Know a woman who signed a prenup?
Ablang
to leave him by asking her to sign a pre-nup. She laughs out loud and
says "Bring it. I'll sign!"
A prenup is a good idea for both sides in the event that a
couple doesn't stay together. I was just wondering if anyone has ever
known a woman who has willingly signed a prenup. Or has anyone ever
known a gentleman who has asked a woman to sign one and what their
reaction was.
Generally speaking, women are insulted at the thought of being
asked. But why should they? Shouldn't they be insulted if they are
only gold-diggers to begin with?
==
"I'd rather be playing video games." -- Me
Fred
> Watching the Seinfeld episode where George tries to get Susan
>to leave him by asking her to sign a pre-nup. She laughs out loud and
>says "Bring it. I'll sign!"
>
> A prenup is a good idea for both sides in the event that a
>couple doesn't stay together. I was just wondering if anyone has ever
>known a woman who has willingly signed a prenup.
Yes.
I also knew a woman who stated that she would not get married again
without a prenup.
>Or has anyone ever known a gentleman who has asked a woman
>to sign one ...
Yes.
>... and what [her] reaction was.
She signed it.
m.L.
In my first marriage, i insisted on it but when we went to a lawyer, it was
advised that it was unnecessary in our case since there were little or no
assets yet.
In my current marriage i would have signed one if it were desired. It's just
not something that has ever bothered me, although i realize some people do
look at it as a lack of trust.
John Riggs
In retrospect, it would have a been a good thing all around. #1 is still
trying to bleed me dry of money I don't have that she feels entitled to, for
some reason, and we've been divorced over 18.5 years ago. #3 is still
bitching about what she didn't get, even though she had already bled me dry.
It is simply a damned good idea, reducing any ideas of revenge or
vindictiveness to mere fantasy and nothing more. Unfortunately, prenups
aren't recognized here.
"Ablang" <HilaryEverA...@ablang-duff.com> wrote in message
news:u0klh050qcd1v810l...@4ax.com...
Doug Laidlaw
Is there power to override a prenup? Circumstances can change dramatically
with time, in ways that weren't contemplated. We advise people to review
their Wills every 5 years. Perhaps they should review their prenup at the
same time?
Doug.
--
Commonwealth Youth Games, Bendigo, Australia- http://www.bendigo2004.com
The beginning is always today.
- Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley.
bitbucket
| Watching the Seinfeld episode where George tries to get Susan
| to leave him by asking her to sign a pre-nup. She laughs out loud and
| says "Bring it. I'll sign!"
|
| A prenup is a good idea for both sides in the event that a
| couple doesn't stay together. I was just wondering if anyone has ever
my lawyer friend has told me time and time again that pre-nups are so
expensive to make air tight that they're only worth it if one has lots of
assets to protect (read: millions of $$). at least in the U.S. anyway...
i have never known any woman who signed one, though i do have a friend who
asked his wife-to-be to sign one. she refused, but they still got maried.
deepblue
wasn't to the female's advantage.
RJ
He does them, but refuses to do them if it will eliminate spousal support.
He claims that if the pre-nup waives support the courts will blow the whole
thing out. I will use a pre-nup prior to my next marriage. Why? Because I
have stuff. I also have a son, and he deserves to live well because of me.
A second wife that makes less money than I do simply should not be able to
take half my stuff if she bails. I'll already have to split my assets with
my STBX, why do that again?
Bring it on people, I know that has to piss off a few of you.
RJ
"Ablang" <HilaryEverA...@ablang-duff.com> wrote in message
news:u0klh050qcd1v810l...@4ax.com...
Chrys
news:z6NSc.3856$2c3....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> I have talked with my current divorce attorney about pre-nups in
California.
> He does them, but refuses to do them if it will eliminate spousal support.
> He claims that if the pre-nup waives support the courts will blow the
whole
> thing out. I will use a pre-nup prior to my next marriage. Why? Because
I
> have stuff. I also have a son, and he deserves to live well because of
me.
> A second wife that makes less money than I do simply should not be able to
> take half my stuff if she bails. I'll already have to split my assets
with
> my STBX, why do that again?
>
> Bring it on people, I know that has to piss off a few of you.
>
> RJ
There's a rather obvious answer to this you've overlooked. If you're
concerned about giving up your money if you marry, then don't marry a woman
who makes less money than you do. The spousal support goes both ways, if
you make less, then you might just be entitled to some support.
Er
"Chrys" <notarea...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:2o1l83F...@uni-berlin.de...
<snip>
> The spousal support goes both ways, if
> you make less, then you might just be entitled to some support.
To be totally frank, I have always felt I could use some support.
Er
A man
<u0klh050qcd1v810l...@4ax.com>, HilaryEverAfter08112004@ablang-
duff.com spoke thusly...
>
> Generally speaking, women are insulted at the thought of being
> asked. But why should they? Shouldn't they be insulted if they are
> only gold-diggers to begin with?
My take is they would only be insulted if money and assets were a big part of
the relationship to them. Which means they would get half if they divorced.
Which means the relationship is not as important to them. Which means they are
not right for me.
--
Say no to fixed width tables. They look terrible in all browsers.
Er
"A man" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote in message news:2o1s0mF...@uni-berlin.de...
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 19:08:55 -0700 in article
<snip
> Which means the relationship is not as important to them. Which means they
are
> not right for me.
Uh, doesn't the same go for you, *suggesting* a prenup?
To a woman, a man requesting them to sign a prenup, doesn't seem to have too
much faith in the relationship either.
Er
.
RJ
I don't know if I will marry again, but just in case I would want to have
something in place. Shit happens. I have also thought about just "living
in sin". Good way to go, you each have your own stuff and you don't have to
worry about a break up. Sex is probably better as well for obvious reasons.
RJ
"Ignoramus14701" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.14701.invalid> wrote in message
news:cfg7kt$ka$1...@pita.alt.net...
> In article <z6NSc.3856$2c3....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>, RJ wrote:
> > I have talked with my current divorce attorney about pre-nups in
California.
> > He does them, but refuses to do them if it will eliminate spousal
support.
> > He claims that if the pre-nup waives support the courts will blow the
whole
> > thing out. I will use a pre-nup prior to my next marriage. Why?
Because I
> > have stuff. I also have a son, and he deserves to live well because of
me.
> > A second wife that makes less money than I do simply should not be able
to
> > take half my stuff if she bails. I'll already have to split my assets
with
> > my STBX, why do that again?
> >
> > Bring it on people, I know that has to piss off a few of you.
>
> Let me play a devil's advocate here for a second.
>
> Would it not be easier to not marry at all and simply live with your
> new love of your life. You are not going to have more children, it
> appears, so why bother with the formality of marriage. You are not
> going to have any issues with spousal support this way, at least if
> you sign a cohabitation agreement.
>
> You are making a wise choice to put in writing that you are not to be
> financially screwed by marriage.
>
> i
RJ
woman likes it or not!
"Ignoramus14701" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.14701.invalid> wrote in message
news:cfghl1$jmj$0...@pita.alt.net...
> In article <YEPSc.5910$rv6....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>, RJ wrote:
> > Good thoughts I.
> >
> > I don't know if I will marry again, but just in case I would want to
have
> > something in place. Shit happens. I have also thought about just
"living
> > in sin". Good way to go, you each have your own stuff and you don't
have to
> > worry about a break up. Sex is probably better as well for obvious
reasons.
>
> everything sinful is more pleasant!
>
> Jokes aside, prenups actually do work and they are upheld by
> courts. Some provisions are upheld and some would not be, so, stick
> with what works and do not go into esoterics.
>
> Spousal support, also, can be negotiated away as long as the spouse
> does not become a public burden.
>
> For a typical dude with a kid and a house, you can note that some
> assets that are non-marital will stay so after marriage.
>
> All in all, if you come into a marriage with a lot more wealth than
> your spouse, expect to be screwed to some extent, which you can
> mitigate with a prenup, but not completely.
>
> So, then, living in sin would be better and, as you noted, sex may be
> better also. :)
>
> Don't obsess with moral aspects of this, it is a purely practical
> issue, like to which store to go for grocery shopping.
>
> i
Roger B.
> They don't hold water legally in most states. The courts
> figured it wasn't to the female's advantage.
This is a mis-characterization. In most states, pre-nups are quite
legal and enforceable. The problem is that, in many cases, there
is not a full financial disclosure by the party who wants it or the
other party did not have an opportunity to obtain legal advice.
Absent that, the courts nearly always find over-reaching. Thus,
full disclosure and an independent legal review are essential to
enforcement. [R]
Roger B.
> I have talked with my current divorce attorney about pre-nups in
> California. He does them, but refuses to do them if it will eliminate
> spousal support. He claims that if the pre-nup waives support the
> courts will blow the whole thing out.
Looks like in Cal, the courts feel that waiving support is contrary to
the public interest as parties who could be supported by a spouse
would otherwise end up on welfare. Pre-nups should be used to
limit excessive claims against property interests, not customary
support; however, substitutes for support often pass muster. [R]
m.L.
>I completely agree with you again. I am not going to worry about if the
>woman likes it or not!
Some people look at sex that way, too. ;-)
Jonesy2222
>From: Ablang HilaryEverA...@ablang-duff.com
>
>Generally speaking, women are insulted at the thought of being
>asked.
------------
I would not be insulted... Really...
:)
Deb...
Jonesy2222
>Bring it on people, I know that has to piss off a few of you.
-------
Not me.. I feel sad for you... also wondering 'where the heck r u meeting these
women!'
:)
Deb...
Jonesy2222
>To a woman, a man requesting them to sign a prenup, doesn't seem to have too
>much faith in the relationship either
-------
I dunno... I sort of see it as him protecting his 'pre-existing' (key word
here) assets.
:)
Deb
Fred
>Fred wrote:
>
>> Ablang <HilaryEverA...@ablang-duff.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Watching the Seinfeld episode where George tries to get Susan
>>>to leave him by asking her to sign a pre-nup. She laughs out loud and
>>>says "Bring it. I'll sign!"
>>>
>>>A prenup is a good idea for both sides in the event that a
>>>couple doesn't stay together. I was just wondering if anyone has ever
>>>known a woman who has willingly signed a prenup.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> I also knew a woman who stated that she would not get married again
>> without a prenup.
>>
>>>Or has anyone ever known a gentleman who has asked a woman
>>>to sign one ...
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>... and what [her] reaction was.
>>
>> She signed it.
>
>Is there power to override a prenup? Circumstances can change dramatically
>with time, in ways that weren't contemplated. We advise people to review
>their Wills every 5 years. Perhaps they should review their prenup at the
>same time?
Absolutely. In fact, the pernup the folks I know have requires them
to update it every five years.
spammy
> There's a rather obvious answer to this you've overlooked. If you're
> concerned about giving up your money if you marry, then don't marry a woman
> who makes less money than you do.
Easier said than done, considering how few women marry a man who
doesn't make more money than she does (or has substantial prospects
of doing so).
> The spousal support goes both ways, if
> you make less, then you might just be entitled to some support.
That doesn't happen in practice.
-Lone_Wolf-
>> California. He does them, but refuses to do them if it will
>> eliminate spousal support. He claims that if the pre-nup waives
>> support the courts will blow the whole thing out. I will use a
>> pre-nup prior to my next marriage. Why? Because I have stuff. I
>> also have a son, and he deserves to live well because of me. A
>> second wife that makes less money than I do simply should not be
>> able to take half my stuff if she bails. I'll already have to split
>> my assets with my STBX, why do that again?
>>
>> Bring it on people, I know that has to piss off a few of you.
>
>
> Would it not be easier to not marry at all and simply live with your
> new love of your life. You are not going to have more children, it
> appears, so why bother with the formality of marriage. You are not
> going to have any issues with spousal support this way, at least if
> you sign a cohabitation agreement.
>
> You are making a wise choice to put in writing that you are not to be
> financially screwed by marriage.
In some places, after living together (as a couple) longer than [a pre set
amount of time] you are considered to be in a 'common law marriage' and now
subject to many of the same rights/ pitfalls as couples going through a
divorce. This happens to be the case here but I have heard rumors that the
common law divorces are loosing weight in our courts.
John
Jonesy2222
>From: spammy spa...@nospam.net
>Easier said than done, considering how few women marry a man who
>doesn't make more money than she does (or has substantial prospects
>of doing so).
--------
That is a fairly narrow thing to say.
You are corraling us all into one little corner there huh....
Deb...
Chip's Mom
> >asked. But why should they? Shouldn't they be insulted if they are
> >only gold-diggers to begin with?
Women aren't offended by the prenup, but by the fact that their future
spouse is already planning for the divorce.
If divorce is an option it will always be the option taken. A prenup is
like signing an agreement that you WILL get a divorce.
Chip's Mom
Of course there are ALWAYS circumstances where divorce IS an option. (Abuse,
infidelity, act), and if you enter into a marriage with the thought that if
it doesn't work out you'll just get a divorce......... then it will always
be the option taken.
Roger B.
> If divorce is an option it will always be the option taken. A prenup
> is like signing an agreement that you WILL get a divorce.
> Of course there are ALWAYS circumstances where divorce IS
> an option. (Abuse, infidelity, act), and if you enter into a marriage
> with the thought that if it doesn't work out you'll just get a divorce
>......... then it will always be the option taken.
Excuse me, these statements are silly. Come to Florida. All you need
is an irretrievable breakdown, but not all married couples in Florida
get divorced, just because they can. A lot of people stay married and
a lot of marriages last a lifetime even when divorce is an option. It is
simply not the option taken.
A prenup can actually be an encouragement to marry, 'cuz otherwise
people with significant assets or business interests might not be willing
to expose their assets to the potential for divorce, which exist in every
marriage. Its not unreasonable for someone to try to shield stuff that
they may have spent a lifetime creating from a new partner in case the
partnership breaks up, regardless of cause.
In my case, I made a decision not to ask my new wife for a prenup.
I was more than happy to share my meager savings with her. IOW,
the marriage was worth more to me than what I had in the bank. [R]
Roger B.
"Ignoramus23157" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.23157.invalid> wrote...
> > In my case, I made a decision not to ask my new wife for a prenup.
> > I was more than happy to share my meager savings with her. IOW,
> > the marriage was worth more to me than what I had in the bank. [R]
>
> to leave you? (let's say after a home improvement project from hell).
She's has almost the same income as I... one reason why I thought it
was "safe." But I'll make the decision in year 9 of the marriage. ;-) [R]
swim learning
> Watching the Seinfeld episode where George tries to get Susan
> to leave him by asking her to sign a pre-nup. She laughs out loud and
> says "Bring it. I'll sign!"
>
> A prenup is a good idea for both sides in the event that a
> couple doesn't stay together. I was just wondering if anyone has ever
> known a gentleman who has asked a woman to sign one and what their
You can bypass the pre-nup issue by not comingling assets, and not
marrying someone with significantly lower income. For most of us who
are not wealthy, marital assets accumulated during the marriage are
going to be divided, and spousal support will be provided,
irrespective of whats in the pre-nup.
m.L.
>You can bypass the pre-nup issue by not comingling assets, and not
>marrying someone with significantly lower income.
Unless you lived separately, wouldn't it be difficult NOT to comingle assets??
m.L.
> IOW,
>the marriage was worth more to me than what I had in the bank. [R]
Not something one hears very often these days.
Your wife is a very lucky lady to be as cherished as this, Roger.
Tracey
No, not really. We don't do it (two people marrying with not much money
or anything worth anything don't need to worry about this sort of thing)
but it seems to be quite easy actually.
What has to be remembered, AFAICS, is that pre-nups don't effect any
assets obtained during the marriage. So, a person trying to keep their
income from being 'co-mingled' is trying something futile, as far as I
know.
Tracey
Roger B.
> "Roger B." <rcblin...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > ... the marriage was worth more to me than what I had in the bank.
> Not something one hears very often these days.
> Your wife is a very lucky lady to be as cherished as this, Roger.
You can't really put a price on "love," but apparently, its more
than $20k (how much more, I won't say).... :-)
As Bryan Adams sang: "I would fight for you. I'd lie for you.
Walk the wire for you. Ya, I'd die for you." (Everything I Do).
-- Well, except for that last part. [Rog']
m.L.
Maybe what the prenup would do is make a record of what exactly each person
has when they enter a marriage, including bank accounts (which will later
change) and the equity in a home, cars, etc. If the unfortunate event of
divorce occurs, then that's already established who had what in the first
place and make splitting up easier??
But once you're living in the same household, it seems near impossible not to
comingle without a whole lot of extra work, paper trails, etc. which would
likely put strain on the marriage and then why bother to get married at all.
I think if one person paid the bills and the other paid them an appropriate
amount of "rent" it might work (of course that "renter" would claim this to
the IRS and be entitled to renters credit and the spouse would have to claim
it as income, and since they're married it may be community property so the
"renter" gets taxed as income on money they paid out). I can see that
working in cohabitation, but not in marriage. I dunno, just pondering this
stuff.
Another issue when there is a huge difference in income. The one with the
lesser income suddenly has higher taxes, no more reduced-rates on things that
they may be used to, and actually find it's more expensive to live in a
"higher class". For example, my basic phone bill alone quadrupled when i
couldn't qualify for the "lifeline" rate anymore, yet my income remained the
same. My income tax rate also went way up on the same hourly wage as i made
before becuz suddenly i'm in a higher tax bracket. So it's not just the one
with the higher income that has to consider this stuff.
i'm for marriage and the foreverness and all that stuff. Like Roger said,
sortof, the marriage is more important than the $. Otherwise stay single.
m.L.
>Filing for taxes and separateness of account for marital property
>purposes, have nothing to do with one another.
It must vary a lot by state. When my husband refinanced his house after we
were married, we had no choice but to have my name signed on the mortgage
stuff or else they wouldn't let him refinance. I don't care one way or the
other about it, but it seemed strange to me that it should be required
legally. So it's automatically comingled. Again, it's not an issue for us,
just for the sake of discussion i bring this up.
m.L.
cover protecting spouse's assets, where it was not an issue before marriage.
Not a big deal but these are all things people ought to consider. We hadn't
even thought of that before.
I don't believe in permanent cohabitation, it's just not for me, but it
probably has it's financial merits as well as drawbacks, like having to buy
separate health insurance policies.
I'm not looking forward to trying to work out the issue of inheritance,
inheritance tax, spouses, siblings, gay SO's, etc. coming up within the next
few years! ACK!
( I think a lawyer will be consulted then.) :-)
m.L.
>Um, that is not about taxes.
But maybe of comingling assets, which i think started the discussion before i
sidetracked to taxes.
OK, this doesn't even apply to me, i get myself sucked in sometimes to these
discussions!
I'm supposed to stay in the "feelings" thread where i know more about what i'm
talkin' about! :-)
Tracey
m.L. wrote:
> Maybe what the prenup would do is make a record of what exactly each person
> has when they enter a marriage, including bank accounts (which will later
> change) and the equity in a home, cars, etc. If the unfortunate event of
> divorce occurs, then that's already established who had what in the first
> place and make splitting up easier??
IANAL and only know what I've read over the years but that's exactly
what is meant by co-mingling, as I understand it. If, as an example,
my husband had come into the marriage with 100K savings and a house
that had 20 years left on a 30 year marriage and, during out marriage,
we both contributed and took away from that savings account and both
made payments on the mortgage, then it's all co-mingled and would,
most likely, be seen as joint property. If, OTOH, my husband kept
that 100K savings in an account with only his name on it and we
established a joint savings account that we both contributed to
and took away from and the only time he used the money in the
100K account was for gifts and not for any day-to-day stuff and
he established a checking account and deposited the mortgage
amount every month and paid for it solely from that checking
account, then that would be a case for neither of those things
to be considered joint marital assets. (Anyone with more experience,
feel free to correct me.)
We've had plenty of discussions about inheritances and whether
or not they are a marital asset and that seems to be the accepted
opinion. To keep it as a non-marital asset, it needs to be kept
obviously separate.
> But once you're living in the same household, it seems near impossible not to
> comingle without a whole lot of extra work, paper trails, etc. which would
> likely put strain on the marriage and then why bother to get married at all.
The good part about all of this? Everyone can run their marriage the
way they want. :) I agree with you, trying to maintain separate
finances wouldn't be something I would like. I've seen a cousin of
mine try to do it and, while her and her husband <now ex> weren't
the model of functionality to begin with, it just made for hassles
and gave them fodder for more stupid (IMO) arguments. 'I bought your
kid ice cream yesterday, you owe me $2.50.' Sheesh.
Tracey
Fred
Describe other options, please.
Fred
>> > Generally speaking, women are insulted at the thought of being
>> >asked. But why should they? Shouldn't they be insulted if they are
>> >only gold-diggers to begin with?
>
>Women aren't offended by the prenup, but by the fact that their future
>spouse is already planning for the divorce.
>
> If divorce is an option it will always be the option taken.
I doubt that you expect to be involved in a car crash, today or any
other day, but if you own a car you have insurance against that
eventuality.
I doubt that you expect a tornado to hit your dwelling, but you
probably have homeowners or renters insurance against that
eventuality.
Business partners do not form partnerships with the expectation of
dissolution of the partnership, but it is the norm for business
partnerships to include a dissolution clause against that eventuality.
It's called being prudent.
Divorce is always an option, regardless of whether or not there is a
prenup. The difference is that if there is a prenup, the parties are
able to avoid the interference of the state in their affairs.
So tell me, with fifty percent of marriages ending in divorce, why
should a person contemplating marriage not include a prenup? The way
I see it, it's the prudent thing to do.
RJ
be with a woman if she didn't like sex. But that's just me!
"m.L." <m...@icky.spam.com> wrote in message
news:dDRSc.30060$ih.13299@fed1read07...
>
> >I completely agree with you again. I am not going to worry about if the
> >woman likes it or not!
>
> Some people look at sex that way, too. ;-)
RJ
"Ignoramus14701" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.14701.invalid> wrote in message
news:cfh5n1$pv0$1...@pita.alt.net...
> In article <QCUSc.91962$gE.5895@pd7tw3no>, -Lone_Wolf- wrote:
> > Ignoramus14701 wrote:
> >> In article <z6NSc.3856$2c3....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>, RJ wrote:
> >>> I have talked with my current divorce attorney about pre-nups in
> >>> California. He does them, but refuses to do them if it will
> >>> eliminate spousal support. He claims that if the pre-nup waives
> >>> support the courts will blow the whole thing out. I will use a
> >>> pre-nup prior to my next marriage. Why? Because I have stuff. I
> >>> also have a son, and he deserves to live well because of me. A
> >>> second wife that makes less money than I do simply should not be
> >>> able to take half my stuff if she bails. I'll already have to split
> >>> my assets with my STBX, why do that again?
> >>>
> >>> Bring it on people, I know that has to piss off a few of you.
> >>
> >> Let me play a devil's advocate here for a second.
> >>
> >> Would it not be easier to not marry at all and simply live with your
> >> new love of your life. You are not going to have more children, it
> >> appears, so why bother with the formality of marriage. You are not
> >> going to have any issues with spousal support this way, at least if
> >> you sign a cohabitation agreement.
> >>
> >> You are making a wise choice to put in writing that you are not to be
> >> financially screwed by marriage.
> >
> > In some places, after living together (as a couple) longer than [a pre
set
> > amount of time] you are considered to be in a 'common law marriage' and
now
> > subject to many of the same rights/ pitfalls as couples going through a
> > divorce. This happens to be the case here but I have heard rumors that
the
> > common law divorces are loosing weight in our courts.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
>
> well, you can always sign a simple paper called cohabitation
> agreement, which would say that both parties acknowledge that they are
> not consenting to common law marriage unless they get married
> formally.
>
> i
RJ
Maybe I'm just a little bitter. I have saved money for years while my STBX
spent it. I paid the mortgage, I paid the bills, and she blew money on
junk. I invested in stock, opened my own business. Now I get to share 1/2
of that with her. That's how it works.
When I set up my business, I didn't set it up to fail. I didn't plan on
going BK or out of business. (I am doing well by the way.) I did use legal
agreements and a attorney to set it up. Why in the hell would I go with out
a pre-nup if the woman makes less money than I do, and has less in assets?
That's absurd!
I may just not re-marry. Use a Cohabitaiton agreement and move on. I have
a child, don't want more. I also don't want a woman to stay with me for any
reason other than love. If we don't love each other anymore just leave.
RJ
"Jonesy2222" <jones...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040812182548...@mb-m11.aol.com...
> >From: "RJ" not...@yahoo.com
>
> >Bring it on people, I know that has to piss off a few of you.
>
> -------
>
> Not me.. I feel sad for you... also wondering 'where the heck r u meeting
these
> women!'
>
> :)
> Deb...
Jonesy2222
> I have saved money for years while my STBX
>spent it. I paid the mortgage, I paid the bills, and she blew money on
>junk.
---------------
Maybe I do not understand this part but .... when I was married, and did not
work, I got an 'allowance' (tiny).... and I could spend no more than that,
unless I wanted to go out and earn it myself.
Bills always came first - period, and I wrote the checks, but I never, ever
dipped into the bill fund.
And every time either one of us felt we needed new clothes, we talked about it.
Any purchase, was up for discussion. I mean even hitting a fast food on the
way home.
It's not trust here it is two folks trying to ensure they live within their
means.
So that idea of someone running out and spending with a credit card, well it is
foreign to me.
:)
Deb.
Bill in Co.
Me too, but we may be in the minority, Deb - especially these days.
Jonesy2222
>Me too, but we may be in the minority, Deb - especially these days.
-------------------
See - that is sad.
I do not understand this 'gotta have em all' attitude... (pokemon) hehehehe
:)
Deb.
Joy
It isn't that hard for me to picture. When I was married, my ex spent money
like it grew on trees - every week there would be multiple ATM receipts
where he had withdrawn $100. He refused to account for this money in any
way - said it was "operating money". It was common for a couple hundred
dollars or more per week to disappear like this. He did let slip once that
he'd spent $300 that month on pot - I actually think that this was common
and happened most months - and I've heard from others that it was common for
him to blow a big wad of money buying rounds for the bar. It was
impossible for us to have any sort of rational discussion about money - if I
went as far as to say something very factual, like "we have X dollars in the
bank, and we have X times 2 dollars worth of bills to pay this week" he'd
get pissed at me and accuse me of trying to curtail his spending. He
refused any discussion of budgeting, as well - according to him a budget
would have been "restrictive". Well, yeah, the difference of opinion was in
whether or not that was a good thing. Point is, you don't always get two
folks trying to live within their means...
Looking on the bright side, though, when he left there wasn't any detriment
to my household budget - even though he took all his income with him, he
also took all his spending with him - it turned out that he was spending
everything he earned and then some on himself, anyway. I was actually
financially better off after the divorce, even though I took on all the
marital debt and don't get any child support.
Jonesy2222
>When I was married, my ex spent money
>like it grew on trees - every week there would be multiple ATM receipts
------------
True it did get worse for me later - but it was not the ATM receipts I found
... but the little receipts in the long brown bags...
:)
Deb.
Bill in Co.
I think a lot of it has to do with what values you grew up with, viz, your
parent's values, and what THEY believed in - and modeled - for you, while
you were growing up.
Of course some people, when they grow up, go in just the opposite direction
(as a reaction - as if to prove something), so who knows. I'm sure it's a
bit more complicated than this, but, nonetheless, I think there is a pattern
here.
YooperBoyka
>
>
> I'm not looking forward to trying to work out the issue of inheritance,
> inheritance tax, spouses, siblings,
>gay SO's,
?????
(pardon me if I'm having a "Senior moment")
kyfunguy
"YooperBoyka" <cj.don'tw...@no.spam> wrote in message
news:7q6dnR1v3op...@comcast.com...
I think SO's mean... 'Significant Other's' ...in her statement.... but I
could be wrong...
>
>
m.L.
Yes, it does.
YooperBoyka
<shakes head>
I KNEW what "SO" meant!!!
(ahem)
Story?
(Reader's Digest version ok)
(I'm having a protracted brain fart)
m.L.
><shakes head>
>I KNEW what "SO" meant!!!
>(ahem)
>Story?
>(Reader's Digest version ok)
>(I'm having a protracted brain fart)
>
>
much as i blab personal stuff on usenet, i still have to protect family
members from me blabbing certain things.
I'll write a little story for you.
m.L.
Once upon a time there was a lovely princess.
She had beautiful golden hair and sparkling blue eyes, huge luscious
bosoms and long sexy legs. She was a knockout!
(ok, wait, got carried away, wishful thinking)
Anyway, this princess had a co-princess who was actually a prince. The Royal
Kingdom and all its riches
were going to one day belong to the princess and the princey-bro, as the Queen
and King were elderly and ill. The princess had stepped down from her
princess-y life for a long time, preferring to live as commonfolk, instead of
going around acting as heir to the royal throne or something. She felt
happier with and more akin to the commoners, and raised her own children to
understand the value of hard work, even through some tough lessons.
The princey-bro had chosen a "lifestyle" of his own, as well. He had taken in
a frog with broken wrists (or at least very limp ones). This frog had a
special shovel which was for digging for gold. It seemed the frog had a
bitter personality, yet a history of digging for this gold. He had dug gold
out of castle basements in the past, and squandered it. The frog often
croaked about finding a seat on the royal throne next to the prince.
The ailing queen disliked the frog, as the frog was rude to her, her king, and
the prince's family. This frog had fangs and claws and could be very hurtful.
But that shovel.... The queen forbade the frog to set foot in the castle,
even to the point of requesting the royal scribe to record it with his
feather thingie, yet the frog had plans to try and take over a large portion
of the kingdom upon the prince's inheritance to half of the throne anyway, as
he seemed to have a power over the prince.
OK, well, i guess you get the story. Moral is, don't play with frogs or
you'll get warts??? :-)
m.L.
The ailing queen requested that the kingdom remain within the royal family,
not to be divided and delivered unto new blood. Thus tying the prince and
princess, including the frog, together in the castle to possibly do royal
battle in the courtyard which could result in great loss of blood and
possibly loss of the throne and kingdom entirely.
Wanting to uphold the wishes of the ailing queen could get complicated.
Fairy tales. heh
(get it, "Fairy" and "tales"??)
:-)
Ray Gordon
will).
Couples should have them for that reason alone; if they don't work things
out themselves, the government will.
--
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Four Free E-books on the seduction of beautiful women
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy: How ASF Changed The World
"I ain't gonna play Sun City" (but our chessplayers played Libya; for
shame).
"Ablang" <HilaryEverA...@ablang-duff.com> wrote in message
news:u0klh050qcd1v810l...@4ax.com...
> Watching the Seinfeld episode where George tries to get Susan
> to leave him by asking her to sign a pre-nup. She laughs out loud and
> says "Bring it. I'll sign!"
>
> A prenup is a good idea for both sides in the event that a
> couple doesn't stay together. I was just wondering if anyone has ever
> known a woman who has willingly signed a prenup. Or has anyone ever
> known a gentleman who has asked a woman to sign one and what their
> reaction was.
>
> Generally speaking, women are insulted at the thought of being
> asked. But why should they? Shouldn't they be insulted if they are
> only gold-diggers to begin with?
>
>
> ==
> "I'd rather be playing video games." -- Me
Ray Gordon
better be good enough, that I would have been willing to pay, up front,
whatever it is the divorce court would take from me after the marriage.
--
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Four Free E-books on the seduction of beautiful women
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy: How ASF Changed The World
"I ain't gonna play Sun City" (but our chessplayers played Libya; for
shame).
"Ignoramus23157" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.23157.invalid> wrote in message
news:cfip03$eo$0...@pita.alt.net...
> In article <tD5Tc.9851$Yh....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, Roger B. wrote:
> > "Chip's Mom" <cdr...@mindspring.com> wrote...
> >> If divorce is an option it will always be the option taken. A prenup
> >> is like signing an agreement that you WILL get a divorce.
> >> Of course there are ALWAYS circumstances where divorce IS
> >> an option. (Abuse, infidelity, act), and if you enter into a marriage
> >> with the thought that if it doesn't work out you'll just get a divorce
> >>......... then it will always be the option taken.
> > Excuse me, these statements are silly. Come to Florida. All you need
> > is an irretrievable breakdown, but not all married couples in Florida
> > get divorced, just because they can. A lot of people stay married and
> > a lot of marriages last a lifetime even when divorce is an option. It
is
> > simply not the option taken.
> >
> > A prenup can actually be an encouragement to marry, 'cuz otherwise
> > people with significant assets or business interests might not be
willing
> > to expose their assets to the potential for divorce, which exist in
every
> > marriage. Its not unreasonable for someone to try to shield stuff that
> > they may have spent a lifetime creating from a new partner in case the
> > partnership breaks up, regardless of cause.
> >
> > In my case, I made a decision not to ask my new wife for a prenup.
> > I was more than happy to share my meager savings with her. IOW,
> > the marriage was worth more to me than what I had in the bank. [R]
> >
> >
> >
>
> are you also willing to share spousal support with her if she decides
> to leave you? (let's say after a home improvement project from hell).
>
> i
YooperBoyka
BWAAAA hahahaha!
Yeah,...I get it.
(C'mere an' lemme givya a noogie, ya rascal)
I thought the "broken wrists" part was Hi-O-larious, though.
The flickers of recognition are coursing t'ru my cranium as I type.
I shoulda 'membered this story.
Tell Joe that when youse guys come up to visit that frogs
make GREAT pike bait!
(Bass, too)
Joy
Seems like it would be helpful for the princess to consult with the royal
scribe in advance of any need for division of the kingdom, to make sure that
all scribing was done in such a way as to not permit air to pass into the
royal cannisters.
YooperBoyka
"YooperBoyka" <cj.don'tw...@no.spam> wrote in message
> Tell Joe that when youse guys come up to visit that frogs
> make GREAT pike bait!
> (Bass, too)
>
>
By da way,...did I tell alla youse guys dat I missed ya?
m.L.
Missed you too, CJ.
Don't be slippin' off 'n hiding like that again, kay?
;-)
m.L.
>Tell Joe that when youse guys come up to visit that frogs
>make GREAT pike bait!
>(Bass, too)
Fishin' sounds good!
JJT
LISTEN, YOU BoZos JUST DON'T "..GET IT.."
Gordon Roy "...I was jesus.." Parker is a gutless
coward. He KNOWS he can run away from anything
because his posting history (and worthless excuse
for a life) is GROUNDED on fear, lies and threats
to children when the shit hits da fan. I, and so
many others, have explained this for years.
WHY ELSE would grp-ie stand still when someone
(ie: me) calls him a lying child molester ON
the net, via many routes.? Because it's true.
I have been begging this coward now for over 4
years to sue me, I have given him my home street
address, he KNOWS my cell phone #, yet W-H-Y no
lawsuit yet..? He doesn't dare deal with me, Fuz,
or the many others (HI DENISE!) who call his puny
worthless bluff to watch him wet his panties yellow.
..and too often red/brown hues..
Hey, grp-ie...prove me wrong..
I'm near my open sell phone now..
My lawyer can party line..
BRING IT ON, CHILD MOLESTER..
..unless..you are afraid..
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
JJT
- Proof of Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon) wishing death on a child :
>>Path: news.alt.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news
>>Cc: cave...@nni.com
>>Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:58:08 -0400
>>Subject: Ray Takes FULL RESPONSIBLITY For The Michelle Mistake
>>Message-ID: <20000628.075839.-285523.10.The...@juno.com>
>>X-Mailer: Juno 2.0.11
>>X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-3,6-9,17-18,20-21,29-30,40-41,48-49,61-62,71-72,84-85,94-95,105-106,
>>115-116,126-127,133-134,154-155,164-165,178-179,187-188,196-199,201-202,206-207,212-213,
>>215-216,219-220,222-226,228-231,237-238,241-246,249-250,257-258,264-265,274-275,289-290,293-300
>>X-Juno-Att: 0
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>Content-Type: text/plain
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>From: The Seduction Library <the______seductio...@juno.com>
>>Mail-To-News-Contact: postm...@nym.alias.net
>>Organization: mail...@nym.alias.net
>>Newsgroups: alt.romance
>>Lines: 307
>>Xref: news alt.romance:246369
>>WARNING: If Oedipus, Krusty or Tusky respond to this message in any way,
>>I will return to ASF immediately. If they want me off that newsgroup
>>they can stay the hell out of my threads.
>>Read up. I post this not for myself, because I don't care what people
>>think of me. I post this for my METHOD, because it's being destroyed by
>>attacks on its creator.
>>I am going to clear the record on a few things here:
>>1. I DID wish death on Michelle's daughter Cierra. I did so in an
>>attempt to snap her back to reality after she had used others' defamation
>>of me as leverage to get me to want her. Why did I "hurt" her? I DID
>>NOT TALK TO HER. That's correct: my crime with Michelle was not falling
>>back in love with her after she had fallen in love with me for four
>>months, IMing me constantly, E-mailing me constantly, BEGGING me to love
>>her the way I "loved" "Dominique" (these two are in quotes because I
>>neither loved her nor necessarily knew her).
>>2. Wishing death on someone is not a crime. The words were spoken in
>>anger, after MONTHS of provocation
- Proof of Gordon Roy Parker stating women deserve to be raped & murdered :
>>From: r____a__...@juno.com (Outfoxing The Foxes)
>>Subject: Re: Need A Piece Of Advice
>>Date: 1998/11/02
>>Message-ID: <19981102.144604.2648...@juno.com>
>>Organization: mail...@nym.alias.net
>>Mail-To-News-Contact: postm...@nym.alias.net
>>X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,3-5,10-14,23-29,32-45,47-50,55-58,60-61,74-77,
>>79-87,95-97,99-102,105-112,121-122,130-131,138-139,146-147,
>>156-157,160-161,163-164,181-182,196-197,199
>>Newsgroups: alt.romance
>>Look at the way women treat "losers" and you will see
>>why they wind up beaten, murdered, raped, robbed, disrespected, and
>>oppressed. It is because women DESERVE it. The ones who harmed me
>>should thank their lucky stars that I didn't react like a primate and
>>just dump them six feet underground. Unfortunately, premeditated murder
>>would ruin this ethical thing I have going for me, although on a primal
>>level it is quite appealing.
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon) on 9/11 :
"There was no significant loss of life in those towers. Not
a one."
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001
"This attack happened in my HOMETOWN, a hometown I do not
live in or work in because of illegal behavior. I hope those
who swiped my ability to live there enjoy the message they got from GOD
today.........."
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001
"In that building existed little more than a bunch of companies
which hire "office whores" and the like. I have no sympathy for
employment discriminators, and if someone had to die in this attack, I
couldn't think of a better group of people for the terrorists to pick."
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001
Ian
> "A man" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote in message news:2o1s0mF...@uni-berlin.de...
> > On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 19:08:55 -0700 in article
>
> <snip
>
> > Which means the relationship is not as important to them. Which means they
> are
> > not right for me.
>
> Uh, doesn't the same go for you, *suggesting* a prenup?
>
> To a woman, a man requesting them to sign a prenup, doesn't seem to have too
> much faith in the relationship either.
>
It's not the relationship he hasn't got faith in. It's the woman,
and the law.
> Er
> .
John Riggs
"-Lone_Wolf-" <-lone...@CLOTHESexcite.com> wrote in message
news:QCUSc.91962$gE.5895@pd7tw3no...
RJ
"Joy" <joydoesn...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10hr2sg...@corp.supernews.com...
> Looking on the bright side, though, when he left there wasn't any
detriment
> to my household budget - even though he took all his income with him, he
> also took all his spending with him - it turned out that he was spending
> everything he earned and then some on himself, anyway. I was actually
> financially better off after the divorce, even though I took on all the
> marital debt and don't get any child support.
Joy,
I feel the same way! My STBX made good money, she just blew it all and
more. I am doing much better now that I don't have to suck up her debt and
her spending habits! Very nice!
RJ
RJ
you marry again you should NOT combine checking accounts.
I like this idea. If both partners have children from a previous marriage
you should not have the same checking account. Why? Because if you go back
to court for child support your new spouses income does not show up on your
checking account!
IMHO.
RJ
"Ignoramus23157" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.23157.invalid> wrote in message
news:cfj0fe$dkh$0...@pita.alt.net...
> In article <ut7Tc.34167$ih.27812@fed1read07>, m.L. wrote:
>
> Tracey wrote:
>
> >>What has to be remembered, AFAICS, is that pre-nups don't effect any
> >>assets obtained during the marriage. So, a person trying to keep their
> >>income from being 'co-mingled' is trying something futile, as far as I
> >>know.
>
> this is wrong, a premarital agreement can specify that earnings of
> spouses are separate. There was a case to that effect.
>
> > Maybe what the prenup would do is make a record of what exactly each
person
> > has when they enter a marriage, including bank accounts (which will
later
> > change) and the equity in a home, cars, etc. If the unfortunate event
of
> > divorce occurs, then that's already established who had what in the
first
> > place and make splitting up easier??
>
> It would be worth it to read the actual law, which is relatively easy
> to read.
>
> > But once you're living in the same household, it seems near
> > impossible not to comingle without a whole lot of extra work, paper
> > trails, etc. which would likely put strain on the marriage and then
> > why bother to get married at all.
>
> This is not true at all.
>
> Most IRAs, for example, are not easy to commingle. Same is for stocks,
> if you have them as stock certificates (yes, I am against frequent
> trading).
>
> Some commingling, like of regular bank accounts, is to be expected.
>
> > Another issue when there is a huge difference in income. The one with
the
> > lesser income suddenly has higher taxes, no more reduced-rates on things
that
>
> Filing for taxes and separateness of account for marital property
> purposes, have nothing to do with one another.
>
> i
>
RJ
> In article <cfj0fe$dkh$0...@pita.alt.net>, Ignoramus23157
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.23157.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Filing for taxes and separateness of account for marital property
> >purposes, have nothing to do with one another.
>
we
> were married, we had no choice but to have my name signed on the mortgage
> stuff or else they wouldn't let him refinance. I don't care one way or
the
> other about it, but it seemed strange to me that it should be required
> legally. So it's automatically comingled. Again, it's not an issue for
us,
> just for the sake of discussion i bring this up.
>
m.L:
This probably had more to do with qualifying for the mortgage. In
California one must usually be on title to the home in order to sign
mortgage paperwork. Unless a quit claim is filed to remove one person from
title, and maybe backed up with some sort of other agreement the home is
owned by both parties.
RJ
Casey
> >
> > >Filing for taxes and separateness of account for marital property
> > >purposes, have nothing to do with one another.
> >
> > It must vary a lot by state. When my husband refinanced his house after
> > we were married, we had no choice but to have my name signed on the
> > mortgage stuff or else they wouldn't let him refinance. I don't care
> > one way or the other about it, but it seemed strange to me that it
> > should be required legally. So it's automatically comingled. Again,
> > it's not an issue for us, just for the sake of discussion i bring
> > this up.
>
> California one must usually be on title to the home in order to sign
> mortgage paperwork. Unless a quit claim is filed to remove one person from
> title, and maybe backed up with some sort of other agreement the home is
> owned by both parties.
Actually it may be because of state homestead laws that are intended to
keep families from losing their homes to creditors. In many (most?)
states, if a couple is married both have homestead rights regardless of
whose name is on the title. Since a signed mortage is an exemption of
those rights, one spouse cannot mortgage the property without the
signature of the other spouse.
Although the term is often used as another name for the loan one takes
out to buy a house, a mortgage is actually the agreement to use a house
as collateral giving the lender the right to reposess upon default of
the loan.
Casey
RJ
"Ignoramus8954" <ignora...@NOSPAM.8954.invalid> wrote in message
news:cfqspi$8ck$1...@pita.alt.net...
> In article <Bx6Uc.4907$wB4...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>, RJ wrote:
> > Another good point that someone brough up in an earlier message was that
if
> > you marry again you should NOT combine checking accounts.
>
> convenience money. To buy groceries, to pay off credit cards etc. It
> is pointless to have two such accounts.
>
> > I like this idea. If both partners have children from a previous
marriage
> > you should not have the same checking account. Why? Because if you go
back
> > to court for child support your new spouses income does not show up on
your
> > checking account!
>
> checking account... IANAL.
>
I see your point Ignoramus. I own my own business, and I do not want to
have my checking account records go on to some court record for someone
else's child support claim!
I like the separate checking accounts more as a way to keep the pay deposits
separate. Having another third account wouldn't be a bad idea!
RJ
Fido
news:2n4nh0p1nrh2o8eej...@4ax.com:
> They don't hold water legally in most states. The courts figured it
> wasn't to the female's advantage.
Bingo!
http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions/documents/02me92ho.htm
deepblue
<rcblin...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>"deepblue" <y...@wish.com> wrote...
>> They don't hold water legally in most states. The courts
>> figured it wasn't to the female's advantage.
>
>This is a mis-characterization. In most states, pre-nups are quite
>legal and enforceable. The problem is that, in many cases, there
>is not a full financial disclosure by the party who wants it or the
>other party did not have an opportunity to obtain legal advice.
>Absent that, the courts nearly always find over-reaching. Thus,
>full disclosure and an independent legal review are essential to
>enforcement.
Uh huh. And a host of other things, even where they're supposedly
legal, such as providing "adequate" support for the female. And if the
judge decides it didn't include things like "full disclosure",
"independent legal review", adequate support, and a million other
murky things, out the window it goes. Putting your trust in pre-nups
in a feminist world is simply insane.
Rambler
"Ignoramus16674" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.16674.invalid> wrote in message
news:cft901$76q$0...@pita.alt.net...
> That said, it would not be imprudent not to marry someone with little
> assets if you own a lot of assets, simply out of concern that
> possibly, a prenup would not be enforced.
I think it is not sensible to make a marriage decision solely on the amount
of assets owned by the parties.
Rambler