[QUOTE=Rhody;39599]Spouted what views? That this particular guy lied in court about his once-in-a-lifetime 2nd place ring? My view that the story doesn't tell all the facts? This is the first time I've heard of this.
For every story about a guy who gets screwed, there are 100 stories about men who get divorced, work out an agreement, pay what they owe, and go on with their lives without crying about it.
Forgive me if I don't join your bitch session about how men are so unfairly treated. You do it a lot. I mean A LOT. I don't want to engage in that. Hey, I'm divorced, and it cost me a lot of money, but I'm not going to cry about it. I agree with the old joke. You know why divorce is so expensive? Because it's worth it.
But that doesn't make me a cheerleader for broads.[/QUOTE]
If you say so...
Dallas PUA
The Pickup Artist Playground
The Law and Divorce
by Guest » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:11 pm
[QUOTE=Rhody;39603]If he was up-front about owning the ring and the replica and what they were worth, then they would have been included in the assets at the beginning. If that were the case, then perhaps the attorney fees wouldn't have reached six figures. Also, he could have been honest about the value of the ring and just pay an extra $5,000 (half the real value).
It might be true that she was a horrible mother and a lazy wife. Maybe she insisted on housekeepers and ordered out every meal. Then again, maybe she took great care of him and his children. I don't know. I can't speak to how much she deserves, and I know the courts don't always do a good job of matching what she deserves and what she's entitled to legally. He should be able to afford a good lawyer.
All I can say is if it got to the point where he had to surrender his NFC Championship ring, then he either had a horrible attorney or he's a complete shithead financially.
I must not have read the same article you did, because him trying to hide possession of the ring was certainly an issue addressed in the article I read.
I know you're not whining or crying.
The institution of marriage was initially created by men to control property. With the divorce rate what it is, that purpose is no longer practical. There is only one reason to get married these days: to enter into a partnership for raising children.[/QUOTE]
LOL
It might be true that she was a horrible mother and a lazy wife. Maybe she insisted on housekeepers and ordered out every meal. Then again, maybe she took great care of him and his children. I don't know. I can't speak to how much she deserves, and I know the courts don't always do a good job of matching what she deserves and what she's entitled to legally. He should be able to afford a good lawyer.
All I can say is if it got to the point where he had to surrender his NFC Championship ring, then he either had a horrible attorney or he's a complete shithead financially.
I must not have read the same article you did, because him trying to hide possession of the ring was certainly an issue addressed in the article I read.
I know you're not whining or crying.
The institution of marriage was initially created by men to control property. With the divorce rate what it is, that purpose is no longer practical. There is only one reason to get married these days: to enter into a partnership for raising children.[/QUOTE]
LOL
- Guest
by Guest » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:16 pm
Rhody is entitled to his opinions and if he feel that the NFL player should liquidate his assets to pay for her attorney’s fees, then he is more than welcome to express that sentiment.
However, I disagree with Rhody and feel that in divorces, each party should pay for their own legal fees. And, I will continue to bitch and “whine” about it while eating fine Italian cheeses!
The truth of the matter is that the legal system does, in fact, favor women. Studies have shown that men are more financially burdened by divorce than women. Is it because men generally make more money and own more assets? Possibly. Having said that, I believe there is a double standard. If a wealthy woman was to divorce her husband, I can almost guarantee that he would not get a substantial amount of money.
Let’s break it down. Typically, there are four major expenses in divorce: 1) legal fees, 2) spousal support / alimony, 3) child support, and 4) division of assets.
Legal fees: it’s pretty simple. Each party should pay their own legal fees—it’s only fair. But sometimes that is not the case. Somehow, some way, men are responsible for paying the wife’s attorney fees; such as in the article above. I just don’t agree with how that works.
Spousal support / alimony: this is complete BS. A man should never have to pay spousal support or alimony. If a man or woman wants to be single, then he or she should have to be able to support him or herself. What ever happen to self-reliance and being self-sufficient? Ralph Waldo Emerson is probably rolling in his grave.
Child support: In majority of the cases, the woman gets custody. Whether it is full or joint doesn’t really matter. What matters is that men pay out the fucking ass in child support costs; easily more than what women are expected to pay.
Why do women get custody? Because it is believed that women are better caretakers and will do a better job of raising the child(ren). However, that is false in many accounts. “Judges” often times assign custody to the mothers, unless it is obvious that the woman is unable to care for the child(ren), such as in cases where the mother is a drug addict, criminal, etc.
I’m not sure how child support costs are determined, but, I think that the total cost to maintain the lifestyle for the child(ren) should be calculated, then split evenly in half. That way, both parties are equally financially responsible. Additionally, the male should pay only the portion of rent and food costs for the child(ren), not the entire cost. I know of some guys who have to pay the cost of rent and food in their child support payments. So really, they’re supporting the mom and the child(ren)...
Division of assets: Unless you have a pre-nuptial agreement (and even if you have one), you will be splitting your assets with the female.
If you had 100M going into a marriage that ends in divorce, guess what? She’ll get a portion of that money! How is that fair? You worked hard for that 100M. Why should you split what you made before marriage with her? If anything, the only assets that should be split are the assets that you purchased together or the wealth that was accumulated during your marriage. Often times that is not the case.
However, I disagree with Rhody and feel that in divorces, each party should pay for their own legal fees. And, I will continue to bitch and “whine” about it while eating fine Italian cheeses!
The truth of the matter is that the legal system does, in fact, favor women. Studies have shown that men are more financially burdened by divorce than women. Is it because men generally make more money and own more assets? Possibly. Having said that, I believe there is a double standard. If a wealthy woman was to divorce her husband, I can almost guarantee that he would not get a substantial amount of money.
Let’s break it down. Typically, there are four major expenses in divorce: 1) legal fees, 2) spousal support / alimony, 3) child support, and 4) division of assets.
Legal fees: it’s pretty simple. Each party should pay their own legal fees—it’s only fair. But sometimes that is not the case. Somehow, some way, men are responsible for paying the wife’s attorney fees; such as in the article above. I just don’t agree with how that works.
Spousal support / alimony: this is complete BS. A man should never have to pay spousal support or alimony. If a man or woman wants to be single, then he or she should have to be able to support him or herself. What ever happen to self-reliance and being self-sufficient? Ralph Waldo Emerson is probably rolling in his grave.
Child support: In majority of the cases, the woman gets custody. Whether it is full or joint doesn’t really matter. What matters is that men pay out the fucking ass in child support costs; easily more than what women are expected to pay.
Why do women get custody? Because it is believed that women are better caretakers and will do a better job of raising the child(ren). However, that is false in many accounts. “Judges” often times assign custody to the mothers, unless it is obvious that the woman is unable to care for the child(ren), such as in cases where the mother is a drug addict, criminal, etc.
I’m not sure how child support costs are determined, but, I think that the total cost to maintain the lifestyle for the child(ren) should be calculated, then split evenly in half. That way, both parties are equally financially responsible. Additionally, the male should pay only the portion of rent and food costs for the child(ren), not the entire cost. I know of some guys who have to pay the cost of rent and food in their child support payments. So really, they’re supporting the mom and the child(ren)...
Division of assets: Unless you have a pre-nuptial agreement (and even if you have one), you will be splitting your assets with the female.
If you had 100M going into a marriage that ends in divorce, guess what? She’ll get a portion of that money! How is that fair? You worked hard for that 100M. Why should you split what you made before marriage with her? If anything, the only assets that should be split are the assets that you purchased together or the wealth that was accumulated during your marriage. Often times that is not the case.
- Guest
by Guest » Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:06 pm
[QUOTE=Prodigy;39613]Rhody is entitled to his opinions and if he feel that the NFL player should liquidate his assets to pay for her attorney’s fees, then he is more than welcome to express that sentiment.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying that he [B]should[/B] liquidate his assets to pay her attorney fees. I'm saying that for it to have gotten to the point of surrendering his NFC Championship ring, something must have happened that wasn't detailed in the story. How did her legal fees get into the six figure range? How does a former NFL player not have the money to pay the fees without selling his jewelry?
[quote]However, I disagree with Rhody and feel that in divorces, each party should pay for their own legal fees. And, I will continue to bitch and “whine” about it while eating fine Italian cheeses![/quote]
How are you disagreeing with me? I never made a general statement about whether the man should pay the woman's legal fees in all cases. I'm not necessarily saying that this one guy should pay in this particular case. I'm saying that we don't have all the facts.
People do stupid shit. They empty out joint bank accounts before filing for divorce. They give away valuable assets or run up debts to make things harder on the other party. They run up legal fees to bankrupt the other party out of spite. Going only on what is written in this article, it looks to me like this guy was up to shenanigans. But that's just my opinion about this one case, and I reserve the right to change my opinion based on new information.
[quote]If a wealthy woman was to divorce her husband, I can almost guarantee that he would not get a substantial amount of money.[/quote]
Of course he would. You just don't hear about it because a) it is rare, and b) men are either too proud to take the money or too embarrassed to admit they took the money. I have a really good female friend, a former co-worker, who got taken to the cleaners by a man. I know it happens.
I agree with the rest of your post.
I'm not saying that he [B]should[/B] liquidate his assets to pay her attorney fees. I'm saying that for it to have gotten to the point of surrendering his NFC Championship ring, something must have happened that wasn't detailed in the story. How did her legal fees get into the six figure range? How does a former NFL player not have the money to pay the fees without selling his jewelry?
[quote]However, I disagree with Rhody and feel that in divorces, each party should pay for their own legal fees. And, I will continue to bitch and “whine” about it while eating fine Italian cheeses![/quote]
How are you disagreeing with me? I never made a general statement about whether the man should pay the woman's legal fees in all cases. I'm not necessarily saying that this one guy should pay in this particular case. I'm saying that we don't have all the facts.
People do stupid shit. They empty out joint bank accounts before filing for divorce. They give away valuable assets or run up debts to make things harder on the other party. They run up legal fees to bankrupt the other party out of spite. Going only on what is written in this article, it looks to me like this guy was up to shenanigans. But that's just my opinion about this one case, and I reserve the right to change my opinion based on new information.
[quote]If a wealthy woman was to divorce her husband, I can almost guarantee that he would not get a substantial amount of money.[/quote]
Of course he would. You just don't hear about it because a) it is rare, and b) men are either too proud to take the money or too embarrassed to admit they took the money. I have a really good female friend, a former co-worker, who got taken to the cleaners by a man. I know it happens.
I agree with the rest of your post.
- Guest
by Guest » Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:34 pm
Good post Prodigy.
In this case Rhody's opinions are nothing more than a parrot of the popular cultural mentality of "it's all the mans fault" followed up by the tried and true feminist method of anti-male shaming tactics.
Example: It was all the mans fault, HE lied about the ring, HE should have just paid, HE shouldn't hide his assets, HE shouldn't have drug the court battle out unnecessarily - always avoiding placing even a tiny margin of blame on the woman, she's just a helpless victim in all this mess.
And of course the not-so-clever use of anti-male shaming tactics. Example: ...[I]men whining about how unfairly men are treated. Wah! Wah! Wah! ...bitch session about how men are so unfairly treated.[/I] Etc..
[URL]http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/[/URL]
He is also working on the faulty assumption that just because the guy played in the NFL he has money coming out of his ass to pay legal fee's for his wife who no doubt left him. FYI - Most NFL players end up bankrupt within a few years of retirement. Not some. Most. 78% to be precise. [URL]http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2010/03/toby-gerhart-wonderlic-and-upcoming-nfl.html[/URL] Whether the guy is a "jack ass" or not has no baring on the issue at hand.
Rhody may want to close his eyes, bend over, and just take it but I don't.
[CENTER]
[B]You can either choose to fight an unjust regime or you can choose to bury your head in the sand and just "take it like a man".
Choose wisely.
[/B][/CENTER]
In this case Rhody's opinions are nothing more than a parrot of the popular cultural mentality of "it's all the mans fault" followed up by the tried and true feminist method of anti-male shaming tactics.
Example: It was all the mans fault, HE lied about the ring, HE should have just paid, HE shouldn't hide his assets, HE shouldn't have drug the court battle out unnecessarily - always avoiding placing even a tiny margin of blame on the woman, she's just a helpless victim in all this mess.
And of course the not-so-clever use of anti-male shaming tactics. Example: ...[I]men whining about how unfairly men are treated. Wah! Wah! Wah! ...bitch session about how men are so unfairly treated.[/I] Etc..
[URL]http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/[/URL]
He is also working on the faulty assumption that just because the guy played in the NFL he has money coming out of his ass to pay legal fee's for his wife who no doubt left him. FYI - Most NFL players end up bankrupt within a few years of retirement. Not some. Most. 78% to be precise. [URL]http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2010/03/toby-gerhart-wonderlic-and-upcoming-nfl.html[/URL] Whether the guy is a "jack ass" or not has no baring on the issue at hand.
Rhody may want to close his eyes, bend over, and just take it but I don't.
[CENTER]
[B]You can either choose to fight an unjust regime or you can choose to bury your head in the sand and just "take it like a man".
Choose wisely.
[/B][/CENTER]
- Guest
by Guest » Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:23 pm
[QUOTE=Lion;39616]Good post Prodigy.
In this case Rhody's opinions are nothing more than a parrot of the popular cultural mentality of "it's all the mans fault" followed up by the tried and true feminist method of anti-male shaming tactics.
Example: It was all the mans fault...[/QUOTE]
I never said that, so I stopped reading there.
In this case Rhody's opinions are nothing more than a parrot of the popular cultural mentality of "it's all the mans fault" followed up by the tried and true feminist method of anti-male shaming tactics.
Example: It was all the mans fault...[/QUOTE]
I never said that, so I stopped reading there.
- Guest
by Guest » Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:52 pm
[QUOTE=Gunslinger;39583]I still don't see why he should pay his ex wifes legal fees after she divorced him....
So you are saying if you are married, then your sweet little angel divorces you, that you should pay her divorce lawyers for her?[/QUOTE]
I did some research into this. Most states, if not all, see legal fees accrued during a divorce as debt owed by the couple. They are not divorced until the divorce is final; therefore, the legal fees are debt owed by both parties unless the court rules that it is only owed by one party. I don't know if that is the case here, because the story simply calls it "debt." They don't say it's solely his debt. The legal fees could be part of the decree also. Thus, he could have agreed to pay all or a portion of the fees as part of the divorce contract. Either way, once the divorce is final, the law firm collects on the debt. I guess in this case, neither he nor his ex-wife had any money (he said he doesn't have the money), so they went after the assets. That's probably why he tried to hide possession of his NFC Championship ring. He might be able to protect it if he files Chapter 7 bankruptcy, but I expect he won't.
So you are saying if you are married, then your sweet little angel divorces you, that you should pay her divorce lawyers for her?[/QUOTE]
I did some research into this. Most states, if not all, see legal fees accrued during a divorce as debt owed by the couple. They are not divorced until the divorce is final; therefore, the legal fees are debt owed by both parties unless the court rules that it is only owed by one party. I don't know if that is the case here, because the story simply calls it "debt." They don't say it's solely his debt. The legal fees could be part of the decree also. Thus, he could have agreed to pay all or a portion of the fees as part of the divorce contract. Either way, once the divorce is final, the law firm collects on the debt. I guess in this case, neither he nor his ex-wife had any money (he said he doesn't have the money), so they went after the assets. That's probably why he tried to hide possession of his NFC Championship ring. He might be able to protect it if he files Chapter 7 bankruptcy, but I expect he won't.
- Guest
by Guest » Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:48 pm
[QUOTE=Rhody;39620]I did some research into this. Most states, if not all, see legal fees accrued during a divorce as debt owed by the couple. They are not divorced until the divorce is final; therefore, the legal fees are debt owed by both parties unless the court rules that it is only owed by one party. I don't know if that is the case here, because the story simply calls it "debt." They don't say it's solely his debt. The legal fees could be part of the decree also. Thus, he could have agreed to pay all or a portion of the fees as part of the divorce contract. Either way, once the divorce is final, the law firm collects on the debt. I guess in this case, neither he nor his ex-wife had any money (he said he doesn't have the money), so they went after the assets. That's probably why he tried to hide possession of his NFC Championship ring. He might be able to protect it if he files Chapter 7 bankruptcy, but I expect he won't.[/QUOTE]
See, that in itself is a problem. Attorney fees for divorces are joint debt...it shouldn't operate like that. It should be that each person pays for their own legal fees.
I understand that they are still married and the debt is shared by both, however, it should function like car sales. When you purchase a car, you have the option to put it in your name, your wife's or both. The person that "owns" the car is also responsible for the debt. So if you act independently and purchase your own car, your wife will not be responsible for the debt and her credit will not be damaged if you default on the loan.
In divorces, each party independently selected their lawyers to fight on their behalf. As such, each should be responsible for their legal fees.
Now, if the couple agreed to use one legal entity to settle through arbitration, then they should split the arbitration costs evenly....
See, that in itself is a problem. Attorney fees for divorces are joint debt...it shouldn't operate like that. It should be that each person pays for their own legal fees.
I understand that they are still married and the debt is shared by both, however, it should function like car sales. When you purchase a car, you have the option to put it in your name, your wife's or both. The person that "owns" the car is also responsible for the debt. So if you act independently and purchase your own car, your wife will not be responsible for the debt and her credit will not be damaged if you default on the loan.
In divorces, each party independently selected their lawyers to fight on their behalf. As such, each should be responsible for their legal fees.
Now, if the couple agreed to use one legal entity to settle through arbitration, then they should split the arbitration costs evenly....
- Guest
by Guest » Thu Jan 20, 2011 5:44 pm
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Whew... I kinda get where you guys are going with this and I agree with the general viewpoint that in todays day and age its best to get a prenup.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]But in a forum such as ours I think there is a case to be made for women. We know how malleable women are once they are into you. They will literally slut themselves, cry their hearts out and do things for you that will stagger imagination. (Just like she will slut herself, cry her heart out and do things for another guy that will stagger imagination if she is into that guy even though she is your GF or wife) Women are capable of that. It’s built into their femininity. It’s who they are. The law was made to protect the asshole from taking advantage of a woman once she has given herself to him in a complete and total way. Granted that this seldom happens today…but that’s how laws are written…i.e. to punish the 1% who violate it. The judge does not know all the intimate details of what happened in the marriage and does not have the time or the inclination to know if he is an asshole or a genuine guy. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]But I am with you guys. The ring was a bit too much. my .02.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]But in a forum such as ours I think there is a case to be made for women. We know how malleable women are once they are into you. They will literally slut themselves, cry their hearts out and do things for you that will stagger imagination. (Just like she will slut herself, cry her heart out and do things for another guy that will stagger imagination if she is into that guy even though she is your GF or wife) Women are capable of that. It’s built into their femininity. It’s who they are. The law was made to protect the asshole from taking advantage of a woman once she has given herself to him in a complete and total way. Granted that this seldom happens today…but that’s how laws are written…i.e. to punish the 1% who violate it. The judge does not know all the intimate details of what happened in the marriage and does not have the time or the inclination to know if he is an asshole or a genuine guy. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]But I am with you guys. The ring was a bit too much. my .02.[/FONT][/COLOR]
- Guest
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests