legal question on asset distribution
John
before the wedding
and then they get married and they buy a house and furniture 1 week
after the wedding which
cost 500,000 and then 6 months later get divorce - how does equitable
distribution work ?
Would the spouse that brought nothing to the marriage walk away with
250k, since 500k in
post marital assets have been accumulated ?
NewMan
If the MAN brings in the $1 Million, then what will most likely happen
is that the wife will get the house and furniture, AND she will get
1/2 of the cash on hand. So, Man with $1 Million marrys and divorces 6
months later and walks away with $250,000 - LESS his and HER lawyers
fees and likely with an order for spousal support for 1 to 2 years,
and no roof over his head. He would be lucky to walk away with the
shirt on his back.
If the gender roles are reversed, then the man will likely be taken
away from the marital home in handcuffs by the police. He will NOT
receive any of the cash, or the house. AND, if there are children
involved, he will likely be ordered to pay child support - even though
he has no home and can't afford to put Hamburger Helper on the table.
And his failure to pay that support will likely land him in Jail.
This is what the courts - heavily infulenced by the femminist lobby -
call "equitable distribution".
This is why any rich man with a brain in his head either does not get
marrried, or has a TEAM of lawyers draw up a bullet-proof pre-nuptual
agreement.
Case in point - Paul McCartney. What a yutz! He was advised that a
pre-nup was a good idea, and he thought he knew better, and it is
going to cost him - in excess of $100,000,000 - or is that 100,000,000
pounds sterling? Does not matter. All this makes his money grubbing
s2bx is no more than a high-priced whore. Somehow she feels ENTITLED
to a piece of Sir Pauls fortune - even though she was never around
when he was busting his butt trying to get his first single song some
air-play. Amazing. But Sir Paul was forewarned, and chose to ignor
that warning. I bet he wont make THAT mistake again any time soon!
I digress...
You need to seek legal advice as the answer to your question will vary
significantly based on the jurisdiction where the divorce is filed.
Where I live, any money which is "co-mingled" - IE put into a joint
bank account - SHOULD be split 50/50. This often does not happen - and
in favour of the woman. Also, any money or assets which are "used for
marital purposes" SHOULD be split 50/50. Again, this usually does not
happen - and in favour of the woman.
Where I live the only shot a man in this situation has is that his
money STAYS in an account IN HIS NAME ONLY, and he never touches the
account - not even ONE CENT - during the marriage. Any withdrawl from
the account to do something stupid liuke purchase the marital home
would give the courts all they need to declare that the account was
used for "marital purposes", and then award at LEAST 50% of that
account to the s2bx wife. She could then use that money to tie him up
in court and squeeze more out of him.
A better deal for the man with $1 Million would be to purchase a house
in HIS NAME ONLY - BEFORE - marraige, and rent it out to someone else.
Then use the proceeds from the rental - which would be considered
marital income - to rent / buy the marital home! That way the asset
has NEVER been used for "marital purposes". Possession in 9/10 of the
law. If the house is in HIS name, then the courts would be hard
presses to try and take it away from him. They might try, but I think
it could be sucessfully defended on appeal.
Basically men are screwed royally - especially those with some money,
but not alot. Men with alot of money are still screwed, but they have
so much money it is more of an annoyance than anything else.
I pray you are not in this situation.
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 07:19:48 -0700, John <qjohn...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
John
By pure luck I bought my house before marriage.. Thank God!
Though I'm probably screwed for the furniture. I live in PA.
NewMan
It does not matter if you purchased the house before marraige IF that
house has been the house that you and your wife have been living in,
then the courts will more than likely declare it the "matiral home".
The second they declare your house the "marital home", then she will
be entitled to 50% of the equity. If her lawyer is smart, then she
will try to claim 50% of the market value - your counter to this is
that your s2bx is ONLY entitled to 50% of the change in equity of the
asset over the period of the MARRIAGE ONLY.
So, you buy a house before the marraige. Presuming that you paid cash,
and it was $500,000. So as of the date of SEPARATION (you MUST
establish this legally) the market is UP, and the house is worth
$600,000. Then she will be entitled to ($600,000 - $500,000)/2 =
$50,000. IF, OTOH, the market is DOWN and the house is only worth
$450,000! THEN SHE OWES YOU ($500,000 - $450,000)/2 = $25,000!
If she would be entitled to 50% of the increase in equity, then she
MUST be held responsible for 50% of any DECREASE in equity! You will
likely never see the money, but it could be a good bargaining chip.
RUN - do not walk - to a good man-friendly lawyer!
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:02:52 -0700, John <qjohn...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
John
>
> It does not matter if you purchased the house before marraige IF that
> house has been the house that you and your wife have been living in,
> then the courts will more than likely declare it the "matiral home".
> The second they declare your house the "marital home", then she will
> be entitled to 50% of the equity. If her lawyer is smart, then she
> will try to claim 50% of the market value - your counter to this is
> that your s2bx is ONLY entitled to 50% of the change in equity of the
> asset over the period of the MARRIAGE ONLY.
>
> So, you buy a house before the marraige. Presuming that you paid cash,
> and it was $500,000. So as of the date of SEPARATION (you MUST
> establish this legally) the market is UP, and the house is worth
> $600,000. Then she will be entitled to ($600,000 - $500,000)/2 =
> $50,000. IF, OTOH, the market is DOWN and the house is only worth
> $450,000! THEN SHE OWES YOU ($500,000 - $450,000)/2 = $25,000!
>
> If she would be entitled to 50% of the increase in equity, then she
> MUST be held responsible for 50% of any DECREASE in equity! You will
> likely never see the money, but it could be a good bargaining chip.
>
> RUN - do not walk - to a good man-friendly lawyer!
>
Thanks man - so far have been to 2 lawyers... My concern though
is I never know if I can trust them - they tell me things but
I take it with a grain of salt as I think they are just trying
to get my business.
I sometimes think I should liquidate everything and then buy
gold bars/coins with it all. Then take the gold and bury it a remote
location and then hunker down or become a hobo for the next
few years until the heat is off.
NewMan
wrote:
>> I think you missed one of the finer points....
Its way too late for that. The courts can obtain records to show what
you had before you sold it off. And the court can and will "impute" an
imcome upon you if you quite your job. That is, if you quit, then the
court will "pretend" that you still make the same $$$ as you did while
married, and will then base all its decisions upon your "imputed"
income!
If you duck below the radar, then they will merely make such orders
"ex-parte" (without you). And if you fail to pay - even though you
would have no way of knowing that you owe, then a warrant will be
issued for your arrest.
You can lose yout passport, you wont be able to renew your drivers
license, you could lose any professional designation (such as PEng,
MD, etc).... the fun never stops!
Just look at THIS poor schlock:
http://www.judicialaccountability.org/articles/7year.htm
Held in comtempt of court for over 11 years now! The courts know damn
well that the money is nowhere to be found, and that this man simply
does not have it. But they insist on holding him in Jail. And, by
doing so, it is possible that failure to pay money he does not have
could well amount to a "life" sentence.
Do NOT underestimate what the Kangroo Kourts can and will do in a
divorce!
Read this:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/j/jensen/2004/jensen010504.htm
Get a good lawyer, defend yourself as best as is possible, and then
take your lumps and pay-up whatever it is that they order you to pay.
The longer you drag things out, the more you protest the injustice of
it all, the more you will be punished.
Consider it a lesson well learnt - an education bought and paid for.
Just make sure you learn well from it, and NEVER repeat the mistake.
Hell my ex and I had only debits upon separation, and I wound up
paying her $800 per month for 2 years! No kids, no assets, just debit.
This is where the court drew the line, however. The courts told her if
she did not pay her half of the marital debits, that she would forfeit
ALL spousal support. For a woman who was supposedly broke, she sure
came up with that cash aweful fast! Less than 2 weeks!
Hang in there dude, all is not lost. I'm just trying to give you a
"heads up". There is nothing worse than getting bush-wacked. Been
there, done that.
ChewsCrayons
problems here!
6 months later? Is that not an annulment (vice divorce)?
deb :)
NewMan
non-cunsumation, or fraud.
Annulment is definitely an avenue to persue! It would be a whole lot
cheaper than a divorce - but it may not be possible.