zzg113 Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 would it really be better the other way round ? What, you mean, if men were allowed to take their partners for all they were worth in the event of a break-up? No, it would simply be skewed in men's favour, rather than against them. i.e. the maternal view: "There is no way whatsoever to live with someone and have children and not run the risk of you and the children being reduced to penury....." What? Are pre-nuptual agreements legally binding in the UK ? No. If you have one drawn up, a court will ignore it COMPLETELY in the event of a divorce. kids don't always matter either. friend of mine had to give the house to his wife because she was wasn't working for the 2 years they were married. they had no kids. I had no idea it had gotten that bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkshock Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 I had no idea it had gotten that bad.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> well he was/is on 80k p.a. i don't know if that influenced the courts - probably did. he got to keep the car - great! by her own admission she just sat at home painting her toenails and having her hair done for the time that they were married - therefore had no future earning potential! As I said no kids involved - so things seem worse than ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wrongmove Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 i.e. the maternal view: "There is no way whatsoever to live with someone and have children and not run the risk of you and the children being reduced to penury....." What? What, what ? I only substituted male for female from your own posting earlier zzg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyMe Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 Classic quote about Agnets. It's the time when they begin to realise that maybe they have been spoiled, that maybe they have had it too easy and that maybe they're about to learn a lesson. If they have never seen a crash, they might be like some American agents who once had bumper stickers saying, "Please give me one more real estate boom and I promise not to muck it up." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzg113 Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 .e. the maternal view: "There is no way whatsoever to live with someone and have children and not run the risk of you and the children being reduced to penury....." WM, where did I mention children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy88s Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 WM, where did I mention children? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Knowing someone who has gone through Divorce recently, he agreed to continue paying the Mortgage (interest) until his children left home as part of the settlement. The mortgage was not very much but the equity was about 200K. He would then get half the equity on the sale of the house or either party could buy the other out at any mutually agreeable time. Analysing his situation, I think he pays arround 250 a month interest, but at least he will have a share of the long term capital growth of the marital home. (10-12 years). I think you can get a fair (ish) deal if you are prepared to fight you case. I think there are no set rules. The courts claim that they do not wish to permanently deny a mans capital. Just give him a good kicking in the balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbox Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 but now I intend to sit tight and watch all the BTL's squeal.Once they see the light we can have something to call our own.they don't realise it yet but it's the bank's that own their souls! BUY TO LET PERSPECTIVE: Most B2L are pretty canny and the current trend is to seek out bargains - typically 1 bed flats with a vendor willing to take a low offer (can mean about 20% less that last Spring price). Most B2L will not get burned and have plenty of emergency money to cover voids. Many B2L never get a void. Rents are on the up according to local agents. This news will further attract B2L. I expect rental sector to grow for years to come. B2L look at the rent due on thier actual capital outlay (example £20000 on a £80000 flat, gets about £450 pcm rent, but mortgage is only £260). Also we know we will enjoy capital growth 'somewhere down the line'. This constant 'mopping - up' of cheap property will cause the market not to drop much further and may well reverse recent drops as FTBs get nervous that the market will pull away again. Lets suppose B2L did pull out big time, where are they gonna put thier dosh? Certainly not pensions. Most of us have cash in Bank anyway so not wanting to put more cash in Bank. So we will simply continue with property as well as business investments. Other NEW market drivers are; Parents buying for kids Lots of recent buyers are up to eyes in debt. Many of these will sell and rent so further increasing rent demand. Lad - Im just trying to give you a more balanced view. Most people on this forum look at past market trends but for me this is a fundamental mistake as I believe the property market dynamics and drivers are completely different now. Comparisons to dot com boom are for muppetts. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzg113 Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 Knowing someone who has gone through Divorce recently, he agreed to continue paying the Mortgage (interest) until his children left home as part of the settlement. The mortgage was not very much but the equity was about 200K. He would then get half the equity on the sale of the house or either party could buy the other out at any mutually agreeable time. If a couple can agree a financial settlement amongst themselves, a court will simply rubberstamp it. Your case above sounds like an amicable break-up, where the woman has not tried to screw the man for all he's got (legally speaking). However, if it is a woman's intention to financially ruin a man (ie the divorce is hostile/acrimonious) she is perfectly capable of doing so, aided and abetted by the courts. The courts claim that they do not wish to permanently deny a mans capital Whatever happened to property rights? I didn't realise we lived in a communist state where the state can seize and redistribute the individual's assets at will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzg113 Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 I believe the property market dynamics and drivers are completely different now. IT'S DIFFERENT THIS TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wrongmove Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 WM, where did I mention children? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You didn't of course. I did. You said It seems there is no way whatsoever to live with someone in the UK and not run the risk of them reducing you to penury via the courts in the event of a break-up. i.e. the male view. I then reversed this to say But would it really be better the other way round ?i.e. the maternal view: "There is no way whatsoever to live with someone and have children and not run the risk of you and the children being reduced to penury....." i.e. the other way round. I also added that I have fallen foul of these laws myself, and asked you how old you were. Clear now zzg Apologies to everyone else, this has gone a long way off-topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzg113 Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 You didn't of course So why twist and distort what I said? would it really be better the other way round ? Yes, because it would be to men's advantage, not disadvantage. I also added that I have fallen foul of these laws myself So? Clear now zzg Crystal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wrongmove Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 Yes, because it would be to men's advantage, not disadvantage.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> That is the answer to the question I posed. I was just trying to work out where TF it is you are coming from. I was not twisting your words, merely expressing a different opinion. I made it clear that I had reversed what you has said. Apologies for not agreeing with absolutely every one of your off-the-cuff utterances BTW, how old are you ? Of course I respect your anonimity and privacy, but you have an opinion on everything. Are you a teenager or very old ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzg113 Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 I was not twisting your words, I disagree. What, what ?I only substituted male for female from your own posting earlier You did this and you threw children into the mix. It was not a straight inversion. you have an opinion on everything Doesn't everyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbox Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 You did this and you threw children into the mix. It was not a straight inversion. I think ZZ is the real Dr Spok "It was not a straight inversion" "the only logical answer Captain". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest muttley Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 I think ZZ is the real Dr Spok "It was not a straight inversion" "the only logical answer Captain".<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Seeing as we're nit picking,that should read "Mr Spock" Dr.Benjamin Spock is an American Child Psychologist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandellina Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 does anyone know why pre-nups aren't upheld? what's the point of having one at all then?! i'd also like to defend womankind and say that... not all divorces are instigated by women not every woman is looking to take a man to the cleaners plenty of dads don't pay a bit to support their kids plenty of women support their partners/husbands peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkshock Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 not every woman is looking to take a man to the cleanersplenty of women support their partners/husbands <{POST_SNAPBACK}> funniest joke i've heard in ages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Muggy Bear Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 does anyone know why pre-nups aren't upheld? what's the point of having one at all then?!i'd also like to defend womankind and say that... not all divorces are instigated by women not every woman is looking to take a man to the cleaners plenty of dads don't pay a bit to support their kids plenty of women support their partners/husbands peace. Thanks Chandellina, my point exactly (see thread below about Dr Bubbs Anti advertising rant and you will see that you are wasting your breath defending women on here!) There are plenty of women that stand on their own two feet man or no man. PS I was once left in debt by a man who was prepared to let me pay for it all or risk being blacklisted for god knows how long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzg113 Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 does anyone know why pre-nups aren't upheld? what's the point of having one at all then?! Pre-nups are actually an American phenomenon which has migrated to Britain via the public consciousness, the media, coverage of divorce cases in America in the UK media, etc, but actually have no force or existence in the British legal system. Simply put, this is like expecting Estonian law to apply in England; it doesn't. funniest joke i've heard in ages Let's not let this descend into a Battle-of-the-sexes round of mud-slinging please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wrongmove Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 I disagree.You did this and you threw children into the mix. It was not a straight inversion. Doesn't everyone? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I substituted wife and kids for husband. Where did I say I had inverted it. And how can I twist your words ? They are printed above for anyone to see. An no, not everyone has an opinion on everything. Of course not. I have had to deal with the CSA, despite never having been married. This is the context of my opinion on this matter. What is your context zzg ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BufferBear Bitcoin Bull Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 The Divorce laws are unfair, and a real impediment to marriage.Too asymmetrical: She decides to end the marriage, because her expectations are not being met in some way. What happens: She keeps the house, the kids, and maybe gets some kind of monthly alimony. He winds up in a bedsit. Want to save time?: Find a woman that you hate, and give her a house <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts