USMCHokie Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 If your a SAHW kinda scary. Don't bang other men...? 5
carhill Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 Would you cheat if you risked losing the property? To be perfectly honest, at my age, I don't care. Life is too enjoyable these days. After what I went through, my legal team would never leave such doors open for catastrophic loss. It just wouldn't happen. My best friend was just saying tonight how my exW, whom he still has contact with, is all about self-preservation. I learned from a pro.
jnj express Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 There are 7 states where you can bring a civil action for Alienation, or Criminal Conversation---and you can bring an action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, in all states---but these would have no bearing on D, proceedings
USMCHokie Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 To be perfectly honest, at my age, I don't care. Life is too enjoyable these days. After what I went through, my legal team would never leave such doors open for catastrophic loss. It just wouldn't happen. My best friend was just saying tonight how my exW, whom he still has contact with, is all about self-preservation. I learned from a pro. And that's my issue...there is absolutely no accountability for misconduct. People are free to wrong others who then have no recourse against them. Hell, oftentimes wayward spouses benefit from cheating on their spouse. Where's the fairness in that? Do more radical (to our standards) cultures and religions have it right when it comes to infidelity? And yes, you're right about self-preservation. That's one of the reasons why marriage is on the decline these days. Men are understanding how skewed the justice system is in terms of marriage. Men simply don't get married out of self-preservation. 2
therhythm Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 And that's my issue...there is absolutely no accountability for misconduct. People are free to wrong others who then have no recourse against them. Hell, oftentimes wayward spouses benefit from cheating on their spouse. Where's the fairness in that? Do more radical (to our standards) cultures and religions have it right when it comes to infidelity? And yes, you're right about self-preservation. That's one of the reasons why marriage is on the decline these days. Men are understanding how skewed the justice system is in terms of marriage. Men simply don't get married out of self-preservation. Cheating is not an illegal act, it is probably morally blamable and can therefore have a moral tool for those who do it. You can't regulate/legislate around love and relationships but you can regulate/legislate around assets and partnership... people can always make a prenuptial agreement...those who choose not to do that take the risk by themselves, they know that cheating is an option and they prefer to ignore it. 1
USMCHokie Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 Cheating is not an illegal act, it is probably morally blamable and can therefore have a moral tool for those who do it. You can't regulate/legislate around love and relationships but you can regulate/legislate around assets and partnership... people can always make a prenuptial agreement...those who choose not to do that take the risk by themselves, they know that cheating is an option and they prefer to ignore it. Yes, they can; but then courts can freely exercise their discretion in these agreements, regardless of the "meeting of the minds" of the contracted parties. Should courts be free to wipe their asses with any other contract? And no, cheating is not illegal in criminal law, but given that marriage is a contract, breach of that contract via infidelity should be an actionable offense. Furthermore, when the parties agree to terms that dictate the consequences of infidelity in a prenup, how the hell can courts come in and throw those terms away? It would be no different from me leasing a car, driving it for a month, and then going to court and having them void the contract because I feel like driving a different car now. I just think courts have egregiously overstepped their bounds here and compromised the integrity of the underlying principles of contracts.
therhythm Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 Yes, they can; but then courts can freely exercise their discretion in these agreements, regardless of the "meeting of the minds" of the contracted parties. Should courts be free to wipe their asses with any other contract? And no, cheating is not illegal in criminal law, but given that marriage is a contract, breach of that contract via infidelity should be an actionable offense. Furthermore, when the parties agree to terms that dictate the consequences of infidelity in a prenup, how the hell can courts come in and throw those terms away? It would be no different from me leasing a car, driving it for a month, and then going to court and having them void the contract because I feel like driving a different car now. I just think courts have egregiously overstepped their bounds here and compromised the integrity of the underlying principles of contracts. Can you show me a marriage contract where it says that infidelity is a breach of that contract or that any of the participants must remind faithful? It happens that I just have been 4 days ago in a wedding as wideness and I didn't see any clause about that I agree with you anyway that whatever gets agreed in a prenup contract should be sealed and no court should be able to change even a comma on it.
therhythm Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 Well I suppose I'm thinking something a bit more diabolical in which conditions set forth in the agreement establish punitive measures to act as a deterrent against infidelity. As an extreme and unrealistic example to illustrate, let's say the wayward spouse owned the Malibu property before marriage and agreed that the property be forfeited to the betrayed spouse in case of infidelity. Would you cheat if you risked losing the property? This is the wrong way to see things... i would not want to be with someone who doesn't cheat on me because is afraid of loosing her assets... I would like to be with someone who doesn't cheat on me because she loves me and respects me.
USMCHokie Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 Can you show me a marriage contract where it says that infidelity is a breach of that contract or that any of the participants must remind faithful? A contractual obligation of fidelity is included in the California statute governing domestic relations, i.e., marriage...
USMCHokie Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 This is the wrong way to see things... i would not want to be with someone who doesn't cheat on me because is afraid of loosing her assets... I would like to be with someone who doesn't cheat on me because she loves me and respects me. True. But what if she stops loving you and/or respecting you?
threelaurels Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 And I do have a fundamental disagreement with the way the courts handle these. The prenup is on its face a contract, just like any other contract. Should courts be able to dictate which contracts should be enforceable and which should not, based on their whims and fancies? Is there a public policy reason for allowing courts to dictate the intent of the parties of the contract? And what if the prenup stipulated that all proceedings be handled in arbitration? The fact that the prenup is intended to be a legally binding contract is precisely why it gets thrown out so often. Contracts are not required to have equal consideration, but they cannot be lopsided to the point that they are unreasonable. How "reasonable" or "unreasonable" is defined is ultimately up to the judge. The fact that judges have the authority to throw out prenups has less to do with public policy and more to do with the nature of the occupation. Judges have a certain degree of discretion in almost all types of cases that come before them whether civil or criminal. Basically, someone somewhere has to make decisions in order for the courts to function, and the judge is usually that person. A prenup can dictate that all proceedings be handled in arbitration. However, one or both parties can go before a judge to determine if the prenup is valid if there are any doubts. If the prenup is determined to be invalid, everything in it, including the arbitration agreement, holds no weight. Cheating is not an illegal act, it is probably morally blamable and can therefore have a moral tool for those who do it. You can't regulate/legislate around love and relationships but you can regulate/legislate around assets and partnership... people can always make a prenuptial agreement...those who choose not to do that take the risk by themselves, they know that cheating is an option and they prefer to ignore it. Infidelity is actually illegal in many places. For example, it's illegal in South Korea and even 23 US states--not just third world countries and those ruled by Sharia law. Whether or not someone would actually be prosecuted for it is another matter.
USMCHokie Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 The fact that the prenup is intended to be a legally binding contract is precisely why it gets thrown out so often. Contracts are not required to have equal consideration, but they cannot be lopsided to the point that they are unreasonable. How "reasonable" or "unreasonable" is defined is ultimately up to the judge. And how are infidelity clauses necessarily lopsided? For example, if you cheat, you agree to forfeit all joint property acquired during the marriage and pay punitive alimony to me. If I cheat, I agree to forfeit all joint property acquired during the marriage and will pay punitive alimony to you. The fact that judges have the authority to throw out prenups has less to do with public policy and more to do with the nature of the occupation. Judges have a certain degree of discretion in almost all types of cases that come before them whether civil or criminal. Basically, someone somewhere has to make decisions in order for the courts to function, and the judge is usually that person. Should this discretion be open to all contracts? Why can't prenups be read on their face value like other contracts? Judges certainly have lots of procedural discretion, but where should we draw the line where they start exercising substantive discretion? Of course, one or both of the parties could take the matter out of family court and just go with a good ol' fashioned civil suit to enforce a contract.
Oberfeldwebel Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 The real answer is......it depends. Marriage and divorce are state laws and differ greatly in requirements, procedures and rules of evidence. While there are many that will offer you information, you should not take any of that as fact, but well meaning things to consider. Legal advice should be from an attorney, who gets all the information from you and not sound bites on a forum.
Woggle Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 I don't think that cheating should be a criminal act but marriage is the only contract where somebody can breach the terms blatantly and the wronged side still has to pay through the nose. Where is the fairness in that? 1
carhill Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 Wogs, IMO, if marriage contracts were as thorough and detailed as business contracts, something I'm very familiar with, there would be less ambiguity about terms, intents of the parties and the meeting of the minds which took place. As it is, marriage is a very nebulous 'contract', in the strictly business sense, which is often what it comes down to in a divorce proceeding. Even in business lawsuits, both venue and outcome are or can be uncertain, and most I've been party to have settled rather than leaving it up to one person, a disinterested third party, to decide arbitrarily. In that vein, 'settlement' was the path which my exW and I followed, both seeing the benefits of working things out amongst the parties versus the expense and uncertain outcome of a protracted lawsuit. Additionally, how does the court assign 'damages' for wide-ranging actions which may or may not define 'infidelity'? Each person's perception, including the judge's, is different. We often discuss what infidelity is on LS and opinion varies widely. In fact, many people I know in real life have nowhere near the very focused range of actions/words we often describe here as infidelity. How are they described and how is severity of breach and consequence attached to each? Tough job. In a way, the legislature and court 'divorced' from infidelity by the statutes of 'no-fault' which were established over time and now are available in all 50 US states. If we are to consider those bodies reflective of us as a society, perhaps there was wisdom in their actions. Perhaps not. Myself, I wouldn't exist if my father hadn't been cheated on and lost his children in the divorce system of the 1940's. Are things more equitable now? How have we evolved? Where do we go from here?
carhill Posted July 15, 2013 Posted July 15, 2013 On example of an apparently inequitable distribution being awarded could be when an unfaithful/adulterous spouse buys their affair partner a home from community funds and titles that home in the affair partner's name. If such diversion of marital funds to an adulterous relationship could be proven, the case could be made for a marked shift in the apparent disposition of currently accounted for marital assets, for example the adulterous spouse could be assigned a lesser percentage of the marital home when sold, to 'compensate' the 'injured' spouse for material damages. How things go depends on the statutes of the jurisdiction where the lawsuit is filed and prosecuted. This is why, sometimes, people acquire residency and file such suits in jurisdictions not their customary domicile.
carhill Posted July 15, 2013 Posted July 15, 2013 Perhaps my terminology is confusing. The divorce disposition of the marital estate may, in such circumstances, appear on its face to be unequal, but the court would be attempting to make the aggrieved (betrayed) spouse whole for the absconding of marital assets in favor of the affair partner during the marriage, based on forensic accounting and investigation. It's entirely possible, and I have personal experience, both in my own M and with friends, where one spouse has money/assets earned during the marriage completely opaque to the other spouse, and such money/assets would only be 'discovered' during the divorce process, if at all. In my social circle, this is known as a 'slush fund', and can be held in an irrevocable trust or other vehicle of asset management. It can get very complex and lawyers are definitely involved, and a good reason to have a legal team to manage all aspects of the process.
Author Eggplant Posted July 16, 2013 Author Posted July 16, 2013 Do more radical (to our standards) cultures and religions have it right when it comes to infidelity? They might except they apply their standards unequally across gender lines.
Goodbye Posted July 17, 2013 Posted July 17, 2013 Depends on the state. Here in Ct it is a "no fault" state in that no fault is needed to file. However, fault can be factored into the equation during the division of assets. Judges do not like if children were brought into the affair, or if marital assets were used to fund an affair. Generally, the impact of infidelity upon the settlement is minimal. It shouldn't impact custody unless the children were involved or the paramour is someone who could cause harm to the family. What I have seen is that infidelity is tossed around in pre-trial hearings, usually as a pressure point to get the other side to settle.
Recommended Posts