I saw this and was rather appalled at the scenarios but intrigued by the strategy. Thankfully I am not worried or concerned in my case but for others this may be a good as gold.
They did fail to mention - find out who is the best and most expensive lawyers in town and have an initial consultations with them so they cannot represent the other party.
1. The bankruptcy trick. 2. The “Magical Order” trick. 3. The Disappearing mail trick. 4. Keeping your Stuff. 5. Property values for the division 6. Justice. Equality. Fairness. 7. The “Temporary Orders” Trick 8. The lie of Imputed Income 9. False “abuse” Allegations 10. You Cannot Win
Detail is expanded on the site - didn't want to strip the whole article. Pretty devious stuff. Hope it helps a FWer who may be in trouble.
There are a lot of horror stories about men getting screwed over in divorce proceedings, however the more I learn about these things the more I realize that it's not the man who generally gets the short end of the stick, it's the productive spouse regardless of gender. I had an ex-gf whose mother married a deadbeat loser a while back, and now that she was finally getting rid of him she was going to get taken to the cleaners in the divorce.
Don't get married altogether. If, for whatever reason, you must, move-in and actually live together for about a year - by that time each will know the other quite well. Failing to do this simple exercise is, I believe, the main reason why most marriages fail.
ppatin said: The misogyny in that post was a little thick.
There are a lot of horror stories about men getting screwed over in divorce proceedings, however the more I learn about these things the more I realized that it's not the man who generally gets the short end of the stick, it's the productive spouse regardless of gender. I had an ex-gf whose mother married a deadbeat loser a while back, and now that she was finally getting rid of him she was going to get taken to the cleaners in the divorce.
Yeah, the productive one has money to take.
The problem is also that the system is strongly biased to favor the one who doesn't play by the rules.
fixfox69 said: Don't get married altogether. If, for whatever reason, you must, move-in and actually live together for about a year - by that time each will know the other quite well. Failing to do this simple exercise is, I believe, the main reason why most marriages fail.
this is actually not true. the divorce rate for those who live together first is actually higher (at least last time i saw numbers on this many years ago). i believe the reason is that people who live together think they know what it will be like to be married and in reality this isnt true. so many things happen during a marriage which dont happen over the 1 year you are living together that you make these false assumptions. If u never lived together then u cant make those assumptions. The other thing is that people who wont live together before getting married may have religous beliefs that make it such that they will be more likely to stick with a marriage. Wether or not that is a good thing is another story.
Yea it was interesting. I also remember someone on here mentioning using rental property depreciation to show almost no income for purposes of child support.
ppatin
Focused.
posted: Sep. 3, 2010 @ 10:45a
dhodson said: this is actually not true. the divorce rate for those who live together first is actually higher (at least last time i saw numbers on this many years ago).
That statistic is true, BUT its been shown over and over again that when you look at it more closely it's a perfect example of correlation not equaling causation.
AbbaZabba said: Yea it was interesting. I also remember someone on here mentioning using rental property depreciation to show almost no income for purposes of child support.
parmenides said: AbbaZabba said: Yea it was interesting. I also remember someone on here mentioning using rental property depreciation to show almost no income for purposes of child support.
Classy.
The sham of child support is the control of the funds. Once they leave your wallet the state then processes through to the mother(or rarely father) who may or may not use them properly. At least if you can shield this you can spend money directly on their well being without any trips to Bermuda, gifts for the new boyfriend or new flashy cars - to take the kids to school right. Careful what you call Classy.
ppatin
Focused.
posted: Sep. 3, 2010 @ 11:27a
DamnoIT said: parmenides said: AbbaZabba said: Yea it was interesting. I also remember someone on here mentioning using rental property depreciation to show almost no income for purposes of child support.
Classy.
The sham of child support is the control of the funds. Once they leave your wallet the state then processes through to the mother(or rarely father) who may or may not use them properly. At least if you can shield this you can spend money directly on their well being without any trips to Bermuda, gifts for the new boyfriend or new flashy cars - to take the kids to school right. Careful what you call Classy.
I was going to say, child support can be an obscene scam. Check out the guidelines for Massachusetts:
The custodial parent gets 25% of the non-custodial parent's income with no accountability for how it's spent. For the benefit of the child my ass...
Rajjeq
Senior Member
posted: Sep. 3, 2010 @ 11:33a
ppatin said: DamnoIT said: parmenides said: AbbaZabba said: Yea it was interesting. I also remember someone on here mentioning using rental property depreciation to show almost no income for purposes of child support.
Classy.
The sham of child support is the control of the funds. Once they leave your wallet the state then processes through to the mother(or rarely father) who may or may not use them properly. At least if you can shield this you can spend money directly on their well being without any trips to Bermuda, gifts for the new boyfriend or new flashy cars - to take the kids to school right. Careful what you call Classy.
I was going to say, child support can be an obscene scam. Check out the guidelines for Massachusetts:
The custodial parent gets 25% of the non-custodial parent's income with no accountability for how it's spent. For the benefit of the child my ass...
What's especially odd about that calc is that it is 25% for one child, 30% for two children, and 33% for three children. What's the logic? Housing maybe? but that doesn't explain the small disparity.
I also wonder, what do the courts do in situations where the people simply do not make enough money to be able to afford two households? Where rent + rent + necessities = significantly more than the parties earn?
They did fail to mention - find out who is the best and most expensive lawyers in town and have an initial consultations with them so they cannot represent the other party. ...
no need to mention that since everyone knows about it from "The Sopranos"
They did fail to mention - find out who is the best and most expensive lawyers in town and have an initial consultations with them so they cannot represent the other party. ...
no need to mention that since everyone knows about it from "The Sopranos"
Heard good things about this show but never actually seen it. This bit was grabbed from a legal blog and a friend of mine who actually used this strategy. His wife complained "why cant I get any lawyers in this town to represent me!" he met with the top 2 or 3 that had astronomical rates but were considered the best then went to a reasonably priced good attorney. Got a good chuckle from this.
Rajjeq said: ppatin said: DamnoIT said: parmenides said: AbbaZabba said: Yea it was interesting. I also remember someone on here mentioning using rental property depreciation to show almost no income for purposes of child support.
Classy.
The sham of child support is the control of the funds. Once they leave your wallet the state then processes through to the mother(or rarely father) who may or may not use them properly. At least if you can shield this you can spend money directly on their well being without any trips to Bermuda, gifts for the new boyfriend or new flashy cars - to take the kids to school right. Careful what you call Classy.
I was going to say, child support can be an obscene scam. Check out the guidelines for Massachusetts:
The custodial parent gets 25% of the non-custodial parent's income with no accountability for how it's spent. For the benefit of the child my ass...
What's especially odd about that calc is that it is 25% for one child, 30% for two children, and 33% for three children. What's the logic? Housing maybe? but that doesn't explain the small disparity.
I also wonder, what do the courts do in situations where the people simply do not make enough money to be able to afford two households? Where rent + rent + necessities = significantly more than the parties earn?
In the cases where both parents are deadbeats - and receiving welfare, and the father only works when he wants to.. the court will order the father to pay $50 a month or so... you can't even take care of a cat for $50 a month!
But the sad reality is that once you have no more money - most laws get thrown out the window, because there is no way you will ever / have the ability to pay a fine / court order. Jail is not realy an option either - due to over crowding, courts don't want to take up jail space up for someone who didn't pay a fine over a violent / drug offender.
fixfox69 said: Don't get married altogether. If, for whatever reason, you must, move-in and actually live together for about a year - by that time each will know the other quite well. Failing to do this simple exercise is, I believe, the main reason why most marriages fail.
Except divorce rates among couples who did not live together prior to marriage are actually lower than those who did.
"Couples who live together before getting married are more likely to divorce. After 10 years, 40 percent of cohabiting couples had broken up, versus 31 percent of those who did not live together first."
ppatin said: dhodson said: this is actually not true. the divorce rate for those who live together first is actually higher (at least last time i saw numbers on this many years ago).
That statistic is true, BUT its been shown over and over again that when you look at it more closely it's a perfect example of correlation not equaling causation.
see post from chirpuck...i guess u must be looking at a different study.
all correlations are just correlations as u mentioned and this kind of work is always very soft science.
prb is that causation is almost impossible to prove with many complex issues. heck some people still dont believe smoking causes cancer. In the end u get stuck making decisions on correlations bc thats all the data u got.
In NY State there is case law that even tho moms getting 23% gross of dads check ... she doesnt even have to provide baby diapers for his visitation time .... yeah NYS is % of gross income. Often other things like mandated child health insurance as part of the child support PLUS the 17% or 21% or up to 40% of gross income depending on number of kids. Yikes ...
Doesn't this all run counter to the wisdom about finances causing marital problems? If 25% of the larger gross is enough to keep the low earner (+offspring) happy.?.
parmenides said: AbbaZabba said: Yea it was interesting. I also remember someone on here mentioning using rental property depreciation to show almost no income for purposes of child support.
Classy.
Wouldnt work. It's not AGI that matters, it is your gross monthly pay.
ppatin said: dhodson said: this is actually not true. the divorce rate for those who live together first is actually higher (at least last time i saw numbers on this many years ago).
That statistic is true, BUT its been shown over and over again that when you look at it more closely it's a perfect example of correlation not equaling causation.Let me take a stab at causation: when you start a long term relationship with one foot out the door "just in case", then the marriage just becomes more of an arbitrary line that is much easier to cross back over when things are rough. If, on the other hand, you start your relationship with a commitment of for better or worse right out of the gate, then you have already demonstrated your resolve to make it work when times are hard, and therefore are less likely to divorce.
step 1: get wifey happy/drunk step 2: have her sign postnuptial agreement to guarantee amicable divorce if necessary step 3: stash document somewhere safe and deny it ever existed step 4: carry on with life as usual
dhodson said: this is actually not true. the divorce rate for those who live together first is actually higher (at least last time i saw numbers on this many years ago). i believe the reason is that people who live together think they know what it will be like to be married and in reality this isnt true. so many things happen during a marriage which dont happen over the 1 year you are living together that you make these false assumptions. If u never lived together then u cant make those assumptions. The other thing is that people who wont live together before getting married may have religous beliefs that make it such that they will be more likely to stick with a marriage. Wether or not that is a good thing is another story.
Couldn't agree with you more that, like any statistic, the reason behind it can be many and varied. I would suggest that some additional reasons for lower divorce rates among those who haven't lived together could be socioeconomic reasons. For example, some people would avoid living together for religious reasons, that same religion could increase the downside to divorce (how they'd be viewed in their church after a divorce, personal beliefs about divorce, social support from the church to undergo counseling when they have problems, etc, etc...). It is well known that the number one cause of divorce is money (or lack of). Couples from wealthy families may be more likely to avoid living together because of how it would be viewed by their family and circle of friends...whereas joe sixpack and sally chablis from the trailer park could care less what anybody thinks of them.
To anybody who thinks family court-ordered child support is necessary or benevolent, apply the same concept to an intact family - imagine if the government walked into your home and literally threatened you with incarceration if you did not give your spouse a large percentage of your money "for the sake of your children". When people get divorced, suddenly this unconstitutional intrusion becomes okay. Explain how with laws like this we are living in the "land of the free". Nobody has the right to tell me how much I have to spend on my kids when I am married, right? That children or an ex-spouse are somehow "entitled" to your earnings and that this entitlement should be determined by a black-robed lawyer and extracted from you under threat of imprisonment. It is a lie and a scam, and it is about the states getting their hands on taxpayer dollars. Read Title IV-D of the Social Security Act - for every dollar of child support that a state establishes, they get a proportionate kickback of funding from the federal government. They aren't interested in verifying what the recipient of the child support spends the money on because that doesn't affect their bottom line. That's why child support awards are ridiculously high and based on a large percentage of the "non-custodial" parent's income, not what it really costs to clothe and feed a child.
They put a pot of gold out there to encourage the dissolution of marriage through "no fault" divorce because it means money for them. And men do get screwed most of the time , almost all of the time when kids are involved, let's not pretend otherwise.
dhodson said: fixfox69 said: Don't get married altogether. If, for whatever reason, you must, move-in and actually live together for about a year - by that time each will know the other quite well. Failing to do this simple exercise is, I believe, the main reason why most marriages fail.
this is actually not true. the divorce rate for those who live together first is actually higher (at least last time i saw numbers on this many years ago). i believe the reason is that people who live together think they know what it will be like to be married and in reality this isnt true. so many things happen during a marriage which dont happen over the 1 year you are living together that you make these false assumptions. If u never lived together then u cant make those assumptions. The other thing is that people who wont live together before getting married may have religous beliefs that make it such that they will be more likely to stick with a marriage. Wether or not that is a good thing is another story.
Because young people are more likely to live together than older people. There are a lot of older people in long term marriages that didn't involve cohabitation.
At least in one European country where they studied the data better cohabitation actually helps. The thing is you have to look at cohorts to actually be comparing equals.
Despite the effects of the sex-on-in-marriage, never-divorce group those who cohabited first are less likely to divorce.
lovemyhorse
New Member
posted: Sep. 4, 2010 @ 10:06p
I am a female who was tricked out of signing custody of my daughter over to my mother at 17. (Yes, it does happen) I was a college student and got put in jail 2X for child support in Texas. So you bet they will make room in jail. This woman,(no longer my mother) spent 18 years moving to a state that had laws which made it impossible for me to fight back (I saw my daughter 4 times in 18 years). The state of Texas came after me with a vengance. Even suing me for a child support increase every 24 months on her behalf. 25 years later, I hope she gets hit by a train, twice...
The MGTOW forum has changed my whole outlook on life. I just spent the last 5 hours reading every popular thread. Very interesting perspectives to young bachelors!
SlyDawg said: To anybody who thinks family court-ordered child support is necessary or benevolent, apply the same concept to an intact family - imagine if the government walked into your home and literally threatened you with incarceration if you did not give your spouse a large percentage of your money "for the sake of your children". When people get divorced, suddenly this unconstitutional intrusion becomes okay. Explain how with laws like this we are living in the "land of the free". Nobody has the right to tell me how much I have to spend on my kids when I am married, right? That children or an ex-spouse are somehow "entitled" to your earnings and that this entitlement should be determined by a black-robed lawyer and extracted from you under threat of imprisonment. It is a lie and a scam, and it is about the states getting their hands on taxpayer dollars. Read Title IV-D of the Social Security Act - for every dollar of child support that a state establishes, they get a proportionate kickback of funding from the federal government. They aren't interested in verifying what the recipient of the child support spends the money on because that doesn't affect their bottom line. That's why child support awards are ridiculously high and based on a large percentage of the "non-custodial" parent's income, not what it really costs to clothe and feed a child.
They put a pot of gold out there to encourage the dissolution of marriage through "no fault" divorce because it means money for them. And men do get screwed most of the time , almost all of the time when kids are involved, let's not pretend otherwise.
With this amusing straw man, you also just argued for "constitutional" legality of child neglect... as long as it happens within a married family. How many of your kids do you have hidden in your basement?
Skipping 22 Messages...
DTASFAB
Senior Member
posted: Nov. 3, 2010 @ 11:42p
newbie, the "over-correction" couldn't be more blatant. The pendulum has swung and overswung and it's ridiculous.
This is a really long article, but I found it invaluable.
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.
