2009 January 01 Thursday
In Some Divorces Noone Wants House
Women initiate most divorces. Due to the housing downturn they've got to think twice because with so many houses which have mortgages which exceed their market value many marriages no longer have net positive assets to divvy up.
With nearly one in six homes worth less than the mortgage owed on it, according to Moody’s Economy.com, divorce lawyers and financial advisers around the country say the logistics of divorce have been turned around. “We used to fight about who gets to keep the house,” said Gary Nickelson, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. “Now we fight about who gets stuck with the dead cow.”
As a result, divorce has become more complicated and often more expensive, with lower prospects for money on the other side. Some divorce lawyers say that business has slowed or that clients are deciding to stay together because there are no assets left to help them start over.
“There’s an old joke,” said Randall M. Kessler, Ms. Needle’s lawyer. “Why is a divorce so expensive? Because it’s worth it. Now it better really be worth it.”
I'd like to see some figures on month-by-month changes in divorce filing rates. Maybe the people who lose their homes in foreclosure are more likely to divorce while those still underwater are less likely.
The more I think about it the more I think guys are crazy to get married without a prenuptial agreement that lays out how joint property will get divvied up should the marriage end up in divorce court. Guys should negotiate rules about debt, child support, alimony, retirement funds, child custody, pet custody for pets that already exist at the start of marriage, and numerous other details.
"The more I think about it the more I think guys are crazy to get married without a prenuptial agreement that lays out how joint property will get divvied up should the marriage end up in divorce court. Guys should negotiate rules about debt, child support, alimony, retirement funds, child custody, pet custody for pets that already exist at the start of marriage, and numerous other details."
They should have put that in the Bible somewhere.
Most states won't enforce pre-nups with regard to child support and custody.
I don't think pre-nupts are worth much unless someone has a very complex income or asset scenario such as owning a business, having large stock options, odd structured settlements or inheritances, etc...
I think the root of the problem is that family law judges are biased towards women because it's often the man caught behaving "out-of-line" but the reality is that the "out-of-line" behavior in many cases is due to continual and more subtle problems caused by either both partners or the woman. An example is a wife who refuses to have sex anymore or on a ridiculously infrequent schedule. In these cases, if a man is still attractive, situations will sometimes arise. The sex drive in normal healthy men is nearly as primal as the food drive. Expecting any sexually normal man to be faithful in these scenarios is simply ridiculous and the fault lies with the frigidity not the man. Any judge who hasn't been in this situation will be unable to understand it.
I think a good analogy would be what if the man was an anorexic with a BMI of 18 and decided that since he's okay with that, that his wife with a BMI of 30 shouldn't eat more than 1000 calories until she has the same BMI of 18 and will actually be _forced_ to do so. Society doesn't accept this, but society will accept a wife refusing to have sex on a schedule that satisfies her.
What would the world think if you banned and stigmatized food magazines? Or called the "Food Network" channel "food porn"? After all, only a filthy glutton would watch this stuff! And it's not like the glutton couldn't find other outlets for her filthy food urges - she could always "simulate" eating food and drink by eating bars of soap and drinking water during alone time with herself in the shower - ewww. Surely this "food porn" just gives her a dirty gluttonous mind and the capitalistic media images of food promotion ("FOOD $ELLS) raises the standards for eating at home to unrealistic levels. After all eating urges (beyond basic survival) are only about hedonistic physical pleasure right? What if you go out somewhere and catch her eyes looking at some delicious food - is she not satisfied with the old soggy freezer-burned brocolli that she sometimes can get at home? And what's with this "fetish" for garnish and spices - what kind of deviant slob would want that? If I don't like pepper it can't be used by her either.
After years of this forced deprivation - we catch her, either sneaking food at some other families home or even worse by _paying_ for it at some fast food joint where she could bring home diseases like Salmonella or E Coli 0157! Now it is time to financially penalize her with the full power of the state to bear. Wages garnished, children and assets stolen away due to the stigma of gluttony. Couldn't she just control herself - wasn't the floppy carrots enough and bars of soap in the shower enough for her? Why would she do this to her family and sin against Yaeweh? She just seemed so quiet at the counseling sessions about why she just seemed to stare off into space at home all the time and would occasionally blurt out that I should be checked for some sort of thyroid problem because I have an 18 BMI - BUT there's nothing WRONG with ME - it's HER problem. I might get in the mood to eat more once a month or so if she would just spend more time relieving my stress and making it all about ME and not the FOOD but she just doesn't understand that I'm just to tired to have an appetite.
What will our scarred children become now they saw the pictures of cakes in the Family Circle article tucked under the mattress. Thank god the judge saw that as evidence of an unfit parent. All women are surely the _TRUE_ pigs!