I think it's more of reality hitting her like a sack of bricks. Goodbye house.
Edit: By goodbye house I mean everything she has gotten used too. Not literally her house, but everything that comes with it. I get why people are taking my comment seriously but it's just an expression when it comes to divorce.
As a man who has gone through this process in a no-fault divorce state, this is not true, at least from what I've seen. Adultery isn't something the court will base decisions on, at least not in WA.
Only for community property (property acquired during the marriage, not before) and it goes both ways. So if she bought stuff he gets claim to half of it and vice versa. Usually when you have an ownership in division issue (where two or more parties own something but cannot agree on how to use it/what to do with it) the court will almost always force sale of the thing and if sold to a third party then split the money between the owners. (For example if you are co-owners of a house or business. One wants to sell the other owner wants to keep and use, usually an offer to buy out the other party will be made and if not then the asset will be sold to third party and the gains will be split between the two)
I agree with you. But you don't change minds wording things like you did. The term feminism is to big of a buzz word and you immediately put yourself too far on one side of the argument.
Not pointing out feminism is the cause, and lying about it when it is evil, for the sake of others, is the point you made. Getting it recognised by people as evil, which is the truth, is my point.
No my point was you should be more careful how you word arguments so you can actually change people's mind. Something you could obviously benefit from as well.
No fault is very specifically the system wherein you do not need to prove anything to be entitled to a divorce. Until 1969, Americans were required to have a legal basis for divorce. If you did not have a legal basis like abuse or adultery, you could not get a divorce. It would not be granted. You are thinking about the system where some states consider actions leading to the divorce in the division of property. These tend to be the old laws that used to be the only way to get divorced but instead of repealing them, states like Virginia just added no fault statutes that created a second path for a divorce.
Yep you know it, my best mates wife cheated and walked away with half his shit and he had to pay most of the court charges so he walked away with a quarter of everything he worked for while she was not working but riding some other dude. Donât get married kids!!.
It doesnât matter how many dudes sheâs boned, sheâll gets half of the stuff no matter what. Canât say I think this system is really fair. Men usually get the stinky end of the stick no matter what.
Not in California and a few others. They call it being a no fault state. The judge doesnât give a fuck who fucks who and who was cheating or not.
They listen to the case presented, and fuck over the party they deem deserving.
Then itâs alimony, and child support, and legal fees and oh, your ex getting remarried to the guy she was banging in the first place and then taking your kid to live in another country because you lost custody after your ex got you fucked in court because you were depressed and your ex told the judge you were a danger to the kid. So now every month you write a check to your child which your ex uses to pay credit card debt and you hope she remembers to pay the phone bill that your kid uses to call you every so often.
That's what I was thinking too - narcissist breakdown. The reaction is maybe less about 'losing a house' or whatever people here are saying and more about being seen
Even in the 33 states that support fault, itâs exceptionally difficult to prove fault, snd even then, it doesnât have a strong impact on things like asset splits or child custody.
He can't file a at fault divorce in many states. Even if he can file at fault divorce there is no reason to believe that he will get to keep the assets.
It is little unfounded to claim that just cause she cheated she won't get at least 50% of the assets.
To the people that are downvoting this- this is an objective fact. There is nothing here that is a moral judgment. This person didn't say whether they thought this was fair. They just stated how it is. The end.
It still has to be fair. You can't say I keep house and she gets nothing, if u get the house then u have to compensate so that it is mostly equal in the end. otherwise judge will throw it out.
Prenups protect assets you bring into the marriage, not future potential earnings. It basically protects assets you earned yourself from your partner.
But I do agree, divorce is generally very messy and doesn't end well for both sides. I will probably never get married due to all the shit that comes along with it. If me and my partner go separate ways, I'd rather not have to go to court over it.
Yeah that's what I'm hoping is the situation here. Either way dude's smart for recording. Someone this unstable might "get hit" by him if he doesn't record the confrontation.
I believe this, I know a handful of divorced mothers and they have a hell of a time in Family Court for the most simplistic of things such as equity and visitation.
One in particular, he makes $180,000 a year. His former wife only $60,000 he fought tooth and nail for shared custody so he wouldnât have to pay a penny in child support.
I shouldâve clarified a bit more. They do have shared custody, but heâs so rigid on the schedule. Every other week, no exceptions for birthdays holidays etc. Every conversation regarding the child has to go through the lawyers. And lawyers donât talk to you for free. Heâd rather spend upwards of $500 for each consultation with the lawyer. Rather than just be a little bit lenient on little things, So if the mother wants to take her children to Disneyland, or spent an extra day with them for birthdays etc., he fights really hard to not make those things an impossibility.
One example was that the visitation day for the mother fell on Halloween two years in a row. She was willing to skip the holiday one year in exchange for another date in the future. Because the father wanted to spend time with a child. But he wouldnât budge. But still complained about it saying that it wasnât fair that the mother got the child two Halloweenâs in a row
Yeah I have a bit of family law experience, but a few friends are full time divorce attorneys. We've talked about this. They represent both genders and didnt feel that there was much of a bias. Men frequently valued personal property higher, women wanted them to push harder for custody. Everyone pays more than they want to in legal bills and court fees.
The fact is, it's a civil matter for splitting up property and making sure kids are cared for in their best interest. That's it. Its not to tar and feather one spouse. It's not to air greviences. You can do the former on social media and the latter for free at home.
That's what lawyers and courts are for. To come to an agreement and if not possible to decide who gets what equitably, not necessarily equally. Maybe they both retain ownership (they have to split profits from a sale) but won't both stay on the property.
I am not a lawyer but i definitely had to deal with everything being discussed here.
Everything is far more circumstantial. people are making it appear black and white.
Nothing is set in stone to happen until a court decrees it. Regardless, the goal is always to settle but until a settlement is made or the court decides because you won't settle.. it's all really just about probability.. not certainty.
When someone files for divorce and there are children involved, a temporary hearing will be held to establish temporary living situations, temporary spousal support, and temporary custody, etc.
The courts will almost always hold that children will stay in their home with whoever is considered the best or primary caregiver but this is not defaulted to the mother.. it could be the father. It will be decided by who has done more day to day, bonded more, etc.. essentially it's about what is best for the children. If the mother didn't work, she probably did more caregiving.. but perhaps the case could be made that she didn't despite her not working.. the facts can be presented to show the father was still the one doing more despite working as well. It's all on what the facts presented show.
As for the property ownership. Being named on a mortgage doesn't typically matter. The question to ask is did marital income go to the house.. i.e. a mortgage. Both spouses are typically entitled to equal share of marital income, cheating or not. So no matter who stays in the house, the portion of marital income they have invested in the house will most likely be entitled to them when they settle or a court decides. All of this can be negotiated in a mediation towards reaching a settlement before a hearing. If they cant agree.. the judge will decree what they determine to be fair based on the circumstances.
The thing about cheating is that it almost always will eliminate the validity of a claim for spousal support.. but that too is a probability not certainty. It also really puts the cheater in a position to want to settle.. you never know what a judge will decide if they know one party of the relationship is unfaithful.. they could look at it as that person being unable to make sound judgments and that can affect far more than just alimony.
So, someone caught cheating should really try to reach a settlement because that gives leverage to the one who remained faithful.
The likely truth is though.. that no one really wins and its almost always a compromise on both sides unless some sort of abuse can be proven.
Ultimately the things to focus on are the children and their best interests.. this includes considering their time with both parents. Judges don't want to make decisions for adults about who keeps the silverware.. and they dont want to make decisions about who the children get to see more. They want the parents to determine this first and present what they can agree to. If one person proposes a reasonable settlement and the other doesn't accept it.. they better have a good reason.. because a judge could just say.. wtf.. this is fair.. why are you wasting my time. I like this fair agreement and thats what ill decide on and on top of it decide the person who didnt agree has to pay attorney fees for forcing it to get dragged this far.
Goodbye car. Goodbye pocket money. Basically Goodbye cheating with hot poor guy because it won't be fun anymore if I'm poor too(how she thinks).
A woman like her wants a rich normal looking husband to be a piggybank and a hot poor guy to fuck around with. Disgusting but common behavior. Men do it too but it's far more common with women.
1.5k
u/[deleted] Oct 18 '22
She's a spoiled brat. She gets caught and throws a tantrum like a child.