Whitesupraboy2 Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 when i get married ill be getting a pre nup or i wont be getting married. It always gets messy and with 60% of british marriages failing...i aint taking my chances Also you noticed the woman always takes the blokes money for doing nothing....but the bloke have to keep working!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_supra Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 I'm not too well up on the whole legal entitlement thing, but I have a question. If a married couple got divorced and they owed money (however much) would they both have to pay it back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymanuk Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 when i get married ill be getting a pre nup or i wont be getting married. It always gets messy and with 60% of british marriages failing...i aint taking my chances Why not. If they marry you for you not money then why is this an issue. You are protecting yourself from your life's work or whatever like you would take out insurance on your life or house or car. Also you noticed the woman always takes the blokes money for doing nothing....but the bloke have to keep working!! Well you were working before so after a split you will need to work harder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 I'm not too well up on the whole legal entitlement thing, but I have a question. If a married couple got divorced and they owed money (however much) would they both have to pay it back? Whoever out of the two has any money has to pay it yes. When my mum and dad got divorced my dad was also bankrupt which left his debts to my mum. I think the point about you leaving the relationship with what you put in is a fair one but where there are children involved they need to be supported by both parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixelfill Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 Also, tendancy is that women stop work to sprog out babies so they loose their career etc therefore it is kinda fair if you look at it like that. Interesting female standpoint- The laws surrounding maternity leave and paternity leave aren't fair. If I (was married and) had a kid, I (being a man) would be entitled to 1 day off on full pay. The mother would be entitled to much more time off at full pay. I understand that they need time to recover from the ordeal of birth, however the system forces the issue. Once the maternity period is over, the child has bonded much more with the mother than the father, so to swap roles at this point is potentially stressful to the child. Therefore the mother leaves work and the father is effectively forced to continue. To then use this as the sole excuse to get money from the father in the case of divorce is wrong. If anything the father should be entitled to compensation from the government/employer on the grounds of sex discrimination, and the emotional hurt he has been caused by being kept apart from his child. .... perhaps .... Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_supra Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 Whoever out of the two has any money has to pay it yes. When my mum and dad got divorced my dad was also bankrupt which left his debts to my mum. I think the point about you leaving the relationship with what you put in is a fair one but where there are children involved they need to be supported by both parents. Definitely, children should be supported no matter what. I was just interested to see if the whole take half of what's mine principal in divorce settlements worked the other way too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooter Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 FYI pre nup's have no bearing when it comes to the crunch...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted May 24, 2006 Author Share Posted May 24, 2006 It certainly does work both ways. I was advised that my ex could be held liable for my mortgage if I defaulted even if she wasn't living there anymore. There's a bit of humour in me over this because it is supposed to apply equally foto both sexes, but not much because I know too many people who are getting screwed in divorce settlements by their other halves - particularly one close friend. I got off easy by comparison. So long as childeren aren't involved, my take on this is simple: You should leave with what you arrived with. No more, no less. If you bought a house together, and paid equally into a joint mortgage, then you take half of the equity each. If one of you paid 1/3 and the other 2/3 then it gets split by the same ratio. Posessions can still get split up much as they are now, by mutual agreement unless there is some huge cash value attached to them like a car or whatever. This "property of the marriage thing" works fine for me so long as there is a marriage, but when someone decides the marriage is over then they also forfiet the property that goes along with it. ...and this claims on future earnings, pensions and the like. That just utter bollocks, that is. Sorry I can't be more eloquent about it. That's like quitting your job and telling them you still want to be paid every month. What on earth has what somebody does in the future, in their new life, got to do with their ex? ...and in the case under scrutiny today, why the hell does a "stay at home mother" need £250,000 a year for the rest of her life in support? Has she just given up? No plans to go back to work or anything? Ever? Jesus.... I used to be one of the people who said "marriage is an institution" an all that, and looked down on the people who said "why bother? Its just a bit of paper". Sadly, these days, it is just a bit of paper but only because its so easy to get out of - and since White versus White you can make a tidy profit, as well*! Is it any wonder the institution of marriage is breaking down? Far from being something you hve to work at and struggle on with to make work, its actually beneficial for a lower income partner to cut and run when the love is gone. As for considering kids, yeah, that gets complicated. But hey - what do you expect when you decide to start a family? An easy ride? Maybe parents shouldn't be allowed to separate - for the kid's sake. If the law wants to protect children maybe it should be doing more to ensure there are two parents around rather than putting temptation in the way to reduce them to bargaining chips for maintenence payments. *White versus White, as explained to me by my solicitor was the ruling that overturned the "you leave with what you brought in" guidelines in favour of a split of everything regardless of who provided it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now