Millionaire’s wife gets judges to toss their prenup (nypost.com)

MensRights

326 ups - 63 downs = 263 votes

224 comments submitted at 15:16:19 on Mar 11, 2013 by Billy_the_Kid

  • [-]
  • McFeely_Smackup
  • 51 Points
  • 16:17:03, 11 March

> a rare, precedent-setting decision that could influence countless marriages to wealthy people.

The writer of the article is terribly uninformed, judges throw out prenups all the time, and "signed under duress" is a common excuse.

  • [-]
  • Bohica69
  • -15 Points
  • 16:23:40, 11 March

Yes, they do, when they are invalid. Valid prenups are not "thrown out". That's a fallacious statement.

  • [-]
  • McFeely_Smackup
  • 12 Points
  • 16:33:08, 11 March

And who decides if they're valid? The judge does, at divorce time.

There's the problem. You'll never know at the time you sign a prenup if it's going to be upheld at divorce time or not.

  • [-]
  • Bohica69
  • 18 Points
  • 16:36:36, 11 March

From a prior posting of mine, you're wrong:

Prenuptial agreements are, largely, a guarantee. Not having one guarantees the decision is left entirely up to the court and it's discretion. I speak from a position of experience and wealth. I'm coldly practical, pragmatic and realistic. As I've said before in this prior posting, and case law clearly supports my position:

"I can state, definitively, having had a prenuptial agreement for my 1 (and only) marriage, that it saved my financial ass. I was married for 4.5 years. I planned and prepared my divorce for 6 months and subbed out the top 10 law firms in 2 counties (Los Angeles and Orange County). My prenuptial agreement waived spousal support. It also: protected my homes and rental properties, my stocks and bank accounts, my IP and interests in several companies and insured that I walked away from the marriage financially intact. Statements are false, unequivocally false in regards to Prenups being "overturned". Case law is directly opposed to this position. A properly constructed prenuptial agreement which involves the following will withstand a legal challenge:

It must not have "unconscionable" clauses (waiver of child support, for example). Both parties must have independent legal counsel. It must not be entered into under duress (the day of the wedding, for example) and with sufficient time for both parties to review (typically 4-6 months). It must have a full disclosure of all assets and debts, by both parties.

My former spouse contested our prenuptial agreement and lost the appeal and was required to pay her, and my, legal fees associated with the appeal/challenge to the prenuptial agreement. Prenups should be mandatory. They work.

Typically, it's people who have never seen a prenup, never retained appropriate top tier tax and family law counsel, never utilized a prenup and that read some morons, troglodyte misanthrope musings on a "he man woman haters bulletin board" about prenups that make such comments that prenups get overturned. They don't. Luck had nothing to do with it. Proper preparation and accomplished tax and legal counsel did.

  • [-]
  • McFeely_Smackup
  • 12 Points
  • 17:06:13, 11 March

Your prenup held up...that's great.

But it's not a fantasy that prenups are overturned all the time. Like you say, it can't have unconscionable clauses...and again, who gets to decide if it's unconscionable or not? The divorce judge.

There's no pre-marriage prenup court where you can go and get your agreement approved as "this one is good". In fact, a prenup that is good at marriage time, can be unconscionable at divorce time because situations change.

Nobody ever wrote a prenup they thought was bad.

  • [-]
  • Bohica69
  • 4 Points
  • 17:39:15, 11 March

I'm patiently waiting for your brilliant case law citations.

  • [-]
  • McFeely_Smackup
  • 5 Points
  • 17:58:35, 11 March

I don't think you're patiently awaiting anything.

You've defined any prenuptual agreement that is overturned as "invalid" and any that is upheld as "valid", then demanded that I show you and example of a valid one being overturned.

You're a logical mess.

  • [-]
  • Bohica69
  • 0 Points
  • 19:00:59, 11 March

Still waiting. I've even provided you the resources/mechanism to look up and "prove" your point. Lol

  • [-]
  • Bohica69
  • -10 Points
  • 18:03:00, 11 March

You are clueless and delusional beyond all human comprehension. Me, a logical mess! oh the irony Lol

Here, I'll help you: https://law.lexisnexis.com/infopro/zimmermans/disp.aspx?z=1930

  • [-]
  • Truthytruthteller
  • 1 Points
  • 02:25:13, 12 March

You understand that you are not being helpful, and that this behavior is unpalatable because of that?

You had a put together prenup and followed the proper procedure to ensure it remained valid. That was a great starting point for conversation, but then you proceeded to be utterly obtuse about a very clear disconnect between your point and everyone's understanding of your intent. The responsibility is on you to clarify. Let me help:

You say a well developed prenup holds in court. People are asking you how to make a well designed prenup. They are also suggesting the average citizen is not in a position to protect themselves. Demanding case law citation makes you look like a child; most people don't know where to start when it comes to case law. You are specialized in this field but rather than be useful you seem determined to play some weird game of smug derision.

I will give you benefit of the doubt that your actions are out of ignorance and not malice. Stop treating questions like arguments and start doling out knowledge in a useful fashion or just stop after your point is made.

  • [-]
  • Bohica69
  • -11 Points
  • 17:13:46, 11 March

Unlike you, I know WTF I am talking about in this regard. You have no idea and can't cite 1 single case where a legitimate prenuptial agreement was "tossed out" by a judge. I hate to tell you but judges are bound by case law and opinion in prior rulings by appellate courts and by codified law. They just don't pull decisions from their asses. The exception proves the rule. Facepalm.

  • [-]
  • hardwarequestions
  • 8 Points
  • 17:26:13, 11 March

dial it back bud. no need to get hostile over this.

  • [-]
  • Bohica69
  • -12 Points
  • 17:28:16, 11 March

I live in a fact based world,. "bud". You should try it sometime, along with the poster I am responding to. I have "0" tolerance for blatant, willful ignorance and stupidity in the face of overwhelming data, evidence and simple logic.

  • [-]
  • hardwarequestions
  • 7 Points
  • 17:31:50, 11 March

yeah that's the hostility i mentioned. it's manifesting itself in your short temper, lack of patience & willingness to explain to those not as lucky to share your wisdom, and general arrogance. dial it back bud, or risk falling on deaf ears when you otherwise could have enlightened some folks.

  • [-]
  • Bohica69
  • -11 Points
  • 17:37:09, 11 March

Most fall into the definition of crazy: Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.

I, personally, enjoy watching them flail about impotently and continue to complain how lousy their lives are when 99% of the time it's directly related to their own personal choices and decisions, "bud". You can't help people who are happier bitching, pissing and moaning while engaging in ignorant conspiracy theories then solving their problems.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • ChicagoThug
  • 2 Points
  • 23:04:57, 11 March

This is correct people. Don't overreact here.

  • [-]
  • whine_and_cheese
  • 0 Points
  • 01:03:18, 12 March

Hear that guys!

All you need is massive financial resources and all the top lawyers in the country and you too can have the joy of gambling on a protracted legal battle.

SIGN ME UP!

  • [-]
  • Bohica69
  • -1 Points
  • 01:08:39, 12 March

Not necessarily, but money does help. He had access to greater resources than she did.

  • [-]
  • xseeks
  • 2 Points
  • 17:00:08, 11 March

Not to mention a hyper-feminist court system that constantly moves the goalpost to better suit women.

  • [-]
  • JabCross
  • 2 Points
  • 17:15:22, 11 March

I don't agree with most of what you say, but great advice in there.

Maybe consider writing a how-to on prenups.

  • [-]
  • Bohica69
  • -9 Points
  • 17:18:50, 11 March

It would be a waste of time. If someone is seeking a prenuptial agreement they should interview and retain appropriate, competent and qualified family law counsel and involve either tax counsel or their CPA. Doing a "home grown" or "do-it-yourself" prenup is a recipe for disaster and failure. That's the best "how-to" I can offer. Most of the men here couldn't afford it and then wonder what the license plate of the bus that ran them over was when they get divorced. But they're ever so content to complain, bitch, piss and moan when things don't go right for them and invent/conflagrate imaginary conspiracy theories to fit their myopic, ignorant view(s) of the world.

  • [-]
  • Greyfeld
  • 15 Points
  • 18:32:27, 11 March

>Most of the men here couldn't afford it

I love how you admit that most men couldn't afford to do what you did, then pile on the arrogant condescension and bile, as if not being rich is a failing of which every man on the planet should be ashamed. If you don't have an inkling of sympathy for your fellow men, then why the fuck are you here?

  • [-]
  • Bohica69
  • -10 Points
  • 18:52:01, 11 March

The truth hurts, doesn't it? I don't have sympathy for anyone who continues a pattern of willful ignorance and stupidity. If someone genuinely wants help rather than just bitching, pissing, complaining and moaning........it's there. I love women. I KNOW the deck is stacked in their favor. I love my life and won't make decisions designed to take it's control out of my hands, like getting married without a prenuptial agreement and/or getting married again, period.

  • [-]
  • Greyfeld
  • 4 Points
  • 20:01:52, 11 March

>If someone genuinely wants help rather than just bitching, pissing, complaining and moaning

Unless that help has to come from you, right?

  • [-]
  • Bohica69
  • -1 Points
  • 20:15:24, 11 March

I'll help but I won't engage with an imbecile who's more content being ignorant and bitching than resolving problems.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • JabCross
  • 1 Points
  • 18:37:24, 11 March

Fair enough. What do you think would be a more productive way to help these other men who can't afford legal counsel?

  • [-]
  • Bohica69
  • 4 Points
  • 18:42:56, 11 March
  1. Don't marry before the age of 35, if you get married at all.
  2. Go to premarital counseling, extensively, before getting married.
  3. Discuss finances, career, children, etc in premarital counseling.
  4. Look at the assets, debts and credit of your potential spouse.
  5. Look at their parents and family. You do marry the family.
  6. etc.

Sadly, most men spend more time researching the next car or power tool they purchase then the time they spend in preparing to get married, which is the single most important financial decision of their lives and they treat it as if they're buying popcorn. When you get married you are forming a legal corporation through the merger of 2, unequal, companies both of whom have an equal say.

Realistically, you can't afford NOT to have legal counsel. Lets presume the following facts:

11 years (average length of marriage per US Census Bureau) 2 children

If both childdren are approximately 8 years old at divorce the man will pay child support a minimum of 10 more years, possibly more. At a rate of $1000 per month in support (this is low) that calculates to $120,000.00 and that's just support. Add life insurance premiums, health insurance for children, other miscellaneous costs and expenses, asset distribution to wife, spousal support and the number goes up.

  • [-]
  • carchamp1
  • 2 Points
  • 20:02:02, 11 March

I'll fix this for you: 1. Don't get married.

That's the end of the list. Getting married at all is a fool's game.

  • [-]
  • Bohica69
  • 2 Points
  • 18:23:49, 11 March

Judges use appellate case law and codified law to determine and assess the validity and legality of a contract. They don't pull it from their ass. Jesus fucking christ. Lol

https://law.lexisnexis.com/infopro/zimmermans/disp.aspx?z=1930