Legal advice here

[Cronos Impera]

Here is my advice for you.
You know from fammily and civil code that once you get married your wife instantly gains a decent chunk of your fortune and if she divorces you lose your home.
But here is a decent advice.
Before marriege, if you have any relatives you could trust (cousins, brothers, parents.....), dispose of your propriety to them (and I refer to your home), but mentain a legal copy of your original documents to prevent your wife from getting suspicious.
You'll pay the taxes associated with your property of course, and you will also need a mandate from your relatives to pay their taxes, so the IRS sends the bills to you.
When you get married, the future husband isn't demanded to list his assets by any legal code so far as I can tell.
The rest of the stuff you acquire (money, cars, other homes) get split 50-50, but that house remains yours de facto.

If she decides to change the locks, divorce and find a new boyfriend and may even obtain a restraining order for you, you can use your trump card and call your relative to evict her and your children from your property. If you did likewise with your bank account you'll also save your spendings.
The image of her getting evicted from your home...priceless. Obviously you'll lose everything you earned during your marriage to her through lawsuits but if you refuse to get a job and pay child support for a year or so, she'll probably raise the white flag and move on.
You remain in your home, enjoy the interest from your bank account and defeat her this way.

To confess, this tactic saved my uncle's fammily life.

[Fragony]

Thanks for the advice but finding a chick willing to marry me is hard enough as it is

[CountArach]

Thanks for the advice but finding a chick willing to marry me is hard enough as it is
What he said.

[Ja'chyra]

Or get a pre-nup

[InsaneApache]

I did it the other way. After Mrs. Apache MKI had taken me to the cleaners for the best part of thirty grand, I met Mrs. Apache MKII who had three businesses, a house and two cars. Trouble is I'm still with her after twenty years, so no pay out. Yet. :whip: :laugh4:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Cronos, old fruit, with your very bleak perspective, the best advice would be not to get married at all - let alone have children.

[KukriKhan]

My advice: take your time Lads. You're statistically gonna live to age 80+, so there's no need to hurry on getting married. And there's no shame in being a "40-year old virgin", no matter what Hollywood says.

Build a career, accumulate some experience, learn to be comfortable alone with yourself. That'll make you a more likely successful husband and father, and a man of the world who can better protect and provide for himself and his family.

-----------------------
Or, do like I did: marry the first one who shows an interest, find out a couple years later that you don't really like each other very much, give her everything; find another one who shows any interest, mess up that one too, give her everything. Stop looking. Years later stumble over one whose company and conversation you really, truly enjoy. Hook up with that one.

Third times a charm, for me.

[ICantSpellDawg]

How warped. Trust someone more than your own wife to have an irrefutable claim on your property. This sounds like an excellent plan. You would have to hate and distrust your wife BEFORE you marry her for this to be feasible. I dare say that marriage at that point would be the unfeasable part.

[Samurai Waki]

Well, this is sneaky underhanded lawyer tactics in my OP, for men who are too distrustful of their future partner, and too cowardly to look your love to be in the eye, and just be honest with them (I'd imagine if you were the shady type of a character to use this method, chances are your marriage isn't gonna last too long anyways)... I'd go for the prenuptial, which is what I did with my wife, since just before we married I had acquired... funds from a recently deceased parent, and my lawyer had advised to go ahead and ask. Really, whats the worst thing that could happen? You could save yourself the embarrassment of marrying a gold digger.

[rory_20_uk]

My uncle was so obsessed in stopping his ex getting anything he signed it over to his new partner. And, yes, in that case you can put a price on love...

If you're not sure just don't get married. There's no social stigma these days.

~:smoking:

[Kralizec]

The scheme in the OP would only make sense if you have more faith that your relative won't screw you over than you have hope that your marriage will last. Just marry under a prenuptial agreement- perfectly normal and doesn't depend on deceiving your spouse. Or alternatively, don't marry at all.

To be honest I can't imagine myself marrying a woman who has no education or job skills and would be financially dependent on me even if we decide to break up, but maybe that's just me.

[miotas]

How warped. Trust someone more than your own wife to have an irrefutable claim on your property. This sounds like an excellent plan. You would have to hate and distrust your wife BEFORE you marry her for this to be feasible. I dare say that marriage at that point would be the unfeasable part.

Well the assumption is that most people have a closer more trusting relationship with someone they have known for their entire life than a person they have know for a few (months, years, take your pick) I certainly have relatives with whom I have an incredibly close bond that no woman could come close to matching.

The smart thing to do however would be to not get married and just live with each other, needing a piece of paper to tell you that you love your partner seems frankly, quite ridiculous. And needing to sign a contract saying you will never leave each other seems to be the most untrusting aspect of the whole issue.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well the assumption is that most people have a closer more trusting relationship with someone they have known for their entire life than a person they have know for a few (months, years, take your pick) I certainly have relatives with whom I have an incredibly close bond that no woman could come close to matching.

The smart thing to do however would be to not get married and just live with each other, needing a piece of paper to tell you that you love your partner seems frankly, quite ridiculous. And needing to sign a contract saying you will never leave each other seems to be the most untrusting aspect of the whole issue.


The marriage is a contract with the State that there will be a reasonable distribution between you and your spouse entitling each to benefits commensurate with work, support and sacrifice. It exists to protect the wife, children and, if the man is lazy, the husband. If you do not have an interest in protecting your wife from financial harm or joinign together in a religious sacrament - do not marry, there is no point.

[rory_20_uk]

To be honest I can't imagine myself marrying a woman who has no education or job skills and would be financially dependent on me even if we decide to break up, but maybe that's just me.

In a word: Children.

So, she's sacrificed her career for your kids. If they're dumb you might argue that chucky cheese was as good as it was going to get. She argues she was going to be a chief exec then you're going to be paying a lot of cash.

~:smoking:

[Kralizec]

I wouldn't ask my wife to dump her career for kids. I imagine that I'd work for 3 or 4 days per week and that she'd do the same.

It would be different if one of us made over twice as much as the other, but assuming that I won't have trouble finding work after I graduate from college I'll be earning far above minimum wage. And as I've implied before I can't imagine myself marrying someone who flunked out of high school and is doomed to earning just that for a living.

[rory_20_uk]

Most high flying jobs don't equate 50% of the hours with 50% of the career - more like career stagnation. If you want to get a job in the Civil Service or whatever you are more likely to succeed, but else it really is all or nothing.

~:smoking:

[Kralizec]

That's a fair point, though I don't know if it applies to my future profession as much as others (lawyer, not civil servant)

Regardless, there are examples of countries where both spouses generally continue their respective careers. Like Norway, where the solution is day care - practicly an industry there.
(Or Japan, where the solution is to simply not have any children)

[miotas]

The marriage is a contract with the State that there will be a reasonable distribution between you and your spouse entitling each to benefits commensurate with work, support and sacrifice. It exists to protect the wife, children and, if the man is lazy, the husband. If you do not have an interest in protecting your wife from financial harm or joinign together in a religious sacrament - do not marry, there is no point.
I'm not sure what they do in America, but here in Australia de facto relationships receive the same, or at least very similar, government befits as marriages, so that doesn't really count as an excuse. The religious thing is the only real reason that someone would, and most Aussies aren't religious so it seems like a redundant practice here.

[Samurai Waki]

I'm not sure what they do in America, but here in Australia de facto relationships receive the same, or at least very similar, government befits as marriages, so that doesn't really count as an excuse. The religious thing is the only real reason that someone would, and most Aussies aren't religious so it seems like a redundant practice here.

Well, the stipulation in America, is if two people are in a committed relationship and live within the same residency for ten months to one year, depending on which jurisdiction you live in (some jurisdictions recognize common law; and others don't). if the relationship goes sour, one or both the shareholders of the property can file for a legal separation via marriage through common law; if they can prove that their relationship surpassed that time frame and is written in any sort of legally binding documentation (so if you're living under a shared rent for an apartment this would be enough). Its an important precedent, because in most relationships partners acquire more items, than before they were together, and both sides deserve to make their cases for which items they believe they have the right to own.
The disadvantage to common law marriage is then apparent; if you look at it from a financial perspective. Because you're legally married, but without the tax breaks, or any other marriage perks. So it's not entirely the religious aspect as to why it makes sense to get married, in America, its also about possession.

[pevergreen]

I've worked with too many people that have been recovering from divorce. I'm not going into anything without having an airtight pre-nup.

I worked at an IT shop for a week (didnt get fired :P, it was just for a week) everyone but the boss had been divorced and was paying the settlements made 2-5 years ago. One guy had over 50k to pay, didnt have the house and had to pay child support. His salary was about 45k, level with the rest.

Its horrible. I can understand the nessecity of going through a divorce, but sometimes I can't see the reasons. But that is just a bad memory now. it didnt happen lalalalalala.

Not my parents

[naut]

Guess what. Here in the land of Aus, I believe it is the case that if you live with your partner for 2+ years, they gain the same post separation asset rights as with marriage. Great for gold-diggers!

[rory_20_uk]

If you are very rich and aren't after kids then why buy when you can rent?

The cost may appear high to start with until you factor in the "leaves with half of everything and you have to pay the lawyer bill"

~:smoking: