sweetjasmine Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 So what you are saying is, this is the most either of you will ever amount to in life? This is the best or the most you will ever be or acomplish? Thats my thought on that comment. Assets or not, a pre-nup is manditory if I want to get married. Sorry to dent your ego but it has nothing to do with you. Its the court system I dont trust. Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. As I understand it, a pre-nup says that assets acquired prior to marriage remain the property of the individual and aren't considered marital assets. Assets acquired during the marriage are still marital assets. If I have absolutely nothing at the time of marriage, just what in the hell am I supposed to be protecting with a pre-nup? You can't protect future income or assets with a pre-nup. So it has nothing to do with my aspirations or career plans. I'm fresh out of graduate school and have no assets to my name to speak of, aside from my savings and relatively meager possessions. If I were to get married tomorrow, a pre-nup would be absolutely useless. If I were to get married 10 years from now after actually building assets, it'd be a different story.
sweetjasmine Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 and child support.. any man who doesn't think he should support his child fully is an ass.. You try and support a child on 300-400 a month.. it takes more than most child support payments to raise a child.. Plus, you can't put in "I refuse to pay child support in the event of divorce" into a pre-nup, so I don't know why people think a pre-nup would protect them from shelling out child support payments.
AverageJoe Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 What year was this? If in your state that is true in regards to your situation, you are an exception. However, that doesnt make the rule any less valid, sir.
Rorschach Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 Not that divorce nightmares don't happen but you really need to keep those kind of stories in perspective.. You hear only one side and unless you saw the court documents what happened was most likely on the whole fair and the person is just bitter and acting out when they tell the fish stories.. and child support.. any man who doesn't think he should support his child fully is an ass.. You try and support a child on 300-400 a month.. it takes more than most child support payments to raise a child.. Child support was never meant to support a child, it was meant to help support a child. I watch alot of judge shows and I see alot of burnt partners in the courts looking for more child support as a way to get out of working themselves. Now I realize this is not the majority of people at all, but it just goes to show that there are people out there who have the wrong idea about what alimony/child support is actually meant to do.
Untouchable_Fire Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 Not that divorce nightmares don't happen but you really need to keep those kind of stories in perspective.. You hear only one side and unless you saw the court documents what happened was most likely on the whole fair and the person is just bitter and acting out when they tell the fish stories.. and child support.. any man who doesn't think he should support his child fully is an ass.. You try and support a child on 300-400 a month.. it takes more than most child support payments to raise a child.. There is no such thing as "child support" in reality. If it were actually child support there would be some system to verify the child was receiving the benefit of the money. Additionally the court system most often tries to use child support as an income leveling tool. Child support would be when you want your child to attend private school... so you sign the kid up and write the school a check. The actual system is where you hand the check to someone else and pray that the person is good and honest enough to put the child in private school. So, I'm not sure what the system is right now, but it needs some tweaking because it doesn't seem to be intended for the welfare of the child.
AverageJoe Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. As I understand it, a pre-nup says that assets acquired prior to marriage remain the property of the individual and aren't considered marital assets. Assets acquired during the marriage are still marital assets. If I have absolutely nothing at the time of marriage, just what in the hell am I supposed to be protecting with a pre-nup? You can't protect future income or assets with a pre-nup. You sure can. Lawyers like to argue about future earnings, I mentioned that earlier. In some instances, a divorcee can be entitled up to two years worth of future earnings. A pre-nup, pre-empts that from ever happening.
Art_Critic Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 What year was this? If in your state that is true in regards to your situation, you are an exception. However, that doesnt make the rule any less valid, sir. 2001... I'm no exception.. sir... it's the way the law works..
AverageJoe Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 If it were actually child support there would be some system to verify the child was receiving the benefit of the money. Additionally the court system most often tries to use child support as an income leveling tool. What I want to see happen in regards to child support, is an accounting system. Maybe a receipt at the end of the tax year to account for each penny spent. If you receive child support, you must be accountable for each dollar spent at the end of each tax year, or quarter showing the individual is indeed responsible enough to receive child support and a full accounting compariable to the expediture of outgoing child support. In other words, receipts of any and all kinds to justify the money is in fact going to the good will of the child recipiant.
AverageJoe Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 2001... I'm no exception.. sir... it's the way the law works.. Its the way the law happend to work for you, in your state. I commend you and your attorney on a job well done.
Art_Critic Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 What I want to see happen in regards to child support, is an accounting system. Maybe a receipt at the end of the tax year to account for each penny spent. If you receive child support, you must be accountable for each dollar spent at the end of each tax year, or quarter showing the individual is indeed responsible enough to receive child support and a full accounting compariable to the expediture of outgoing child support. In other words, receipts of any and all kinds to justify the money is in fact going to the good will of the child recipiant. A system like that wouldn't be keeping the child's welfare in mind.. How is keeping the anger and bitterness supposed to be good for the child ? How is creating hours of paperwork supposed to be good for the child.. Raising a child takes more time that you can imagine and I can't imagine having to put 10 hours a month into keeping records to how the money is spent.. Since it takes more money than the child support payments to raise a child maybe you wouldn't want records actually kept as you might have to in reality pay more in support. Hell.. a babysitter alone just for one evening to go to a school function can cost 75.00. Babysitters charge 10-18.00 per hour today..
Art_Critic Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 Its the way the law happend to work for you, in your state. I commend you and your attorney on a job well done. Of course having to pay hefty attorney fees was part of it.. but she also paid those same hefty fees and in the end all that mattered was the law..
Untouchable_Fire Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 A system like that wouldn't be keeping the child's welfare in mind.. How is keeping the anger and bitterness supposed to be good for the child ? How is creating hours of paperwork supposed to be good for the child.. Raising a child takes more time that you can imagine and I can't imagine having to put 10 hours a month into keeping records to how the money is spent.. Since it takes more money than the child support payments to raise a child maybe you wouldn't want records actually kept as you might have to in reality pay more in support. Hell.. a babysitter alone just for one evening to go to a school function can cost 75.00. Babysitters charge 10-18.00 per hour today.. My biggest issue with the whole thing is how do you divide it out? How could you decide what was for the Primary Custody Parent and what wasn't? I think there should just be a law that states money provided MUST be used for the child... most will do that anyways... and allow the ones who don't to get drug into court to prove it. Our current system with no checks or balances is much worse than having to keep some records. Crap I keep records on all my expenses... and it takes 2 hours a month total.
AverageJoe Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 How is keeping the anger and bitterness supposed to be good for the child ? I dont really know what that is supposed to mean. How is creating hours of paperwork supposed to be good for the child.. Raising a child takes more time that you can imagine and I can't imagine having to put 10 hours a month into keeping records to how the money is spent.. So am I to understand, keeping an accouting of expenditures for a child, is much more of a burdon than the actual child raising itself? Since it takes more money than the child support payments to raise a child maybe you wouldn't want records actually kept as you might have to in reality pay more in support. This I can somewhat agree on, there could be potential unintended consequences. If you are a man, that would be rare. It sure isnt any worse than what we have now.
Rorschach Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 Since it takes more money than the child support payments to raise a child maybe you wouldn't want records actually kept as you might have to in reality pay more in support. If this happened to me I would have no problem with it assuming I agreed with how the money is being spent (I know people personally who send their children to private schools yet have to buy groceries on credit cards because they're so broke, which is NOT WISE). If my child actually needed more money from me of course I would have no problem with it. But I have to agree that I don't like the system as it stands right now if only because there are some people out there who abuse the system and don't spend the money the way it was intended.
Untouchable_Fire Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 But I have to agree that I don't like the system as it stands right now if only because there are some people out there who abuse the system and don't spend the money the way it was intended. Truth is we don't know how big or how small the problem really is... because nobody tracks it. My friend Josh had his ex wife dump the kids off with her parents for 5 months and he still had to pay her child support... and help her parents cover. He took it to court and they ordered him to continue paying because the xwife claimed financial hardship and that she was going to take the kids back. 1 year later still living with grandparents... still paying support to both. I assume this won't last much longer... but still. What a fiasco.
tami-chan Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 Well I know I -said- it was a prenup, but it was really an agreement that you must have a Mexican wrestling match with me once a week. So go get those masks out of the closet like a good girl! I feel lucky, like I will actually win this time unlike the last 8 times. LOL!!!! Anyway, divorce sucks. It's embarrassing to have to discuss money and properties. My divorce was amicable. I kept my own, he kept his own. Anything we acquired during the marriage that is of value belongs to our daughter-including my engagement ring, our wedding rings, our house, etc.
AverageJoe Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 Anything we acquired during the marriage that is of value belongs to our daughter-including my engagement ring, our wedding rings, our house, etc. Unless your daughter is of age to properly have a namesake of a deed in her sted. Then I am willing to bet, it is still in one of your names. Who got the house when the divorce was settled?
aerogurl87 Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 I dont know that I did, thats exactly what you said. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt in regards to your response. So you want to marry your loser boyfriend that has no aspirations, no goals in life just a vanilla existence. You seem fine with that. I suppose that is ok, I can always use someone to change my oil. I dont care if you only have two nickles to rub together right now, what I see is someone that has settled for being a loser for the rest of their life. My guess is, if he did turn out to be a hard worker, successful and wealthy beyond his dreams, you would want half. Nothing entitles you to that. But lawyers will try to say they want part of your future earnings. Outrageous. First of all, don't you dare call my boyfriend a loser. He works extremely hard at his job and when I say he makes average, I mean around 60k a year, and for an 18 year old I'd say that's pretty above average. Second of all, he has goals and aspirations in life, but at the moment his job is paying his bills and will be what gets him through university. I'm proud of him for what he's doing and he's a good, honest, loyal, supportive boyfriend. And yes you did take what I said out of context. I was referring to the thread topic, I'm sorry I didn't go into detail on my post but I was pretty busy with more important things than to write out a mini essay explaining everything.
TuesGirl Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 I'm being an irresponsible LS'er and not reading any previous posts besides the OP (call me lazy!) but here's my thought as a 33 year old woman. At some point in my life, when my parents pass, bless their hearts, I will get some money. Not a lot, but enough to send a future child or two to college (which, btw, is my intended use). It would make my parents turn over in their grave if 'that' money were to be 'split'. So, yes, I wholeheartedly believe in pre-nups. I have my future life, financially set up (through 401K and Roth IRA) so and will not marry a man that balks. I don't 'need' anyone else's money, I work hard and live off of my own salary, and I certainly don't want any money of mine going to anyone besides my kin if **** were to hit the fan (and let me say I have seen enough in this life to let you know that the most-bestest-cutest-blah-blah-blah couples end up hitting that fan sometimes). Ok good night
Veronica K Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 I don't think I'd have a problem with it.
AverageJoe Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 First of all, don't you dare call my boyfriend a loser. He works extremely hard at his job and when I say he makes average, I mean around 60k a year, and for an 18 year old I'd say that's pretty above average. Second of all, he has goals and aspirations in life, but at the moment his job is paying his bills and will be what gets him through university. I'm proud of him for what he's doing and he's a good, honest, loyal, supportive boyfriend. And yes you did take what I said out of context. I was referring to the thread topic, I'm sorry I didn't go into detail on my post but I was pretty busy with more important things than to write out a mini essay explaining everything. Perfect. You have his life all laid out for him at age 18. Poor sap. Your Honor, my client has been there for this man since the age of 18 and she has grown accustomed to the lifestyle he has provided. How dare we take away that accoutrement so entitled by her loyalty of partnership, love, and endearing qualities. Judge tears up, gavel smacks down. End game.
aerogurl87 Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 Perfect. You have his life all laid out for him at age 18. Poor sap. Your Honor, my client has been there for this man since the age of 18 and she has grown accustomed to the lifestyle he has provided. How dare we take away that accoutrement so entitled by her loyalty of partnership, love, and endearing qualities. Judge tears up, gavel smacks down. End game. Bitter much, AverageJoe? Can't see the positive in that "hey, she might actually love this guy", is that such a stretch of the imagination? Ok, well since you think I'm using him I'll give you some background on our relationship. When he was broke, and I mean BROKE, we came to a crossroads in our relationship. Have me fly to see him or break up. I chose to fly to see him, although I'm a student myself and barely make much. I managed to pay close to $1k in less than 3 months to go see him. I love my boyfriend, our relationship is not a walk in the park. I'm sorry you don't seem to believe in love, but it does exist and every day that I talk to my boyfriend that belief becomes even more true in my eyes. If we were to break up I wouldn't take him for anything, I'm not bitter like that. When my ex left me for another girl one day out of the blue and cussed me out, I wasn't bitter. In fact, I actually listened to him when he called me up crying about how horrible his life was going. I tried to be a shoulder for him to cry on. Why? Because I believe in being good to others and not revenge. Revenge only harbours bitterness, resentment, and negativity. I don't want any negativity in my life whatsoever. But you have plenty it seems, at least when it comes to women.
AverageJoe Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 Ah, the quintessential bitter retort. Well played, hasnt been the first time. *golf clap* Get out of your boyfriends jock and in the binders of a book.
aerogurl87 Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 Ah, the quintessential bitter retort. Well played, hasnt been the first time. *golf clap* Get out of your boyfriends jock and in the binders of a book. Hmm, well if I'm not the first to say it then well seems there may be some truth to the fact that you just might be, oh I dunno, bitter.
that girl Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 Assets or not, a pre-nup is manditory if I want to get married. Sorry to dent your ego but it has nothing to do with you. Its the court system I dont trust. You can't pre-nup things you do have yet with the exception of an expected inheritance. If neither person has significant assets, there is nothing to pre-nup. What I want to see happen in regards to child support, is an accounting system. Maybe a receipt at the end of the tax year to account for each penny spent. If you receive child support, you must be accountable for each dollar spent at the end of each tax year, or quarter showing the individual is indeed responsible enough to receive child support and a full accounting compariable to the expediture of outgoing child support. While I see why this is desireable, it isn't realistic. Child support is supposed to cover things like food and basic living expenses. The paperwork would be enormous with the custodial parent having to list half a tube of toothpaste and a percentage of a carton of milk. It opens the situation up for abuse by the non-custodial parent. So am I to understand, keeping an accouting of expenditures for a child, is much more of a burdon than the actual child raising itself? It is in the best interest of the child for the custodial parent to not have to do 10 hours of work a month for child support. I'm not aganist pre-nups. I've known people who have signed them and I'm not opposed to signing one. But the paranoia some people have about someone taking what is theirs is off putting. If you don't think someone is a good person, you shouldn't be marrying them. Lots of couples manage to handle splits reasonably well.
Recommended Posts