Calling all family divorce lawyers. So I was thinking of a hypothetical

Based off my experience from
getting divorced, the bank account can be drained completely and there would be no negative consequences. There have been cases where the wives have racked up 50K in credit card debt and the debt goes to the sole bread winner. Write a check to a family member you can trust. I had a friend go through a divorce and signed the pink slip to an uncle of his 69 Camaro during the divorce.

>>18373258
Yeah, divorce is pretty fucked for men. What I was most disgusted by when researching this is that all these websites have women bitching and somehow asking at the same time in the comments, "How can I make my husband pay me more money? I am entitled to half of his stuff". They used words like he sold """our""" car and boat.

Also alimony makes no sense. Think about what men and women usually bring into relationships. Men bring their property and money and women bring their "property" (a.k.a the couch from her last relationship) and sex. When they break up the man is required to pay money because that is what the woman is used to. But you don't see the women being forced to fuck me, despite the fact that's what the man is used to. (I'm not saying it should be like this, I'm just saying it's wholly one sided.)

I'm not a lawyer but here's my reo cents anyway. The "here hold my shit" could work but is unnecessary. Pre-marital assets are all yours as long as you don't change anything about it with money made after you get married. Your house is yours, your car is yours. Refinancing your home could jeopardize that. Any money you have prior to marriage you should set aside in a separate account but you can not touch it. It can gain interest but the moment you add to the account money you earned while being married turns that account into a marital asset. Don't let your wife become a stay at home mom or "trophy wife" to help avoid having to pay alimony. Doesn't matter if you make more than her. All marital assets you sell off to your buddy for pennies will be seen as trying to screw your soon to be ex wife out of it. How are you going to make sure your spouse wont find out you were hiding assets and how are you going to prevent your trusted friend to not do something with it?

If you are going to do this you might aswell get a prenuptial agreement or just don't get married.

>>18373305
It's just a hypothetical. I'm assuming that the friend is trustworthy. Also women generally don't like if when you try to get a prenup... "what you don't trust me enough?"

My question is what can they actually do even if they find out you did screw your soon to be ex-wife? Surely they can't force your friend to give his new toys to a complete strange :>

Additionally, what if you gave money to your friend who then bought everything you wanted for you? Of course this is obviously getting ridiculous but it's definitely do-able. Give you friend $5000, he buys you a nice new TV which he lends to you for the duration of your marriage.

>>18373317
I would guess the ex wife could have a small claims case against you and you would have to pay her half of all the assets you sold that you got during the marriage. As long as it was bought before marriage it's your TV. From how I understood it if you receive an inheritance while being married it is all yours but if you invest it it becomes a marital asset. If you inherent an item it's yours but if you sell it the money now becomes a marital asset.

Even debt you accumulated before marriage is all yours. Any debt made during marriage is both parties responsibility, doesn't matter what kind.

To correct what I stated earlier about having a house, if the house is fully paid for before marriage it's yours. If you still have a mortgage all payments made during marriage you will have to pay her half back even if it was all your income paying for it.

I listen to a law advice radio (on Fox radio I think) show called "Handle on the Law" from time to time and this topic was brought up. The guy who hosts it is a character. Check it out.

>>18373264

the divorce laws are a relic from a time when if a woman and a man divorced the woman was fucked. without alimony and the like she would be forced to live an awful life, all because she made the mistake of marrying the wrogn man.

now though women actually are independent before getting married and have their own place and such so yeah, its not really fair, especially since women tend to contribute about 50% to the house and such anyways.

>>18373378
I'll check it out. What do you think about the whole friend thing though. Do you think that could work? Gifting your friend money and then having him "lend" you property.

>>18373404
I wouldn't say it's anywhere near 50%. Yes women do work now-days which is a significant step up but they still generally do lesser jobs then men. I would estimate if two middle class people hooked up the man would be making about 70% while the woman 30%. The thing is the courts heavily over compensate women for house work. You make a sammich every day? You get payed for that sammich as if you were a master chef. You take care of the kids? You get payed as if you were 4 nannies. And so on.

>>18373215
>selling all the assets to a friend for pennies
or you can just set up a trust under a shell company in the cayman islands in your name under a shell company in maine under the name of a guy that you pay some money to set it up.

or you can not marry a woman that you feel would go the nasty route and screw you into homelessness.

the bigger question really is, you have to take care of your kids, but she can use that to ask for exorbitant amounts of money that she then doesn't use on the kids. I've seen it, I've been the kid. make damn sure that she is not in charge of the disbursement of that money. idk if you can do this, but I would want to get an accountant that is in charge of how that money is spent so that it is ensured that it's only used for what it's supposed to be used for.

or again, marry a decent woman.

having seen way more divorces than I care to remember I used to think about this stuff a lot. I used to think about what I would have to do in the future to protect myself from the things I saw my dad go through. thing is though, when I really analyzed the situations I found that the one common thing was marrying a woman that displayed huge flaws that should have foretold of the divorce. so I realized that I don't need to worry about it if I marry a good woman. there's no sense going into a relationship thinking about what you're going to do when she divorces you, that lack of trust will destroy the relationship.

>>18373378
Sorry, when I said pay for half the assets you sold I meant paying her half of their worth. Clearly if you sold your car for $1 to your buddy (that you obviously want to buy back after the divorce) that was worth $12000 you don't just owe her $.50 you owe her $6000.

There is an ask a lawyer thread up. Not sure how active it is at the moment but this would be a good question for him. Hes not a family law lawyer but I'm sure he knows something on the matter.

>>18373426
>the lack of trust will destroy you
which is exactly why you need to trust anyone you plan on marrying. but people change anon and they also deceive. that's why it's always good to have a back up plan.

also by accountant I think you mean a trustee. .-.

have you ever married since deciding that you won't marry anyone until you're sure they're not a spiteful bitch?

>>18373433
yeah I know about that bit. Which leads me back to my previous question. how are they going to get this if you don't have any money left because you donated to your uncle's charity for the disenfranchised?

>>18373439
Is this a real charity (in this hypothetical situation of course)or are you getting the money back? If so I do believe they call that fraud.

http://www.divorcemag.com/articles/financial-fraud-and-divorce

>>18373434
trustee, accountant, someone really good with money needs to be in charge of the money lol. I haven't thought about these structures in years.

no not married yet. I got out of a LTR, started a business, and didn't meet anyone I was really interested in for a long time. now I've started talking to someone I could see myself very easily marrying. but idk what's going to happen cause our communication is, unorthodox to say the least. there's reasons for it though that make sense.

>>18373465
sorry for the misunderstanding that was a joke. I meant I give all my money to uncle bob and am therefore bankrupt. I'm reading up on bankruptcy laws right now to see what debtors are entitled to though I don't think that a court ordered payment would count as a debt?

>>18373439
So do you plan to never make any money in the future after said divorce and live in poverty or what?

>>18373509
What do you think they're going to do if you have no money? Force you into labor? The court can't order you to pay money you don't have and if you're unemployed they can't make you pay alimony from what I'm aware.

The idea is you go into divorce settlements with nothing so you don't have to pay anything and then when you come out you get everything back.

File: seems-legit-meme-mercedes.jpg (31KB, 500x452px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x452px

>>18373215
I'll be glad to hold all your assets during the divorce. Just sign over all property and Paypal all money to nigganeedsweed @ gmail.

>>18373540
sent the money to [email protected]
is this right?

>>18373526
I think you are over thinking this and going about it the wrong way. Anything you sell while being married is half hers. Giving money to uncle bob is an interesting concept but honestly your soon to be ex wife will see you took out all your money through bank statements and if she's smart she will demand proof (obviously her lawyer will) that you gave it to charity. If you have no proof than obviously you are hiding it. The moment you got money in your account consider it gone. You are not the first person to (hypothetically) try this, trust me.

If you want to keep any money it has to be yours before marriage and untouched during marriage. You can't take from it and you can't add to it.

File: ngnl2.jpg (23KB, 320x299px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 320x299px

>>18373526
> if you're unemployed they can't make you pay alimony from what I'm aware.
You aware wrong.

If you are unemployed, the judge may assign alimony based on your last recorded income. You can't quit a $100k /year job just to escape alimony. Your ass still owes her up to $50k /year - it all depends on the judge.

Try to hide money with a relative? The court can automatically slap a lien on your bank account without notice.

Their computers will silently trace on your social security # through the banks. ANY assets in your name (traced by the I-9 form, which has your social) will automatically be seized whenever you deposit it. The IRS will hand over your tax returns to a court with one letter.

As for assets, it all depends on how fast she moves. She can file an asset freeze that prevents you from selling or giving away anything. It even locks up your debit and savings. You can sell your car, but the registration and transfer will be voided at the DMV.

Want to keep your shit? Simple. Never marry.

t. Someone who lost his house, his car and his life savings in the divorce.

>>18373600
damn dude that's fucked. how did she get all that? what did you get?

>>18373600
Wtf is wrong with America? I understand the point of alimony is for the kids when the dad doesn't care if he fucks the whole family over but why is this all possible if there are no kids?

>>18373608
that's not what alimony is for my friend. alimony is to make sure women don't have to work a day in their life.

okay this looks promising.

a "discretionary trust". Basically it's a trust with multiple beneficiaries except said beneficiaries only have entitlement to the assets that the trustee assigns them. So let's say the trust has a value of 100k and your uncle Bob is the trustee while yourself and your other uncle Tom are the beneficiaries. Because uncle Bob can at his own discretion apply assets to whomever he chooses he could assign 95k to Tom while assigning 5k to you. This way you would only be responsible for your interest (the 5k) and not the whole value of the trust (100k). I'm not sure about the specifics of it though.