Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 
 Posted:   Aug 18, 2013 - 7:10 AM   
 By:   Reeler   (Member)

I've heard stories it is around 50%, but I don't have any actual court experience in these matters. So I was wondering if that's accurate? Or how celebrities, like Johnny Depp, is giving his ex-wife $100 million. Don't know if it's true but it seems unfair given it is HIS money and because she's a female it's automatic. Way too much IMO, and I know in the end it's about the money, though acknowledging the woman is usually in charge of child bearing and can see it to a degree but the wealthier the male is it seems an unfair advantage, like "Oh, I need that much to survive!" bullocks.

 
 Posted:   Aug 18, 2013 - 7:19 AM   
 By:   mastadge   (Member)

In the US, according to Wikipedia, "In 2002 (latest survey data as of 2012), 29% of first marriages among women aged 15–44 were disrupted (ended in separation, divorce or annulment) within 10 years. Beyond the 10-year window, population survey data is lacking, but forecasts and estimates provide some understanding. It is commonly claimed that half of all marriages in the United States eventually end in divorce, an estimate possibly based on the fact that in any given year, the number of marriages is about twice the number of divorces. Using 1995 data, National Survey of Family Growth forecast in 2002 a 43% chance that first marriages among women aged 15–44 would be disrupted within 15 years. More recently, having spoken with academics and National Survey of Family Growth representatives, PolitiFact.com estimated in 2012 that the lifelong probability of a marriage ending in divorce is 40%–50%.

"Divorce rates have been dropping during the last few decades. Data indicates that marriages have lasted longer in the 21st century than they did in the 1990s."

But who knows how this kind of thing is skewed by serial divorcers.

As for this: Don't know if it's true but it seems unfair given it is HIS money and because she's a female it's automatic./

It's not automatic. When a wealthy working woman divorces, she often ends up paying alimony to her ex. But ignoring pre-nups and the like for a moment, given that marriage is, in part, the contractual union of people into a single legal unit. If all of each individual's assets become the shared assets of the marriage partnership, then if that partnership disintegrates it wouldn't be too hard to argue that those assets should be split equitably rather than in proportion to who provided what to the bank account.

though acknowledging the woman is usually in charge of child bearing and can see it to a degree but the wealthier the male is it seems an unfair advantage, like "Oh, I need that much to survive!" bullocks.

Well it's not just that. I won't pretend to know how these things work with very short marriages between very wealthy people, but when a couple divorces after a decade or two, in many cases one partner will have had diminished earnings over that period (for reasons of child-rearing, homemaking, etc) that may not have been diminished if not for the marriage. In those cases I don't think it's unreasonable at all to divide assets evenly.

 
 Posted:   Aug 18, 2013 - 7:49 AM   
 By:   Mr Greg   (Member)

....or, as in my case...give her the house and give me the debts... wink

 
 Posted:   Aug 18, 2013 - 8:15 AM   
 By:   Dyfrynt   (Member)

Some wise guy once said something to the effect that ALL marriages end in divorce. The reason why some do not is that one of the two died first. I always thought that was very funny, even if astonishingly cynical.

 
 Posted:   Aug 18, 2013 - 8:41 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

I know NASCAR driver Jeff Gordon's first wife made the argument, their marriage, presented a "public image" that benefited him financially as a celebrity. Thus arguing she was a part of the "branding" that made him money.

@ Dyfrynt - Too true! LOL

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 18, 2013 - 8:53 AM   
 By:   eriknelson   (Member)

After his third wife had taken him to the cleaners, a colleague of mine said that, from now on, "If it flies, floats or f*cks, rent it!"

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 18, 2013 - 9:40 AM   
 By:   ANZALDIMAN   (Member)

This wasn't technically a marriage, but it got a lot of people talking about the legal ramifications concerning alternative live in long term relationships that end badly.

The Lee Marvin/Michele Triola palimony case from 30 years ago was knock down drag out and it was huge news back in the infancy days of 24 hour cable news. I had no idea until I read this NY Times article that Michele Triola was living with Dick Van Dyke at the time of her death a few years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/us/31marvin.html?_r=0

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 18, 2013 - 10:39 AM   
 By:   Reeler   (Member)

Good stuff, mastadge. Thank you

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 18, 2013 - 10:53 AM   
 By:   Michael24   (Member)

Alimony is one of the most ridiculous things ever. Child support is understandable. But nobody (man or woman) should have to keep providing the other with money after a divorce. Pre-nups should be mandatory for marriage, that way both can keep what they started with in the event of a divorce, and anything that was made together during the marriage should be split evenly.

 
 Posted:   Aug 18, 2013 - 10:55 AM   
 By:   mastadge   (Member)

Alimony is one of the most ridiculous things ever. Child support is understandable. But nobody (man or woman) should have to keep providing the other with money after a divorce. Pre-nups should be mandatory for marriage, that way both can keep what they started with in the event of a divorce, and anything that was made together during the marriage should be split evenly.

But if one of the two has been out of the workforce for years supporting the other domestically, then that person's earning potential is compromised: because of the years in marriage, that person can probably not simply enter the workforce at the same level as the "breadwinner" in the relationship and be on equitable standing financially.

 
 Posted:   Aug 18, 2013 - 11:01 AM   
 By:   Recordman   (Member)

Typically, in a long-term marriage e.g. 10yrs plus, the assets are divided equally.
A specific fault ground, e.g. adultery, may form the basis of a divorce, but rarely matters in asset distribution.
I used to tell my friends who were contemplating divorce to forget the "why" and concentrate on the real issue...money, as that is all that's left of the marriage. Many divorces are extended because one of the parties cannot get past the "fault" issue. Early on, knew of a case where the marriage had lasted only 7 days and the parties were spending weeks in court arguing over who got a china bowl wedding present. You can imagine the attorney fees involved.

 
 Posted:   Aug 18, 2013 - 11:39 AM   
 By:   Sirusjr   (Member)

Alimony is one of the most ridiculous things ever. Child support is understandable. But nobody (man or woman) should have to keep providing the other with money after a divorce. Pre-nups should be mandatory for marriage, that way both can keep what they started with in the event of a divorce, and anything that was made together during the marriage should be split evenly.

But if one of the two has been out of the workforce for years supporting the other domestically, then that person's earning potential is compromised: because of the years in marriage, that person can probably not simply enter the workforce at the same level as the "breadwinner" in the relationship and be on equitable standing financially.


Precisely Mastage!

The rules differ by state but in Community Property states (California and many western states) the default is that the money earned during the marriage is what is split evenly and anything you had going in is given to you assuming you kept it separate. The hard part can sometimes be keeping that money you came in with separate. Most people who truly commit themselves to a marriage tend to go for joint everything and then there is more to be split.

Like others have said, the amount of time that someone gets alimony (also known as spousal support) depends on the length of the marriage. Most courts expect the spouse receiving support to at least attempt to find work after a period of time and may reduce the amount of support received if they fail to find a job.

Essentially, everyone has a prenup going in, if you consider the default family code in each state. If someone doesn't take the time to learn about how divorce works before getting married then that is their own fault if they don't like the way it works.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 18, 2013 - 11:48 AM   
 By:   joan hue   (Member)

I think Mastage has presented a fair and balanced view. I’m a fan of self-sufficiency
and of both men and women have solid job skills so that they can be self-sufficient. Many married couples both continue to work after they have had children because they fear not getting a job
if they stay home for child-rearing. About 2 months ago, I watched three women on a news
channel who had stayed home for their children for 10-15 years and were now going through
a divorce and having trouble finding jobs. All three were college educated, but
employers did not consider them viable workers when they could hire younger women with
current cutting-edge skills. The reality is that this could also happen to fathers who may have
chosen to stay home while their wives worked.

To avoid alimony and other financial issues, maybe the answer is to at least make some effort towards keeping up with personal job skills. That doesn’t mean a dad or mom can’t stay home, but most
career consultants say that stay-at-home parents should take classes at various times and should keep up with the advances of technology. If possible, they should work part-time now and then to keep
their skills marketable and fine-tuned.


 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.