, too much work to take him for weekend visits, too much work for him to drill him about what was going on in my life. Then it was a ton of work just to get him to help financially at all. When he was in arrears (he was on the "diversion" program to avoid jail time), the case worker asked me one time what I would do if they had put him in jail and he couldn't pay his support. I told her,"It doesn't matter because he's not paying his support NOW! At least in jail you can put him into a work program!" Yep, my view is a bit "colored", I know.
Yes, it was a law that needed changed desperately and for obvious reasons. It still doesn't make it any less irritating, for me that is.
_________________________
If only just for today.....
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Woland, Mercury_Templar, fakepropht, Nemesis, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Morgan, Bacchae, Diavolo, Asmedious, Fist
|
|
