• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: Movies/TV Shows

Preston said:
If you wanna keep all your shit and draw up an aggressive prenup basically contradicting the marriage contract, the best way is to be 100% sure is to simply not get married.
Click to expand...

Honestly, this is the way. I'm not sure why any of these wealthy people get married. Mind you, I'm a godless heathen, so there's no religious aspect to it for me.
 
"I want to sign a business partnership with someone but I'm gonna write a second contract that effectively nullifies it."

Not all prenups are this (some are quite reasonable) but many are .
 
Yeah if a contract violates the law then it's not gonna stand.

And the premise we all should be starting from here is that Costner is a manipulative asshole.
 
Preston said:
"I want to sign a business partnership with someone but I'm gonna write a second contract that effectively nullifies it."

Not all prenups are this (some are quite reasonable) but many are .
Click to expand...
It doesn’t nullify it. It amends it so that if the marriage fails, there isn’t a shitstorm of legal action between the spouses to achieve finality. And the reason they exist is because one party is going into the marriage either with significant family assets they don’t want exposed or significant personal assets that the spouse had no part in accumulating. And apart from just protecting those assets, part of the reason for a prenup is to see if the spouse is only entering the marriage for nefarious reasons rather than the right ones.

So, if valid prenups aren’t enforced, the family assets and the separate property are fair game, and the spouse is potentially also being rewarded for entering into the marriage with the express intent to grab cash and exit when convenient.

If you believe in upholding a contract between two consenting adults with independent counsel on both sides, then you believe in enforcing a valid prenup. Otherwise you don’t believe in contracts. Oh, that merger didn’t go as we expected, so we didn’t understand the contract. We loaned out money at 2% that we could loan out at 7% if we can invalidate the contract, so we didn’t understand it. This home I purchased is now in an area that has been overrun with crime and homelessness just a couple of years after moving in, so I didn’t understand what I was doing when I bought it.

Imagine if the rest of the contracts out there were treated like valid prenups are.
 
LeafOfFaith said:
It doesn’t nullify it. It amends it so that if the marriage fails, there isn’t a shitstorm of legal action between the spouses to achieve finality. And the reason they exist is because one party is going into the marriage either with significant family assets they don’t want exposed or significant personal assets that the spouse had no part in accumulating. And apart from just protecting those assets, part of the reason for a prenup is to see if the spouse is only entering the marriage for nefarious reasons rather than the right ones.

So, if valid prenups aren’t enforced, the family assets and the separate property are fair game, and the spouse is potentially also being rewarded for entering into the marriage with the express intent to grab cash and exit when convenient.

If you believe in upholding a contract between two consenting adults with independent counsel on both sides, then you believe in enforcing a valid prenup. Otherwise you don’t believe in contracts. Oh, that merger didn’t go as we expected, so we didn’t understand the contract. We loaned out money at 2% that we could loan out at 7% if we can invalidate the contract, so we didn’t understand it. This home I purchased is now in an area that has been overrun with crime and homelessness just a couple of years after moving in, so I didn’t understand what I was doing when I bought it.

Imagine if the rest of the contracts out there were treated like valid prenups are.
Click to expand...
Oh I've heard plenty a stories from a lawyer friend about people who request their marriage be nullified essentially in a second contract. He does not take those clients because he knows it can't be enforced, though many others do.
 
LeafOfFaith said:
It doesn’t nullify it. It amends it so that if the marriage fails, there isn’t a shitstorm of legal action between the spouses to achieve finality. And the reason they exist is because one party is going into the marriage either with significant family assets they don’t want exposed or significant personal assets that the spouse had no part in accumulating. And apart from just protecting those assets, part of the reason for a prenup is to see if the spouse is only entering the marriage for nefarious reasons rather than the right ones.

So, if valid prenups aren’t enforced, the family assets and the separate property are fair game, and the spouse is potentially also being rewarded for entering into the marriage with the express intent to grab cash and exit when convenient.

If you believe in upholding a contract between two consenting adults with independent counsel on both sides, then you believe in enforcing a valid prenup. Otherwise you don’t believe in contracts. Oh, that merger didn’t go as we expected, so we didn’t understand the contract. We loaned out money at 2% that we could loan out at 7% if we can invalidate the contract, so we didn’t understand it. This home I purchased is now in an area that has been overrun with crime and homelessness just a couple of years after moving in, so I didn’t understand what I was doing when I bought it.

Imagine if the rest of the contracts out there were treated like valid prenups are.
Click to expand...
And this is the key bit. It's when prenups include earnings post marriage that things get tricky. Or when kids are involved, etc. That's when people try to redefine marriage with these prenups, though enforcing them is a tall order.
 
A marriage annulment doesn’t have anything to do with a prenup, as far as I know. If it’s annulled, the parties are considered as having never been married, which achieves the same result as a prenup.
 
LeafOfFaith said:
A marriage annulment doesn’t have anything to do with a prenup, as far as I know. If it’s annulled, the parties are considered as having never been married, which achieves the same result as a prenup.
Click to expand...
Yes I'm particularly speaking about people who decide to get married and write a second contract they call a "prenup" that redefines what marriage is. It's not all prenups, but they happen and these are the ones many lawyers won't touch.
 
CH1 said:
in most jurisdictions, doesn't common law kick in after a couple lives together for a year or two?
Click to expand...

Generally way, way more limited in what they will reward a common law spouse.

For example in Ontario, a spouse is entitled to 50% of any asset growth that occurs during the marriage, regardless of who entered the relationship with the asset (wife's stock portfolio goes from 1 to 2 million, divorcing hubby gets half of that 1 million dollar increase) but a common law spouse doesn't. They only take 50% of whatever is jointly owned (bought a house together and both are on title, etc).

Common law spouses are generally eligible for the same spousal support though, same formulas for child support, etc. Mileage may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
 
Useless trivia:
About a decade before he was Hannibal in "the A-team", George Peppard was the lead in the television film series "Banacek":



It had decent ratings to the effect a 3rd season was greenlit but Peppard walked away from the series because of a divorce settlement which said his ex-wife would receive a larger percentage of earnings from said series in the future. Guess he'd preferred getting 100% of nothing (he had a down cycle in his career until he was given the role of Blake Carrington in the ABC TV series "Dynasty" a number of years later). He lasted a few weeks & was fired because of "creative differences" as he claimed the role was too close to "JR". Interestingly, this made him available for the role most are familiar with:


The-A-Team-4082191.jpg
 
oscarheyman said:
Useless trivia:
About a decade before he was Hannibal in "the A-team", George Peppard was the lead in the television film series "Banacek":



It had decent ratings to the effect a 3rd season was greenlit but Peppard walked away from the series because of a divorce settlement which said his ex-wife would receive a larger percentage of earnings from said series in the future. Guess he'd preferred getting 100% of nothing (he had a down cycle in his career until he was given the role of Blake Carrington in the ABC TV series "Dynasty" a number of years later). He lasted a few weeks & was fired because of "creative differences" as he claimed the role was too close to "JR". Interestingly, this made him available for the role most are familiar with:


The-A-Team-4082191.jpg
Click to expand...

he loves it when a plan comes together
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top