Page 3 of 3 <123
Topic Options
#41101 - 07/30/10 01:37 PM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: XiaoGui17]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
 Originally Posted By: x
"many" is a vague, indefinite term



Well at least you admit to being vague and indefinite


 Originally Posted By: x
(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:
 Quote:
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 Offline
member


Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 380
Loc: Ohio
 Originally Posted By: ta2zz

 Originally Posted By: Nyte
I was being sarcastic Ta2zz.

Me too… \:D


Well, since we're both on the same page and all.... \:\/

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
 Originally Posted By: Nyte
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.

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
 Originally Posted By: Nyte
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 Me

Read Me

Right 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.

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
 Originally Posted By: Nyte
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.

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
 Originally Posted By: Nyte
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
#78888 - 07/30/13 11:41 AM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: XiaoGui17]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6786
Loc: Virginia
Alimony seems archaic to me. The added Legislation is just setting up protections for spouses that use it as way to stick it to the ex financially. Not a bad idea really, sometimes financial support keeps marriages together a lot longer than they should be. The bread-winner doesn't want to be stuck paying Alimony so he/she suffers through it.

This is an out.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#78924 - 07/31/13 07:01 PM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: SIN3]
XiaoGui17 Online
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1139
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
Alimony seems archaic to me.

Yeah, to me, too. And thank goodness for this "well durr" legislation.

In all fairness, this was probably an oversight, in the same way that rapists can sue for custody of their kids. A lot of feminists have a shitfit, but honestly, this is just some legislators writing "the biological father can seek custody of the children," it not even occurring to them that a rapist may attempt to do so. It's not a case of "haha, rapists get yo kids!" I don't imagine the spouse that hired a hit occurred to the legislators, either.

Still, we have a long way to go...

Grimm v. Grimm, 2003 Ohio 80
Prenup was unenforceable because it was not "voluntarily" entered into. Did the groom-to-be hold a gun to her head? No, the wife admitted she only "skimmed" the document and would have signed anything to make him happy, so it wasn't what one might call informed consent, though she was the one that chose not to inform herself. Well gee, read the thing next time. Or don't, because apparently that's the Ohio "get out of prenup free" card.

In re Marriage of Facter, 212 Cal. App. 4th 967
A woman married to a multimillionaire would only have gotten, under the prenup, $200K, a Jaguar, all the furniture, and half the proceeds from the sale of the mansion. But the spousal support waiver in the prenup was voided as "unconscionable" because she wouldn't have the same standard of living she did when married, nor what she would have received from court-ordered spousal support, and thus this was "manifestly inadequate." I thought the whole purpose of a prenup was to change what the spouse would have gotten; why does changing it make it "unconscionable"? Shit, can I get what California considers adequate?

Bassler v. Bassler, 156 Vt. 353
A prenup that says that the wife take nothing from the husband in the event of divorce "violates public policy and should not be enforced," because the wife was living on public assistance after the separation, but the husband was supporting himself decently. Apparently the state of Vermont didn't want to support her, so they foisted the duty off on her ex. (Least sympathetic husband; he was hiding his assets by shuffling them over to his mother, but only from the court after it determined his prenup was void--not from his wife when she signed.)

Parkhurst v. Gibson, 133 N.H. 57
A prenup was said to be inapplicable in divorce proceedings because it was allegedly "not made in contemplation of divorce," only if the marriage ended in death. I think they have another type of document for that, called wills or something. I guess they don't have wills in New Hampshire.

Mamot v. Mamot, 283 Neb. 659
A prenup was unenforceable based on the following factors: it was "coercive" for a husband to present his wife with a prenup only 5 days before the wedding (returning a few hours later to ask if she had signed it), there was a "disparity in bargaining power" because the husband had partial ownership in three businesses whereas the wife quit an hourly job to be a homemaker, and despite having signed a prenup for her last marriage and understanding it had something to do with division of assets, she didn't have a "complete understanding" of the legal nuance. Frankly, Nebraska, that sounds like a gross exaggeration of little details to make the wife appear completely helpless when she wasn't. Much emphasis was placed on the fact that she didn't consult an attorney. Simple solution: "Honey, I want to see a lawyer before I sign this." (Wylie v. Wylie, 1988 Kan. App. LEXIS 48, had a similar ruling. So Kansas sucks, too.)

I have a little more sympathy for the cases where the groom sprung the prenup on the wife just minutes before she was scheduled to walk down the aisle, but still, that should raise some big red flags that say "DO NOT MARRY THIS GUY."

I really doubt this BS would hold up for any other contract. Can you imagine a businessperson using the defense of "Well, I didn't read it," or "This exculpation/ indemnification/ subrogation/ warranty clause is just so manifestly inadequate because it's less than what I would have gotten if I had just sued in tort!", "This contract violates public policy because I'll have to declare bankruptcy!", "I didn't make this sales contract in contemplation of sales!", "The formation of this contract was coercive because he only asked me to look at it five days before the merger, and we're such a small company there's a disparity in bargaining power!"
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#78926 - 07/31/13 07:10 PM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: XiaoGui17]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6786
Loc: Virginia
Yeah the whole legal-system allows for too many loop-holes and translations to fit the end game. Plus all the hand-shaking and having Judges in your pocket doesn't hurt either.

The institution of marriage needs to get with the times anyway. I mean really, it's the 21st century not the 18th for crying out loud. It also needs to allow for plural marriage and same-sex marriage. It's not a religious institution and hasn't been for quite sometime. Civil Unions is the way to go.

Marriage is often used as a business arrangement, I know mine was. As short as it was, it served its purpose and then done.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#78948 - 08/02/13 03:30 AM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: SIN3]
XiaoGui17 Online
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1139
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
Marriage is often used as a business arrangement, I know mine was. As short as it was, it served its purpose and then done.

For all this moving forward to the 21st century, I often wish we could go back to the days of marriage brokers and matchmaking. There are a number of websites and freelance individuals who claim to do the job, but none of them are reputable. It's all a bunch of scams that would make that Nigerian email dude who wants your bank account number blush. I've done my research, and I can't find a single one that's gotten a single good review that isn't in its own ads or on its own website.

My parents said they'd make me a deal. As long as I told them whoever I was dating, they wouldn't try to set me up with anyone. My reaction surprised them. "Can you? ...please?"

They have mail-order brides. Why can't I get a mail-order husband? Sheesh, if they legalize gay marriage, can I get a mail-order bride?

Meh, maybe I'll consider speed dating. I have a pretty good BS detector at this point, two minutes is probably more than enough.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#78950 - 08/02/13 04:20 AM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: XiaoGui17]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6786
Loc: Virginia
Funny, I'm just the opposite. I say eliminate the Broker and go Privatized. Created your own Website and the potential Beau submit's his bid, and credentials. Complete with Background check, and Validation of claims. Not only would it eliminate all the annoyances of screening on the 'dating scene' it would create jobs for the third-party validation service.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#78986 - 08/03/13 04:47 PM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: SIN3]
XiaoGui17 Online
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1139
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
Not only would it eliminate all the annoyances of screening on the 'dating scene' it would create jobs for the third-party validation service.

Doesn't sound bad. It sounds a little similar to the Han Chinese tradition. They've got it down to a science.

(1) Mother puts out a general notice that her daughter is looking for a husband.
(2) Men who are interested send in what's essentially an application. It includes their education, occupation, details about their family, etc.
(3) Mother and daughter sit down together and narrow it down to the best options.
(4) Mom uses her circle of contacts (guangxi) to get the dirt on any of the prospects, anything they failed to reveal. Criminal record? Health problems? Bad habits? Personality flaws? It will all come out. (In the meanwhile, the man is also having his own mother do the same for the women to whom they sent applications.) The one flaw in this step is that a jealous rival may start a nasty rumor, so there's a need to be judicious about credibility of conflict of interest when it comes to the source.
(5) Men who passed these first two rounds are invited over to have dinner with mother and daughter.
(6) If a man seems like a decent prospect after this, the woman's father goes over to man's place and has dinner with his family. This is a stage of evaluation for both families.
(7) If still interested, the man will return to the woman's family's place. What is served will indicate whether he's been accepted or rejected. (Long noodles mean you passed.) But either way, he has to be polite and gracious. Sometimes, it will take several more visits before he gets the long noodle green light.
(8) After long noodles are served, the courtship ritual begins, and the woman and man can now go out to movies and dinner and whatnot by themselves.

The problem in the US is that "meeting the parents" is an indication that the relationship is already serious, and some parents will be afraid to give their honest appraisal for fear of alienating their son or daughter. But I really like the idea of having the parents involved in the screening process. It's a great way to get some insightful evaluation.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#78988 - 08/03/13 05:43 PM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: XiaoGui17]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6786
Loc: Virginia
Not a bad process really but another flaw that may arise is the the family may be pushing towards a specific candidate not necessarily with their son/daughter's best interest in mind.

So not only do you have to contend with jealous rivals but perhaps even jealous family members.

I guess this is where your own judgement steps in to sort all that out.

Another option is a temporary assignment, that way you get to try it before you buy it.

Hand-fasting ceremonies are a year and a day before the actual nuptials take place. Sort of like a trial run. I don't see why civil unions couldn't be that way with all the legal perks added.

I mean if American Society is going to allot 'spouses' special privileges and entitlements, I don't see why these couldn't just be temporary contracts with provisions in place.

In the U.S. Living Together is another indication that the relationship is already serious, when in reality it isn't.



Edited by SIN3 (08/03/13 05:45 PM)
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
Page 3 of 3 <123


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.025 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 22 queries. Zlib compression disabled.