No, I read what the OP said about the pre-nup.
It also could easily be plausible. The OP says she learned more after consulting her lawyer. In any case, I always assume a poster is telling the truth because to me, the SDMB is more fun that way. YMMV
I do too.
But when someone asks for advice, then consistently and persistently makes clear that they are only really interested in advice that conforms to their own previously-held opinion on the matter, i start to question their motivations. YMMV.
As kiz said:
nodding in agreement
That’s been my conclusion while reading through this thread.
::: Sigh:::
OK here is the Readers Digest condensed version of why you are wrong.
Go back and read post #110 (page 3)
Then skip down to post #139 (page 3 near the bottom)
Then go to page five post #242 (near the bottom)
There is nothing mysterious about it. She made some assumptions, as did most people that commented in this thread, that were wrong.
Read it all already. Reading it again doesn’t change my opinion.
Thanks for playing though.
So without reading the prenup you know more about it and the laws of Flordia thatn the OP’s lawyer does.
:rolleyes:
Riiiiiight, got it.
:dubious:
This is such bullshit, Daniel, and you keep repeating it.
- The original offer wasn’t untrustworthy.
- That she heard, offhand, that he might be legally entitled to more than she felt he was entitled to, doesn’t make her untrustworthy.
- That she didn’t amend her offer upon hearing the above, but before determining the facts, doesn’t make her untrustworthy.
- That he won’t get off his ass to protect his own financial interests and has to have all the information spoon fed to him doesn’t make her untrustworthy.
- That her lawyer tells her that he is entitled to no more than she offered, yet she still wonders if it is sufficient, doesn’t make her untrustworthy.
Get off your fucking high horse and give it a fucking rest.
Then re-read post #49, and a few others that reiterated the same theme.
I never said that.
I meant that reading the posts you directed me to does not change my overall opinion of this thread, which is that the OP came in here completely uninterested in paying any heed whatsoever to any opinions that diverged from her own previously determined course of action.
If we are to believe her, she found out new information about her obligations to her husband during the course of this thread. That doesn’t change the fact that, for the first haf of the thread, she thought that her husband was legally entitled to something, and she made clear that she was going to do nothing that would honor (what she thought were) his legal rights. She also made clear that, while she was asking for an opinion, any opinion that didn’t conform to her own previously determined course of action would be ignored or rationalized away.
That’s what i meant by disingenuousness and sophistry.
And on preview: sorry D_Odds, but that one post doesn’t measurably alter the weight of her attitudes in this thread. Just MHO.
About a bunch pages ago this point was made, which was one I hadn’t even thought of. The whole time I started reading this thread and I was thinking, well what would be best for the children? Foxy40 mentioned early on that she has a child in college and at least one more to go, and that she could use the money she kept to go towards that instead of her husband just slowly wasting it away. So initially I was thinking that maybe it would be better that she keep the larger amount.
I feel for the husband, I really do. In a zero-sum universe of Foxy40 and husband I would say that the husband is entitled to the money. But that’s not the case, she must think about her children. And she has stated that she expects no child support. Not because he’s a abusive avoiding asshole… just more of aloof.
Personally, I would like to see less talk of state child support laws, and more of what would be best for the kids. No one wins in a divorce really (IMHO). (And I realize I just stated two of the most steroetypical phrases in the english language).
Foxy40 - you are kind to even ask what is the best decision
Husband - wake up
Lawyer - It really just isn’t right
Sorry you’re going through with this, goodluck with the future.
You could have fooled me. Sounds like you seem to know more about the law and this prenup than her lawyer.
Perhpas you missed this in post #217
Here she is considering offering him way more than what the prenup requires and she is still a bad person in your eyes.
Well I guess she could take out a 10 million dollar life insurance policy, name him as the beneficary, and then 2 years later blow her brains out. Would that make her a nice person in your eyes?
One point I would like to address: I have seen this on the board multiple times, some even recently and from people posting in this thread! However, I do not believe it to be the case here. I think that **Foxy ** probably was already leaning towards what to do and wanted something to cement that decision in her mind and heart. That “cement” came in the form of having to defend her decision, not by being swayed one way or the other. So the advice she sought worked, just not the way some posters wanted it to. Maybe she should have said “Ya know, I think I have known what I want all along. Thanks for making me see it.” But she didn’t and I’m just guessing here. However, I do see the difference between what **Foxy ** has done here, and the willful obstinance I have viewed in the past (in general, not picking on anyone in particualr).
Finally, in another thread not far from this one, another poster is going through a divorce from a lazy wife that is terrible with money. Although I will concede differences (not adultery, but damn close enough in that marriage) he is in a similar boat. He is getting enough cyber hugs and "poor kid"s to float a balloon, plus hopes that he gets custody of the children from the witch. I think everyone that had a question about “what if **Foxy ** were a man?” should take a look at that.
Give me a break. Belrix didn’t start that thread looking for advice on a divorce settlement. He was expressing his grief because his wife had given up on trying to save their marriage. So don’t try to make it out like there’s some double standard going on, because that’s bullshit.
Nuh uh.
Agreed.
What makes her untrustworthy is that, when she believed he was entitled to a great deal more, she was seriously considering lying by omission to him about it.
Both of these I agree with.
How about you quit trying to drag everyone else down into the fucking muck and slime with you, and YOU give it a fucking rest?
Daniel
Actually, let me amend this. Considering an unethical course of action is not unethical. Because she did not follow through on an unethical course of action, I cannot call her unethical–and I do not believe I have. If she plans to lie by omission to him if a similar event comes up, then she is planning an unethical course, and I can therefore call her unethical. But right now it’s all hypothetical.
Daniel
Actually, my responses to her were based less on her gender and more on the situation differences. Namely, her assertion that her husband was trusting her to do right by him and she was intending to willfully violate that trust. Also, they were to elucidate several facets of the situation she either was not considering or failed to address.
If the husband in the other thread were contemplating (under the facts evident at the beginning, as opposed to the edited facts revealed as the thread progressed) screwing his lazy wife out of what she was legally entitled to because she trusted him to make the arrangements, then I’d have had the same thing to say to him.
The part that stuck in my craw (and a lot of other people’s as well) was that this was (according to the OP) an amicable divorce - so much so that the husband was trusting her word and good intentions, and she was contemplating abusing that trust for financial gain.
As to what the husband may or may not be legally entitled to - feh. Not my call, I’m not her lawyer - thank Og.
Other than that, I’m with mhendo.
Apparently, that’s not much of a challenge.
Read for comprehension next time.
Someone made a comment about how, in the presence of a pre-nup, she didn’t owe him anything. I merely pointed out that many pre-nups refer only to the assets brought into the marriage, not the assets acquired during it. I made no comment on whether the OP’s pre-nup was one such document; i merely questioned whether the other person had actually read it.
If you look back through my posts, you’ll note that i’ve never even made a comment on what her husband does or does not deserve. I never said she was a bad person for what she was doing in the divorce, nor did i ever say what i thought she should do.
My only comment about her was related to her apparent attitude in this thread, which i believe showed little willingness to be swayed by opinions contrary to her own.
So when you go to buy a new car, and the salesman tells you that he can give it to you for $25,000 dollars is it untrustworthy not to tell him that you are willing to go up to $27,500?
Like it or not this part of a divorce is a finanical transaction. Just like you don’t owe the salesman at the car the information of how much you will pay, Foxy does not owe her husband one dime more than is required by law and the prenup. If she wishes to give him more, good for her. But not exposing her entire bargining position is in no way unethical or untrustworthy.
mhendo
When you post this
Just about 36 hours after Foxy40 posted
It makes it look like either:
A) You think you know more about separate property, Flordia law, and prenups than Foxy’s lawyer
or
B) You did not read the entire thread.
or
C) You have reading comprehension issues.
Since you insisted that you had read the entire thread, we are left with choice A) or C).
:rolleyes:
How is property divided in Florida?
As a general rule, property acquired during the course of the marriage is divided 50/50 regardless of whose name it’s in… Although the Courts can in an extraordinary case change the percentages. Note that a spouse may well be entitled to 1/2 the value of a business including good will, equipment and accounts receivable etc… (although if the business would no longer generate income if the spouse who works it walks away, then good will may not be a factor)
From here: http://www.divorcenet.com/states/florida/flfaq_01
I don’t know if this can be affected by the pre-nup, but I suspect the the judge is going to take a close look and I would be skeptical of an attorney who gave an absolute answer to how a pre-nup will stand up in court. That site also discusses child support and I would doubt that the court is going to accept some convoluted deal. The site indicates that a child support formula exists and judges can only deviate from the formula by 5%.
The analogy to the negotiation over the price of a car is totally ridiculous.