How does a prenup get challenged?

[cmoney]

God, attorneys and gold diggers will stop at nothing..

https://celebrity.yahoo.com/blogs/ce...155306880.html

it is bad enough when women who marry into the money, do nothing to contribute financially in a marriage, and take half when the divorce comes . Now you take the extra step to protect yourself with a prenup and there is actually a chance it can be challenged? wtf

[Dan Druff]

Yup, people with too much money and even more bitterness, hiring shyster attorneys to poke holes in an agreement which existed in the first place for both parties to agree beforehand how the divorce settlement should go.

Really sleazy. If you sign something and understand what you're signing, you should not be able to challenge it later on bullshit technicalities, unless there is something blatantly illegal about it.

There's already the situation in California (and maybe other states now) where both sides need an attorney for a prenup to be legally valid. Barry Bonds' wife got away with this claim in a landmark case, and got paid big from it. Barry Bonds is a roidhead and a total asshole, but he got royally screwed on that one by a big time gold digger.

I always felt there should be a cap on divorce settlements when one person contributes almost all of the money to the marriage. So while it's fair that a woman living a $250,000/year income lifestyle shoudln't be forced to live like a pauper after the divorce, it's ridiculous that a woman should get $250 million if her husband made $500 million while they were married. The woman should get a comfortable settlement which will keep her in a nice lifestyle, and that should be that.

Also, they should base divorce settlements on the length of the marriage. Nobody should get rich off of a 2-year marriage.

[sonatine]

Im curious how often this strat actually plays out. The comments from her lawyer in the article sound like shes approaching the prenup like its one of those recording contracts where artists sign away life time rights to songs for pennies then the songs blow up and a court vacates the original contract in favor of a more equitable dispersal of funds to the artists. Which seems like win/win for the lawyer because she gets paid either way, but I cant imagine the effort being realistically equitable for the wife.

[cmoney]

Yup, people with too much money and even more bitterness, hiring shyster attorneys to poke holes in an agreement which existed in the first place for both parties to agree beforehand how the divorce settlement should go.

Really sleazy. If you sign something and understand what you're signing, you should not be able to challenge it later on bullshit technicalities, unless there is something blatantly illegal about it.

There's already the situation in California (and maybe other states now) where both sides need an attorney for a prenup to be legally valid. Barry Bonds' wife got away with this claim in a landmark case, and got paid big from it. Barry Bonds is a roidhead and a total asshole, but he got royally screwed on that one by a big time gold digger.

I always felt there should be a cap on divorce settlements when one person contributes almost all of the money to the marriage. So while it's fair that a woman living a $250,000/year income lifestyle shoudln't be forced to live like a pauper after the divorce, it's ridiculous that a woman should get $250 million if her husband made $500 million while they were married. The woman should get a comfortable settlement which will keep her in a nice lifestyle, and that should be that.

Also, they should base divorce settlements on the length of the marriage. Nobody should get rich off of a 2-year marriage.

Yeah, this idea that there is a few formulas for dividing assets that apply in 99 percent of divorces is beyond retarded. Every case is completely unique and needs to be looked at on a "case by case."

[Dan Druff]

Im curious how often this strat actually plays out. The comments from her lawyer in the article sound like shes approaching the prenup like its one of those recording contracts where artists sign away life time rights to songs for pennies then the songs blow up and a court vacates the original contract in favor of a more equitable dispersal of funds to the artists. Which seems like win/win for the lawyer because she gets paid either way, but I cant imagine the effort being realistically equitable for the wife.

Probably is something like that.

But LOL at that argument, because while it is believable that record companies exploit struggling artists and force them into highly inequitable terms simply to have a shot at the big time, a prenup's whole purpose is to establish inequitable terms because the high-income party doesn't want to risk handing over half his income for those years in case the marriage fails.

Prenups are especially important in "no fault" states like California, where you can literally be a perfect husband and end up paying a fortune to your wife because she decided she wanted to fuck the poolboy. So basically you can end up in the spot where you are paying your ex-spouse a fortune for fucking you over, which is an extra indignity.

[jsearles22]

Im curious how often this strat actually plays out. The comments from her lawyer in the article sound like shes approaching the prenup like its one of those recording contracts where artists sign away life time rights to songs for pennies then the songs blow up and a court vacates the original contract in favor of a more equitable dispersal of funds to the artists. Which seems like win/win for the lawyer because she gets paid either way, but I cant imagine the effort being realistically equitable for the wife.

Probably is something like that.

But LOL at that argument, because while it is believable that record companies exploit struggling artists and force them into highly inequitable terms simply to have a shot at the big time, a prenup's whole purpose is to establish inequitable terms because the high-income party doesn't want to risk handing over half his income for those years in case the marriage fails.

Prenups are especially important in "no fault" states like California, where you can literally be a perfect husband and end up paying a fortune to your wife because she decided she wanted to fuck the poolboy. So basically you can end up in the spot where you are paying your ex-spouse a fortune for fucking you over, which is an extra indignity.

It is hilarious that you are still arguing against my points, even after I posted proof that California has already researched the exact problem I'm presenting, and came up with the exact solution I posted.

[Dan Druff]

Probably is something like that.

But LOL at that argument, because while it is believable that record companies exploit struggling artists and force them into highly inequitable terms simply to have a shot at the big time, a prenup's whole purpose is to establish inequitable terms because the high-income party doesn't want to risk handing over half his income for those years in case the marriage fails.

Prenups are especially important in "no fault" states like California, where you can literally be a perfect husband and end up paying a fortune to your wife because she decided she wanted to fuck the poolboy. So basically you can end up in the spot where you are paying your ex-spouse a fortune for fucking you over, which is an extra indignity.

It is hilarious that you are still arguing against my points, even after I posted proof that California has already researched the exact problem I'm presenting, and came up with the exact solution I posted.

jsearles licking his chops about potentially ruining another thread.

[Nikki]

The best prenup is to not get married .

Doing a prenup is like going into a false marriage it's doom from the beginning .

Need to have a different marriage program for short timers ,1 year marriages that can be renewed that acts as a prenup on its own .

Marriage is overrated and tacky like poker players that have poker pictures and gear all over there house grinding while drinking out of a poker mug or hitting up a B&M game while wearing there pokerstars sweater .

[lol wow]

Dang she just went in on your personal attire and lifestyle choices Todd

[jsearles22]

It is hilarious that you are still arguing against my points, even after I posted proof that California has already researched the exact problem I'm presenting, and came up with the exact solution I posted.

jsearles licking his chops about potentially ruining another thread.

I was just under the impression you agreed with everything California had on the books? You said so, very clearly and adamantly. You chided me for disagreeing with 1/9th of the nations population did you not? So now I'm confused that you're framing something done in California as being anything but the best solution imaginable. California has spoken damnit!

[GrenadaRoger]

nuptial agreement can also be entered into after marriage ("post-nuptial agreement)



here are the rules for california re prenuptials

http://www.prenuptialagreements.org/...nt-california/

or for that matter, you can find the California Family Law code sections online too


if you really are interested, read the above...in the 8 years I've been around these forums I've found Druff is sincere but at times a little off the mark....


if you're one of the smart and self-reliant few here, you know about Druff and how to research your own problems...

the rest of you folks rant away and enjoy your blissful ignorance....and now on with the show

[SrslySirius]

Out of curiosity, I tried looking up how this works with common law marriage. Is it possible to get shaken down even if you don't say your vows? I'm haven't found any conclusive answers yet.

[sonatine]

Out of curiosity, I tried looking up how this works with common law marriage. Is it possible to get shaken down even if you don't say your vows? I'm haven't found any conclusive answers yet.

It's state to state, not federal.


NY state for example doesnt recognize common law marriage. But yeah in other states, after X years together, it turns into a legal "thing" with regards to assets.

[Krypt]

[DRK Star]

my marriage ended with the ex having a long-term affair with a client, having me removed from the house under false accusations (so that I wouldnt go for custody of the kids) and in the end, I got saddled with half her debt (she ran up over 40K in CC, since she knew she was going to file...thats joint debt, then she took money out to rehab her mother's house...I got nothing after the sale).

I paid 80% of the bills (mortgage, cars, electric, cable, tv, insurance). She paid off her personal debt (grad school) and food.

I lost everything. Is that fair? No, its completely ridiculous. I have to pay over 50% of my income towards child support, food when I go and see them/have them with me, gas to drive 30 min each way to get them, insurance, sports, hobbies, cell phones, etc. Total joke. Also, ex wife honestly thinks that because I got an MBA from the same school of a guy she dated, and he makes almost 250K/yr, I SHOULD BE PAYING HER that equivalent (ex-wife is bat-shit irrational).



Marriage is no longer a sensible option for people. It was good during a time where men worked and women stayed home, but now, women do just fine, and life is more like a buffet. Go after whatever you want. Its no longer a social fail if you have an affair. People dont care. Stay single, and make it more of a business relationship. Both parties have to invest effort to make it work...if it doesnt, the parties walk away.

[jsearles22]

my marriage ended with the ex having a long-term affair with a client, having me removed from the house under false accusations (so that I wouldnt go for custody of the kids) and in the end, I got saddled with half her debt (she ran up over 40K in CC, since she knew she was going to file...thats joint debt, then she took money out to rehab her mother's house...I got nothing after the sale).

I paid 80% of the bills (mortgage, cars, electric, cable, tv, insurance). She paid off her personal debt (grad school) and food.

I lost everything. Is that fair? No, its completely ridiculous. I have to pay over 50% of my income towards child support, food when I go and see them/have them with me, gas to drive 30 min each way to get them, insurance, sports, hobbies, cell phones, etc. Total joke. Also, ex wife honestly thinks that because I got an MBA from the same school of a guy she dated, and he makes almost 250K/yr, I SHOULD BE PAYING HER that equivalent (ex-wife is bat-shit irrational).



Marriage is no longer a sensible option for people. It was good during a time where men worked and women stayed home, but now, women do just fine, and life is more like a buffet. Go after whatever you want. Its no longer a social fail if you have an affair. People dont care. Stay single, and make it more of a business relationship. Both parties have to invest effort to make it work...if it doesnt, the parties walk away.

Derek and Split need to just become fuck buddies. Good for both parties, potentially good PFA fodder. Win/win/win IMO

[Lord of the Fraud]

Yup, people with too much money and even more bitterness, hiring shyster attorneys to poke holes in an agreement which existed in the first place for both parties to agree beforehand how the divorce settlement should go.

Really sleazy. If you sign something and understand what you're signing, you should not be able to challenge it later on bullshit technicalities, unless there is something blatantly illegal about it.

There's already the situation in California (and maybe other states now) where both sides need an attorney for a prenup to be legally valid. Barry Bonds' wife got away with this claim in a landmark case, and got paid big from it. Barry Bonds is a roidhead and a total asshole, but he got royally screwed on that one by a big time gold digger.

I always felt there should be a cap on divorce settlements when one person contributes almost all of the money to the marriage. So while it's fair that a woman living a $250,000/year income lifestyle shoudln't be forced to live like a pauper after the divorce, it's ridiculous that a woman should get $250 million if her husband made $500 million while they were married. The woman should get a comfortable settlement which will keep her in a nice lifestyle, and that should be that.

Also, they should base divorce settlements on the length of the marriage. Nobody should get rich off of a 2-year marriage.

lol America baby


Nowhere else


NOWHERE

[Lord of the Fraud]

Haha somebody in that vid is a close personal friend of my brother.



How the fuck do you cunts know this band?

[SrslySirius]

lol America baby


Nowhere else


NOWHERE

[Crowe Diddly]

Out of curiosity, I tried looking up how this works with common law marriage. Is it possible to get shaken down even if you don't say your vows? I'm haven't found any conclusive answers yet.

You don't need vows at all, do you? If you go out in public as Mr and Mrs, live together long term, use each other in the "spouse" field on legal docs, shit like that, THAT's what matters. AFAIK, vows matter fuck all. Of course, ianal, tbh, and yrmv, imo.

I remember many times on the Stern show noted bloated attorney Dominic Barbara saying that pre-nups ain't worth the paper they are written on. He recommended the entire thing be video'd by all parties, oral statements, all sorts of extra stuff, but would also note that a top shelf divorce attorney would pretty much beat every pre-nup every time. The more money at stake, the more likely the probability of the people having better lawyers, the quicker the pre-nup gets tossed.