Pre-nups – another deceitful example of family law.
A New York woman spent 9.5 years in divorce proceedings screwing over her ex husband. Nothing new about that. What made the news was that having realised how easy it is for a determined woman to destroy an ex husband it dawned on her that some other woman could do the same thing to her son. Therefore she turned her spitefulness on her son’s fiancé because they got married without a Pre-nuptial agreement.
” A Manhattan monster-in-law was so convinced her son’s fiancée was a no-good gold digger that she did everything she could to break the couple up, even harassing the fiancée’s ailing father in Ohio and getting her fired from her job in Midtown.
Lia Joseph, 61, was enraged when her real-estate-developer son Denis, 34, and his betrothed, Diana David, 28, tied the knot last October anyway — without the prenuptial agreement Lia had demanded.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/mom_in_law_from_hell_VbUDRmQRkAjSRSdyTxcr9I#ixzz0lVByaaQE
“
This is just one more of the countless examples of women abusing a man with the tacit support of the system and getting away with it as far as I can see. The harm she was doing to her own son doesn’t occur to her. Nothing unusual about that – except that her son was an adult. Hence I’ll focus on the issue of Pre-nups.
IN the USA pre-nups are enforceable. In some other countries – notably the UK they are not.
In the UK pre-nups have not be recognised. This suddenly changed for the first time because a woman stood to loose. So hey presto the pre-nup was recognised. Thus when it is to a woman’s advantage the courts make a fundamentally unfair ruling. It has been pointed out that “A prenuptial agreement which became the first to be recognised in English law is “fundamentally unfair” and would not have won approval if a woman rather than a man was challenging it, a court has heard. ”
Of course men tend to be hopelessly optimistic. We all know about Paul McCartney – but of course he would have got shafted by the UK laws anyway. Seven time husband Larry King estimated to be worth $144 apparently didn’t have a pre-nup.
“Sources told TMZ that Larry did not demand one.
Why?
‘She is a tall, good-looking blonde and that pretty much explains it,’ said the source.”
This is going to cost him big time.
In NZ pre-nups have officially been recognised since 1976. In practice the family courts “set aside” pre-nups as a matter of course. In other words you could have a pre-nup in NZ but it wouldn’t be worth anything in court. Personally I find this as deceitful as most NZ family law. We’d be better off having honesty in NZ Family Law along with coin tossing.
This situation began to affect gays and potentially have a negative impact on women. Hence the Labour government changed the law in 2001 so that it would be harder to “set aside” pre-nups in NZ. I am no expert but I am not aware that the situation has improved much. I am aware of an increasing number of men setting up family trusts over the last 10 years – which tends to support the view that pre-nups are ineffective here.
Sandra Bullock is reportedly about to use a pre-nup to prevent paying out Jessie James as their marriage brakes down due to his infidelity. Could you imagine this would be enforced if the genders were reversed?
In NZ if a woman cheats the courts reward her. The husband’s pre-nup is not going to make any difference. In fact he will be daemonsed for “being controlling”.
If you have some personal experience or expertise in this matter we’d love to hear from you.
Being a man
Means I’m an OUTLAW
If the Courts have no respect for me- why should I respect the Courts?
If the Government legislates against me, why should I obey the law?
I am a good citizen
But I have been made an OUTLAW
Comment by John Brett — Mon 19th April 2010 @ 2:19 pm
“If the Courts have no respect for me- why should I respect the Courts?”
I can’t think of a reason.
“If the Government legislates against me, why should I obey the law?”
If the government legislates against you for being male or against your core beliefs and morals. E.g. your need to be a father, then why would you obey it? I don’t know.
Comment by Dave — Mon 19th April 2010 @ 2:29 pm
Have a look at the law of equity.
Comment by Jessie — Mon 19th April 2010 @ 5:20 pm
I have always known that the law was INTENDED to be fair:
I contend that it is SELF EVIDENT that the concept of “EQUITY” or “FAIRNESS” has long been abandoned de jure by the Law in New Zealand.
For example:
Why would you have a crime ‘Male Assaults Female’ but not ‘Female assaults Male’ (both crimes are equally common)
Why would you have easy access to ‘protection orders’ on request, for females, but ‘protection orders’ being virtually unobtainable by males?
Why would victims of false allegations have to be advised by their lawyers that “such allegations cannot be defended- so plead guilty to reduce the sentance”
Why is Peter Ellis still a criminal?
From http://www.netlaw.co.nz/civil.cfm?PageID=76
“We suggest you spend just a few minutes understanding the area of law known as “Equity”.
“Equity” is a branch of the law which generally relates with fairness.
Over the centuries the law has developed as a large body of rules through Court decisions (known as the Common Law) and from Acts of Parliament (known as Statute Law).
Sometimes these laws, in certain factual circumstances, can cause injustices where the rigid application of those laws create an obvious unfairness.
In some of these circumstances (not all) the Courts themselves have built up a body of rules known as the Law of Equity which can be used to correct an injustice when the strict application of the usual law might create that injustice.
Equity cannot be used simply as a substitute for the strict application of the common law.
But equity provides some powerful tools to the Courts to do justice in any particular set of circumstances.
A good example relates to the concept of fraud.
It would be quite wrong to apply a rigid principle of common law if the person benefiting from that rigid application of the law had placed him or herself in that position by his or her own fraud.
Principle: it is a principle of equity that the Courts would not allow a person to benefit from his or her own fraud.
Therefore, it is frequently necessary to stand back from any initial consideration of the common law and ask whether there are any equitable principles which might be able to be applied.
Equity may therefore be defined as a body of rules or principles which can be applied in some of the cases where the general rule of law might fail to do justice in a particular case.
Remember, equity may not be available to you in all cases, but it will be worth looking to see if it is.”
I have looked, that is why I know that I am an OUTLAW!
Comment by John Brett — Mon 19th April 2010 @ 7:01 pm