Thread: Divorce (split)

I thought they famously didn't have a prenup. All the more amazing due to his colossal wealth.

(..also heard she wouldnt have a leg to stand on in court otherwise.. )

I can understand that if the man fucks another woman then maybe he should have to pay out some wedge as salary to his ex.

If she is fucking about and wants divorced why should he cough up anything?

Oz is bad but not as bad as Kiwiland so I understand.

Over there if a girl shacks up with you for as little as 3 months, or something like that, she can claim legal deFacto status and claim a substantial wedge when you give her the arse. Also apparently being shacked up can mean kipping over only 3 nights a week.

So I heard anyway.

Originally Posted by Milkman

After 2 years or so, what could this foreign wife (who becomes a citizen) get form the husband, if anything?

Same as any other australian women

Originally Posted by Looper

Oz is bad but not as bad as Kiwiland so I understand. Over there if a girl shacks up with you for as little as 3 months, or something like that, she can claim legal deFacto status and claim a substantial wedge when you give her the arse. Also apparently being shacked up can mean kipping over only 3 nights a week. So I heard anyway.

Yeh they have about the same in Australia but I believe it is 6 months so yeh even living with your girlfriend she will be intitled to some thing

Isn't it easier to kill 'er than divorce 'er?

Only partly joking. How many homocide cases involve couples on the brink of divorce?

The problem with 50-50 splits is that the man usually has paychecks to prove what's he's brought home. The woman's contribution is often, not always, less tangible. Men feel like they've supported the woman. Women feel like they've carried the family.

American Indians used to settle disputes by arm wrestling. Sounds reasonable.

^ raelly? pigs ass evening up!

Originally Posted by Looper

Oz is bad but not as bad as Kiwiland so I understand.

Over there if a girl shacks up with you for as little as 3 months, or something like that, she can claim legal deFacto status and claim a substantial wedge when you give her the arse. Also apparently being shacked up can mean kipping over only 3 nights a week.

So I heard anyway.

Defacto relationships give the woman the right to claim a property settlement in Oz after 6 months. She gets half of everything you accumulate during the marriage/defacto relationship. If there are kids involved and she gets custody as they almost always do, she can get a lot more than 50%.

My ex decided she wanted out of the marriage for no particular reason other than she didnt like being married anymore. (Found out later she had a boyfriend). She methodically cleaned the joint account out and moved the money into her own secret account in the year prior to leaving. I refused to move out of the family home which we had bought of my parents and had been my childhood home. She got a housing commission home at a cheap loan rate, some supporting parent pension as she was working part time, and child support. She also got a big cash bonus in the form of property settlement when I was forced to sell the home. We originally bought the home from my parents at a much reduced price with the understanding that the price reduction would be my share of any future inheritance. The court wasn't interested in the inheritance issue and I was forced to sell the family home I had grown up in because I couldn't afford to pay her out. I had to pay for all my own costs but she got free legal aid. The boyfriend moved in with her when she got the new house. I did the sums and figured out she was actually far better off financially by dumping me and going for divorce. I, however was much worse off.

In a way, i dont blame the ex as much as I blame the government system which is set up to encourage divorce in those early years of marriage.
About half my friends who married around the same time back in the seventies ended up divorced in the first 7 or 8 years. In all of those cases it was the wife who decided to finish the marriage. Go figure if there is not a financial incentive for women to want a divorce. Life gets pretty tough when you have two little screaming kids and a big mortgage. Especially when the income drops from DINK status to one wage. Thats the main time when women decide to cash the old man in and go for a better life.

Originally Posted by Panda

Defacto relationships give the woman the right to claim a property settlement in Oz after 6 months.

To clarify: property owned before the defact relationship?

She gets half of everything you accumulate during the marriage/defacto relationship.

I think you answered my question with the second part, but I'm just clarifying.

I have a mate lives in Auckland says he knows guys who got hosed by this from girls they thought were just a few months fling. Not even living in full time. They got knocked over for assets held before the relationship.

My mate is setting up a trust fund to put his house in so he can avoid the same fate with his trysts.

Originally Posted by Looper

I have a mate lives in Auckland says he knows guys who got hosed by this from girls they thought were just a few months fling. Not even living in full time. They got knocked over for assets held before the relationship.

My mate is setting up a trust fund to put his house in so he can avoid the same fate with his trysts.

Something is seriously screwed up in, NZ. That's ridiculous.

Trusts:

Yes, at least in the U.S. trust can protect your assets, and you can even have it in your grandmother's name and have her will it back to you, if there were were legal issues.

NZ seems like a really screwed up place on this.

Say you fully own a house that is worth $300,000 when you enter into a de facto relationship. After a year the slut decides to move on and the house is now worth $350,000. Thats $50,000 in capital gains that has come into "the relationship". So she is entitled to half which is $25,000.

If she can get herself pregnant and knock out a kid in the time she decides to stay with you then that can really increase the pay out for her. She might get 70% of the increase in wealth that has come into "the relationship". Plus of course child maintenance payments from you. If you cant come up with the cash, then the Court will order you to sell the house.

Some women are having several kids by multiple fathers these days as a means of providing a good income. Previously the Aussie government used to encourage this by upping the supporting parents pension for each additional kid. But now the government is shifting the costs back to the fathers by enforcing more rigid controls on maintenance payments.
Not addressing the problem at all, just shifting the costs. In the big cities there are mini cities of enclaves made up of housing commission flats dedicated to single mothers. We used to call our local one "sin city". At daybreak you can see the boyfriends cars leaving en-masse. A lot of the kids there grow up pretty feral as they lack a proper upbringing in a normal family environment. But I guess that's the price we pay for women's rights today.

Originally Posted by Looper

I have a mate lives in Auckland says he knows guys who got hosed by this from girls they thought were just a few months fling. Not even living in full time. They got knocked over for assets held before the relationship.

That is horrendously unjustifiable.

I can't even imagine the reasoning behind having to effectively provide financial compensation to a girlfriend, just because a casual relationship has come to an end. What are they being compensated for?

sounds like loads of short-times

Originally Posted by kingwilly

i'll happily look after my children and i dont need a cent in support, but a female can demend that right plus money!

One rule for one and one rule for another mate.

^Yes, it's called equality. Err, hang on a second....

Originally Posted by keda

sounds like loads of short-times

Indeed. Sounds like a case of 'as you chose not to buy, you now have to pay the rental price backdated'.

Don't forget we bastards suppressed Women for hundreds of years so it's only fair for equality to turn us into 2nd class citizens.

Basically, in the western world today, males are hugely discriminated against. Thankfully, SEA isn't 'civilised' enough for these ridiculous laws to happen here.

I explained the divorce settlement arrangements in Australia to a male Thai friend of mine the other day. He was completely gobsmacked. He asked "Why do men bother getting married in Australia then?" It made him think twice about hitting me up to sponsor his visa for Oz.

Originally Posted by Milkman

Something is seriously screwed up in, NZ. That's ridiculous.

Originally Posted by keda

That is horrendously unjustifiable.

Yes - totally staggering. I almost lost a mouthful of beer when he told me the bit about deFacto status being achievable even if she is only crashing 3/4 nights a week and still has her own place

Fock me.

Originally Posted by Looper

Oz is bad but not as bad as Kiwiland so I understand.

Over there if a girl shacks up with you for as little as 3 months, or something like that, she can claim legal deFacto status and claim a substantial wedge when you give her the arse. Also apparently being shacked up can mean kipping over only 3 nights a week.

So I heard anyway.

You heard wrong, Its no where near as onerous as that.
The law is basically as it is most other western countries, the other partner is entitled to a share of assets accumulated while cohabitating, how much, depends on wether children are involved.

Originally Posted by Panda

Some women are having several kids by multiple fathers these days as a means of providing a good income. Previously the Aussie government used to encourage this by upping the supporting parents pension for each additional kid.

The U.S. government used to do that to. Doh! An incentive to keep having kids without a father in sight. Then, lo and behold, the U.S. government reduced payments if a woman on the dole had an additional child and, lo and behold, illigitimate kids born to welfare recipents, declined.

The brilliance of the government. Positive and negative feinforcing of behaviour.