Does marriage matter?

[Cyclone 10]

I got married 20 years ago. I did it for all the right reasons, to provide security and comfort for my girlfriend. To provide a secure environment for my unborn children. To please my parents and hers.

I wouldn't consider that last a good reason, or a reason at all.

When I got married there was no right of my spouse to get half my business.

I suspect you're wrong, but if you can show me some changed law I'll be happy to amend my view.

The law has now changed. The change was made by some smart ass lawyers changing the law AFTER my contract with my wife.

Lawyers don't change the law. Neither do judges. The government is the only body that can change the law.

But I have to abide by this. It's the law. My advice to my children will be not to get married. It is iniquitous and unfair. It can mean that one has to stay in a relationship that one doesn't want to. Ultimately I'm pleased that I did stay, but if I didn't, I couldn't escape from it anyway, without being essentially bankrupt.

 

This makes no sense at all. How could losing approx half what you jointly own, leave you bankrupt?

 

---------- Post added 23-10-2014 at 07:31 ----------

 

It is possible to get a post-nuptial agreement these days that would restore parity. Although of course that depends a lot on whether your missus is up for that

 

Pre and post nuptial agreements have no legal weight in the UK. Although a court will probably consider them as indicative of intentions.

[Strix 11]

Mmm ... lovely

 

I'm now a weekend Dad. I gave up a well-paid job to be home for tea-time, I packed in a sporting hobby to have family time, I attempted (or offered) to take the kids out every evening after tea, I was the nappy changer, I did bedtime routines and stories.

 

Mum did her bits too, so not to diss her for that

 

Sad thing is, the adults failed to get on and the kids suffered in the fallout.

 

Wish your auntie a nice day from me, and tell her to continue making her ill-thought judgements.

You hacked my post in half. Where did it go wrong for you?

[RootsBooster 24]

Too many people go into marriage with ideas about what they will get out of it, not what they put into it. I'm guessing this is why marriages fail

 

Using the parenting FB groups that I do now certainly highlights this

 

My auntie summed it up well : All these 'weekend dads' you see in the park with their kids... makes you wonder if they'd have managed to stay married if only they had done the same thing sooner

 

As Cyclone asked, how do you know that someone's a 'weekend dad' ?

I can be seen out many weekends with my son but I'm happily married (to his mum).

If you saw me in a park with him, would you assume that I'm one of these dads?

[RonJeremy 10]

I wouldn't consider that last a good reason, or a reason at all.

I suspect you're wrong, but if you can show me some changed law I'll be happy to amend my view.

Lawyers don't change the law. Neither do judges. The government is the only body that can change the law.

 

This makes no sense at all. How could losing approx half what you jointly own, leave you bankrupt?

 

---------- Post added 23-10-2014 at 07:31 ----------

 

 

Pre and post nuptial agreements have no legal weight in the UK. Although a court will probably consider them as indicative of intentions.

ever heard of case law?

 

http://startups.co.uk/why-divorce-could-cost-you-your-business/

[hyper 10]

You hacked my post in half. Where did it go wrong for you?

where did what go wrong? Life, relationship or your post? If you mean the last of these, it went wrong with your aunt assuming all separated dads seeing their kids at the weekend are single because they had no time for family and have only themselves to blame for now being estranged from their kids. Or at least that what the last part of the post implies to me.

 

If you can show how I stupidly misinterpreted, I'll happily post up an apology.

[tzijlstra 11]

 

Pre and post nuptial agreements have no legal weight in the UK. Although a court will probably consider them as indicative of intentions.

 

It is changing, these days judges take the fact that someone agreed willingly into a post-nup as binding. It would be a really messy case if the other half declares the post-nup was agreed under duress.

[Cyclone 10]

It's not legally binding. A court is free to give it as much weight as they wish, somewhere between none and lots.

It wouldn't be messy at all, they'd just ignore the xxx-nup, since it's not a legal document.

 

---------- Post added 23-10-2014 at 10:41 ----------

 

where did what go wrong? Life, relationship or your post? If you mean the last of these, it went wrong with your aunt assuming all separated dads seeing their kids at the weekend are single because they had no time for family and have only themselves to blame for now being estranged from their kids. Or at least that what the last part of the post implies to me.

 

If you can show how I stupidly misinterpreted, I'll happily post up an apology.

 

I'm more interested in how she can identify a separated Dad from a non separated one, simply by looking at them in a park. That's an amazing skill.

 

---------- Post added 23-10-2014 at 10:44 ----------

 

ever heard of case law?

 

http://startups.co.uk/why-divorce-could-cost-you-your-business/

 

You claimed this didn't use to be the case though. When was the starting point for divorce not a 50/50 split of all assets (particularly those that became valuable or were gained after the marriage started)?

 

declaring it was intrinsically wrong to view the breadwinner as making a greater contribution than the homemaker, because she may have sacrificed her own career.

Wasn't this always the view?

 

And then the 2nd part of my question.

 

So the business is now 50/50 owned by the separated couple.

 

Explain how that somehow results in bankruptcy? It sounds to me like it has no material affect on the business at all, nothing changed except a part share of the ownership.

 

---------- Post added 23-10-2014 at 10:48 ----------

 

This particular bit of that unpleasant article

 

Spouse rights vanish if bankruptcy is declared – the ultimate deterrent. “All assets would go to the trustee in bankruptcy, who would then sell them to pay your debts. Your spouse won’t get anything, but neither will you,”

 

Is clearly nonsense.

 

It starts of talking about a thriving business. But if this statement is true the business is already borderline failed. It apparently has no net equity... In which case a settlement of awarding half the ownership of a company worth £0.00 to your ex is hardly a big deal!

 

There is no need to liquidate a business and pay it out if the ownership is split anyway, it just means that the dividends need to be attributed correctly whenever they are paid.

[discodown 11]

Indeed, but you need to be thick skinned to deal with it ....

 

Parents want a big day and offer to contribute, but don't have the money, so you feel obliged.

... you don't care for each other by not making it a special day (and to most that means expensive)

.... but we have to invite Aunt Gertrude and her entourage (even tho' you don't know her)

.... 'Ah you want to hire the function room sir? that will be £300'. 'Oh, you said wedding, then call it a thousand' "But I'm not paying that, that's a con" 'Don't be tight, think of the lady, its her special day .. balh blah'

 

Multiply that for flowers, photographer, car, bar drinks, suit hire and it adds up. Like I said, a con-culture

We got married this year, there were seven people at the wedding - us, our son, two witnesses (who we barely know), the registrar and her assistant. We told nobody we were doing it, we planned it, went away and did it and then told everyone when we got back. In total including hotel stay and dress and rings and everything it cost well under a £1000 for us to get married. No stress, no fuss, no politics. Its as much a con culture as you allow it to be.

 

Does marriage matter? If you want it to

 

Do weddings matter? Not even a bit

[hyper 10]

We got married this year, there were seven people at the wedding - us, our son, two witnesses (who we barely know), the registrar and her assistant. We told nobody we were doing it, we planned it, went away and did it and then told everyone when we got back. In total including hotel stay and dress and rings and everything it cost well under a £1000 for us to get married. No stress, no fuss, no politics. Its as much a con culture as you allow it to be.

 

Does marriage matter? If you want it to

 

Do weddings matter? Not even a bit

Chapeau, well done. No sarcasm meant, genuine compliment

[Cyclone 10]

We got married this year, there were seven people at the wedding - us, our son, two witnesses (who we barely know), the registrar and her assistant. We told nobody we were doing it, we planned it, went away and did it and then told everyone when we got back. In total including hotel stay and dress and rings and everything it cost well under a £1000 for us to get married. No stress, no fuss, no politics. Its as much a con culture as you allow it to be.

 

Does marriage matter? If you want it to

 

Do weddings matter? Not even a bit

 

Do weddings matter? As much as you want them to.

 

Not to you (I guess), but you aren't everyone.

[RonJeremy 10]

It's not legally binding. A court is free to give it as much weight as they wish, somewhere between none and lots.

It wouldn't be messy at all, they'd just ignore the xxx-nup, since it's not a legal document.

 

---------- Post added 23-10-2014 at 10:41 ----------

 

 

I'm more interested in how she can identify a separated Dad from a non separated one, simply by looking at them in a park. That's an amazing skill.

 

---------- Post added 23-10-2014 at 10:44 ----------

 

 

You claimed this didn't use to be the case though. When was the starting point for divorce not a 50/50 split of all assets (particularly those that became valuable or were gained after the marriage started)?

 

 

Wasn't this always the view?

 

And then the 2nd part of my question.

 

So the business is now 50/50 owned by the separated couple.

 

Explain how that somehow results in bankruptcy? It sounds to me like it has no material affect on the business at all, nothing changed except a part share of the ownership.

 

---------- Post added 23-10-2014 at 10:48 ----------

 

This particular bit of that unpleasant article

 

 

 

Is clearly nonsense.

 

It starts of talking about a thriving business. But if this statement is true the business is already borderline failed. It apparently has no net equity... In which case a settlement of awarding half the ownership of a company worth £0.00 to your ex is hardly a big deal!

 

There is no need to liquidate a business and pay it out if the ownership is split anyway, it just means that the dividends need to be attributed correctly whenever they are paid.

 

I used the word bankrupt casually not literally. I am not going into the exact ownership set up and financial status of my business, but you will have to accept that I know the situation and it would have left me with virtually nothing to live on, with huge borrowings in the hands of the banks (remember them and how lovely and understanding they are).

 

The article says it changed in 2001 I think, may have been 1999. Before that the wife had no right to the business assets. That is how I understood it when I got married, as that was the case at the time of what happened when someone was divorced.

 

Divorce values the goodwill in a business - you want to pay this out to a spouse? Try borrowing from a bank on the goodwill value in a business.

What's your disposable income Mr Jeremy? Well f all now.

Thank you very much bye.

 

Divorce laws seem to supersede all other laws of contract. They are totally unfair and anyone with a pre nup who thinks it will stand up in court - I have bad news for you...

[Cyclone 10]

It's a legal term with a specific meaning. It doesn't have a casual use, only a literal one.

 

If you transferred 50% of your business shares to your spouse tomorrow, would this somehow force the business to become insolvent. Because if so there's something deeply weird about your business setup.

 

There's no need to "pay out", you hand over half the shares of the business and half of any future dividends. Otherwise business continues as usual.

 

From what I can see, divorce law is about as fair as it can possibly be. A spouse that gives up a career to make home whilst you make a business deserves half the credit if you divorce.