And you are missing my point. I told the guy to speak to an attorney - he said no you tell me what I want to know. I gave him a brief rundown whatever.
THEN some other dude came back and said I'm not supporting men's rights because I didn't give him free legal advice. I sarcastically replied that slavery bit.
So here we are - I didn't want to explain to him the FUCKING PLETHORA of minutiae of premarital agreements - that I don't even have a license to explain. You forum trolls feel entitled to fucking free advice. My advice is talk to an attorney.
I don't owe you guys shit - let me know if I can explain this shit to you further.
This is why I'll never get married, I already have trust issues, I wouldn't want to imagine the woman I loved for so much strip me of all that I have...especially if there's children involved.
Fuck man why didn’t you get a prenup. This sucks but on a positive note he will need to make money so maybe we finally get that chronic detox album lol.
Think Michael Jordan, dude had nonprenup and ended up with the most expensive divorce in history.
I mean if a spouse was there from the beginning before you had anything. And was part of the rise up, an equal partner, raised kids, etc. Then I have no problem with them getting half of the assets accumulated during marriage. Jordan's wide, Bezos wife all are good examples.
What is bullshit is chick rides in after dude is rich and getting half the shit she had zero part of making.
Uhh maybe for sports. jeff bezos divorce was 35 billion. jordan was 135 million. Exwife of Bezos could buy Every brand he has, and still have enough to be the richest woman. Her Amazon stock bumped up and she is worth 56 billion now. And rupert Murdoch in 1999. Heck THIS divorce is larger than Jordans
Spousal support is 100% bullshit with a cash out of $400 million.
If I were to guess though she's asking for a cut of his businesses she was part of starting and its framing it as spudal support when Tia really royalty payments.
I know really. That’s the shocker of all of it. If you say to a woman that you’d like to get married and all she has to do is sign a prenup contract, and she tells you to fuck off and won’t sign it, is that not a huge red flag for people?? Lol...
Someone that loves you would sign it and not care, not have ulterior motives and refuse to sign it.
But on the other hand what are the odds you are going to turn into a billionaire record producer, and more likely are going to be Mark the mid level manager at Best Buy who brings in $64k a year?
If she makes the same as you, boom - done. no splitting anything really. If she stays at home and raises the kids (a SHIT LOAD of thankless work) so that you can go do what you need to do to advance your career and your life, and without her you probably wouldnt have been able to do it... Who deserves how much money in that case?
What exactly is going to be in your prenup? "Bitch gets nothing in the divorce"? How much is "fair", or "enough" after 25 years of marriage?
Im not making any comment on this particular case btw, just asking for your thoughts on my thoughts.
Right, and most people arent coming into a marriage loaded already.
Even in this case, Im sure Dre was doing quite well for himself at the time, but I bet he has made the majority of his nut since then... 2001 wasnt even out when they got married, then theres his Eminem production credits and 50 cent, not to mention BEATS. World Class Wrecking Crew aint doing shit compared to that.
Yep. but not nearly where he is at today, AKA the prenup he would have had her sign to wall off his pre-marital assets wouldnt have amounted to a hill of beans compared to the last 24 years.
ive got enough proof to get everything in the upcoming divorce with my wife. ive got video evidence of her being abusive, cheating, performing disgusting revenge sex acts to punish me for some perceived slight, her pulling a gun on me on our anniversary, her being absolutely the worst human being to our two sons, AND both my boys are excited to go before a judge and shit all over her.
but im STILL scared i will lose. thats how fucked up divorce court is.
texas. honestly, i want what she has. around valentines of last year she got a new car. at the time i believed her lie when she said it was a gift from her parents and i didnt question it, but ive since learned that one of the men she was fucking on the side gave it to her. shes also been given large amounts of money by men to pay for lawyers to divorce me. her sister let slip at thanksgiving that she owns 3 duplexes that shes been keeping hidden from me all these years. i want those too. she told a really nasty lie about 8 years ago to her parents that i was beating her(never laid a hand on her) and they gave her an unknown amount of money, i want that shit too. basically, all the assets that shes kept hidden from me in preparation for divorcing me, i want. shes done some really awful stuff to try to get this divorce to happen on her terms, like hiring a prostitute(i think) to try to seduce me, hurting herself and trying to get the police to arrest me, trying to convince my sons to say that i molested them as kids... i think im owed a little something for being treated like this all these years.
i want it all. my lawyer thinks i should go for whatever i can. not sure how its going to work, but im going to do what i can. my lawyer is from the same fraternity as me and hes giving me a pretty decent deal. hes also pretty excited because i managed to record a lot of stuff and screenshot/forward a lot of the messages she was sending/receiving.
this is the first time ive written all of this out, and it makes me feel good seeing it. and scared. but still good.
EDIT: its probably a pipe dream, but i also want alimony. i got laid off because of covid, and shes not passed up any opportunity to rub it in my face that she has a large income that she doesnt share with the family. her lying for years saying she only made $35k/yr has left a very sour taste in my mouth, made even worse when i think of all the times we were financially struggling when in reality it was only me and the boys struggling while she was secretly wealthy.
I don’t think you are being unreasonable. If what you said is all true judges don’t like people hiding assets and I think she needs to sharing all the stuff she has been hiding. No way a judge would let the man just not declares cars and gifted money as non-marital assets.
there so much. shes told me straight to my face that she was waiting for me to cheat on her in revenge... of her cheating on me... so that she could take me to court... i never cheated, not even flirted with another girl. ive tried dating now that shes out of the house and this divorce is actually happening, but everything is very different than how it was 20 years ago...
im so sick of her insanity. i cant even believe i once loved her.
Prenup doesn’t matter much at all of you make your money after getting married. Especially if it’s a community property state, then it really doesn’t matter.
I really feel like the true men’s rights issue isn’t what happens in a divorce, per se. After all, it’s a contract knowingly and willingly agreed to. Ignorance of the ramifications isn’t much of an excuse, and it’s absolutely no excuse at all for the wealthy.
The real issue is the lack of alternative arrangements to marriage, particularly if children are involved and parental rights are important. Fact is, if you want to have kids and protect your rights to them as a man but also protect your financial assets...well...pick one.
THIS! You also get fucked should you have kids while married but they aren't yours. I can't fathom the stress that must be involved in this. It isn't fucking okay. I pushed for a prenup between myself (woman) and my husband because I like to assume we'll be together forever but I have no fucking clue. It isn't okay that you cannot fully protect yourself and your assets without also having rights to your own god damn children.
However I'm also a firm believer in men being able to terminate their parental rights if they don't want kids. If a woman can decide she wants an abortion without the man's input (I do believe in this but it's a gray area for me) then men should be able to say they don't want the kid and then not have to pay fucking child support. Why don't men get the option? And why can't all kids be paternity tested?!
Sorry about my rant. I'm angry about our current culture and how okay it is to shit on men.
Even if it includes this? My husband chose an amazingly profitable career and my degree has me mostly working for non-profits who love to help others but think minimum wage is too good for their workers. I pushed for a prenup and I'm pretty sure it covers his ass for the money he makes during marriage. Am I wrong??
Depends on your state, most importantly, but prenups are tricky for things. They always have to be reasonable in the eyes of the court or risk being thrown out. Which basically means a spouse has to get a healthy chunk of things. So if you’re a lesser-earning spouse, the higher earning spouse can’t just entirely carve you out. And generally you’d need to get more over time. A spouse married for 2 years carved out of some income might be more ok than one married for 30 years, so prenups need to plan for that.
You may have luck in a prenup placing non-50/50 limits on newly gained income, but in states that do go for that, things could still fall into community property if things change substantially from how they were pre-prenup, like a majorly more lucrative career shift, or say starting a new business and both spouses help out. Or even a spouse becoming more involved in the current career. Like say the earning spouse is a big law firm partner and they bring their spouse around to meet clients. Now they’re both working, essentially, even if slightly, and what was a separate asset may be marital.
It really really depends on the state, though. It’s just worth keeping in mind that prenups are not like your average contract. Judges will not just sit back and go along with what the prenup says if they feel it’s inequitable. And arguments for how separate property during a marriage might have been commingled are compelling to make.
And ultimately let’s not forget that the most important factor in how a divorce goes isn’t the prenup, it’s the attitude of the spouses. Separate property doesn’t matter if either spouse wants to fight a fight, because they can just drain the accounts in the fight. If you are a fair and reasonable person, you can have a fair and reasonable divorce. There is nothing preventing and uncontested divorce in a childless marriage even with lots of assets. The prenup would save you spouse a lot less money than you deciding you think the prenup is fair and abiding by it and not even involving lawyers for more than a few hours.
The adversarial legal system in divorce law is a genuine cancer. Divorces do not need to be adversarial, they can be collaborative. But the slightest things set either spouse off and suddenly they’re both poorer because of it.
What you said makes sense. It's frustrating because I love him and I like to think nothing could ever cause me to be vindictive but I have no idea what the future holds. And it goes both ways, I came into the marriage with a good bit of jewelry and other items worth good money and he has made the same comments about never being able to imagine a time where he would want to be vindictive, but we don't know the future.
That's why I wanted a prenup, to protect the man I love, even from me. I wish it was as simple as just reading the prenup because I am the one who chose my career path just like he chose his; he shouldn't be penalized for that. I hope we never divorce but if we do, he deserves everything he worked so hard for.
I have the same aspirations as you, although my wife and I are co-owners of a business, so we're very much 50/50, and being co-owners like that tends to only make divorces worse!
But like I said, it really, really all boils down to attitude and approach. If there is, say, a one million dollar pot of money, and a prenup has split it let's say 80/20. $800k to spouse 1, $200k to spouse 2. Well maybe the spouse with less wants to get more. So they both hire divorce attorneys. Maybe it goes on for a year or two, which is un fun, and very expensive.
At the end of the day, the attorneys could end up eating $100k or $200k, easily. I've seen much higher. So let's say $200k. Now the pot is $800k. So the 80/20 split would be $640k for 1, $160k for 2. If spouse 2 loses, they're poorer for it. If they win, maybe they get a 60/40 split, so spouse 1 has $480k, spouse 2 has $320k. A win for spouse 2, obviously, but at a significant cost. And in many divorces, things become "win at any cost".
That's in the event of a pretty big difference in splits, though. If it started out as 60/40, and spouse 2 wanted 50/50, it's basically guaranteed they will walk away with less money if they hire an attorney and fight. And of course sometimes the spouse with more money decides they want it all and you have no choice to fight. But we as a society would be much better served by diplomacy, not military action, in divorces. Most of the western world spends a lot, lot less on a divorce.
My lady worked for an appliance company that serviced Dr. Dre's house when it was needed. The technician for the company said his wife was an absolute monster to deal with. Quite the spoiled brat apparently.
Alimony in some very rare cases makes sense: where the spouse helped their partner reach success which will bring in a lot of money, but the two don't have many marital assets. In my opinion, this makes sense: a spouse can be instrumental in enabling someone to achieve success, and will often make sacrifices to their own ability to achieve success independently.
But she's getting 400m. Her input is very arguably not worth that, but fine, split their assets, whatever. But her input is not worth 50% of assets plus alimony. She is not who alimony was designed for. She is absolutely asking for a big handout.
Half of assets isn't a handout, but spousal support on top of $400m is a handout. If she wants a divorce, no biggie. Take her half and move on. There's no reason why he should have to continue to pay for her after that point though.
if she doesn't work? make him support her untill she finds a job. that's how it should be.
more realistically? she should get no more then 1mil. she's probably hardly worked her entire life and that's plenty for her to continue doing so as long as she lives a normal life.
Dude my guess is that you have no idea what is to have a couple, one side or the other.
Share fare is ok, getting 200 millions for licking or sucking some genitalia is not ok and never will be.
Divorce laws in most western countries come from when the woman could not work. They have to be updated.
For all this shit given to Australia (my country) about its laws. The one thing we got right is spousal support. A judge has a cap on how long they can give spousal support here and how much it is allowed to be based on that years tax return.
For those that don't know a judge (magistrate) under very limited circumstances (spouse has not worked in years and has no education, and it is a very uphill battle to prove you need that support) can give spousal support for a maximum of 2 years of a maximum amount of 25% of monthly net earnings to aid in payment of schooling and aid in acquiring work.
However there is an exception that if assets are to be split and it exceeds the amount of the 25% for 2 years (for the avg high middle class person it is 50k threshold that is equal to 25% for 2 years). Spousal support cannot be granted. In essence the whole get 50% of the assets in cash and spousal support is not possible. As all real estate value is way above half what the avg person makes over 2 years.
If i recall there is also another exception that the person is illegible if the amount they receive from assets is over 100k.
Literally nobody says that she can't. Should she get nothing and be forced to go use her 20 years career gap to get an entry level McDonalds job while he keeps the 800 million? That's absurd. Marriages are a partnership, he went out and earned the money while she raised the kids. She sacrificed her own career to support him and have a family. She obviously deserves some payment. 400 million plus support? No, that's ridiculous. But saying she shouldn't get anything and should go get a job and start from scratch is equally ridiculous.
If we are talking about need, why don't we take away all of Dr. Dre's money and donate it to charity? Leave him with 2 mil as well.
It's not about what someone needs to live a decent life. It's about what they deserve, and what they've earned. Marriage is a union. No partner is more or less equal than the other. When women argue they deserve the children because they've spent the time to raise them, men's financial contribution goes completely ignored. When men argue that they deserve all the money since they spent the time at work to raise it, women's familial contribution goes ignored. The money he earned was earned while in an equal partnership with his wife. She deserves half.
I will argue all day and night that a woman who marries an already rich man doesn't deserve a penny of what he earned before they were married. Anything earned after the marriage should be split 50/50. What is disgusting about this particular case is that half of their wealth plus support is obviously greater than half.
Was with you till the end. The reason I agree with the support is because if they stayed married she would benefit from any money he continues to make. No one should ever be put in a situation where they feel like they have to stay married to not lose money or change their lifestyle. She didn't just lose the money she could have earned while they were together, she lost the years of career building she could have gained during that time that would have allowed her to make money.
And I don't think this is even a men's rights issue, because it should go both ways. Even though men don't have the issue of taking time from career to take care of kids as often, if one spouse is making more money, then the other spouse doesn't need to and so may choose a lesser paying job because they can. What is a men's rights issue is jurisdictions where it doesn't go both ways equally. That is wrong and should be rectified.
Don Corleone, I am honored and grateful that you have invited me on the day of your daughter's wedding. And I hope their first child be a masculine child. I pledge my ever-ending loyalty.
She’s asking for this, a judge hasn’t agreed yet. But with no prenup she’ll likely get half the assets-especially in CA-but the judge would have to be insane to grant support on top of that, especially with no children (who aren’t adults)
Don't prenups also only cover your wealth prior to the marriage, not anything you earned while married? Not to mention them often getting thrown out in court anyway.
Premarital agreements can be 100s of pages long. Most of the time, someone is either 1. obscenely more affluent than the other, or 2. an asshole. OR BOTH.
​
sometimes premarital agreements protect both parties equally.
The first thing a good divorce attorney will try to do in a divorce will be to invalidate it. Make sure it's written by a great attorney and both parties have access to counsel before signing.
Even with a prenup - marriage is still a pretty big risk.
I do not have A prenup. I draft premarital agreements for a living. I cannot distill the intricacies of premarital agreements in a post, and I'm not going to do it for free. (I charge clients 155 an hour) Start with the laws in your state and see if a prenuptial/premarital agreement is right for you. Make sure that both parties are represented by counsel at the time of drafting and consideration. Make sure the less monied spouse has time to consider the agreement prior to the wedding. (You cant have them sign it that morning.)
Lol I agree with w everything you have said, but slavery lmao.
Literally lmao. You are not his slave doing slave labour. He asked a questioned, which you politely declined with a small answer about local laws. Which is fine. But you gave your own opinion on a public social media site which allows people to reply to you etc. You didnt have to say shit. It is not slavery. Lol.
Just because someone works for free does not make it slavery either. Volunteer work is often free. I do free work for my Grandpa on his farm when I visit because it's the right thing to do. Not slavery. Now maybe when you did your graduate degree were you slaved away by higher ups but even that is not slavery.
I only say this because during the times our country is in, we should take serious what we say. You commenting on some forum pretty much for free, and giving your advice when you could easily have not, is not slavery and you shouldn't even mix the two up. If you are a lawyer I would have thought you would think of a better way to phrase it.
slavery is working for food and shelter, and is very often encountered today in the states. helping someone for free is doing God's work. but then again, we have long forsaken Him
i hate to be this guy ... but .. i have bachelor degree in English literature .. its useless and im not using it in my practical life but i do have it nonetheless ... i type like that on purpose .. so i trigger small brain boomers
No, this is not 100% true. There are circumstances dealing with kids that can invalidate a prenup, but as long as the prenup addresses circumstances involving children and doesn't violate any existing laws, it is perfectly legal and should hold up in court.
What options do men here have? I've heard so many stories of men getting screwed over that I'm genuinely scared. Especially now that I'm approaching "marriageability"
None , it’s a fucking huge business out there. There are no laws to protect men and to add the system is so corrupted that cops will register any case the girl asks without any evidence cause once the case gets registered there is a line of people who you have to pay to stop harassing you or putting you in jail.
While helping out my brother with his case, I realised that the amount of divorce cases are almost above 50% in the court and all have same story. Even the judges and lawyers know which stories are true and which are false , but they follow a set of system to make sure they get paid with the case ending in a settlement ultimately. And there is nothing you can do about it.
So to avoid this nonsense your best option is to get a career in police force or become a lawyer.
Do not get married. Not even live in. Get surrogacy when wanting children.
I personally lost 25L and 5 precious years of life. My 3 more cousin after me are paying price. One is paying Monthly maintenance, another paid 10L, other brother getting screwed for a Flat in Pune which costs around 50L minimum
My home is in Pune. All of my cousins are getting married, and when I'm a little older my parents will get me to marry too. I haven't told them about my girlfriend yet because they probably won't approve of having a relationship. Could you give me advice on what to do?
Don't worry there will be moments in your life that you had found the one, and in no time your biology would force different decisions on you. Be careful
Roughly 50% of first marriages end in divorce and the % grows staggeringly with every extra marriage after that. There is absolutely no reason for people to not get a prenup before marriage. Divorces are stacked against men horrifically so you'd be a fool to not at least try and protect yourself with a prenup (though they may not be withheld).
No doubt this kind of nonsense will just lead to a decline in marriages as fewer men see the point in sticking their neck out on the line for little return.
You hit one of my pet peeves, not understanding logic, statistics and math.
The original 50% was determined by dividing the number of marriages in a year by divorces, but very few of those couples got married and divorce in the same year.
The CDC data shows that in 2018 there was almost 2.75 (2.727) marriages that year for every divorce.
Demographers say there was increased focus on divorce rates during the 1970s when the number of divorces rose, partly as a result of no-fault divorce. Divorces peaked in 1979 and articles started appearing that claimed 50 percent of American marriages were ending in divorce.
A spokesperson for the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics told me that the rumor appears to have originated from a misreading of the facts. It was true, he said, if you looked at all the marriages and divorces within a single year, you’d find that there were twice as many marriages as divorces. In 1981, for example, there were 2.4 million marriages and 1.2 million divorces. At first glance, that would seem like a 50-percent divorce rate.
Virtually none of those divorces were among the people who had married during that year, however, and the statistic failed to take into account the 54 million marriages that already existed, the majority of which would not see divorce.^1
I'll correct that for you...Divorces are stacked against the higher earner and/or the person who spends less hours with the kid. Tons of women get fucked over too because they're the bread winner.
In the vast majority of cases, it's the woman who gets custody of the kids. Whilst women do get fucked over sometimes, it's by far and large the men who do
Yeah I don't have stats but essentially courts tend to leave kids with the parent they're currently with. The primary breadwinner also generally is the man. It's also fair to say that often it's the primary bread winner (man) who moves on when the divorce is pending often leaving the kids with the mom. Honestly the best legal advice I've gotten on this is to keep your dick in your pants until the divorce is final and under no circumstances vacate your home even if you have to sleep on the couch. When the day in court comes you want to be able to argue that removing you from your kid's lives is detrimental to them. That argument is tough when you're already only seeing them on weekends and living with your par amor
The worst part is that courts are made to steal your shit, so they'll eat it up, there's no justice, there is the guy and his juicy bank account which will be devastated by this. Thats why marriage isn't appealing to men anymore, at least not smart men, who would want to live this fucking nightmare?!
I see comments about prenups but no one is talking about how important WHO you marry is. Dr. Dre stole his ex from her first husband. How you get them is how you lose them. That is a horrible way to start a relationship.
Marry someone with similar financial attitudes as you. Marry someone who is a partner to you. Don’t marry just because you love someone. If you marry a woman who views money the same way as you and you water your relationship you won’t be getting a divorce.
Divorce just heightens traits that people always had. She was vindictive before the divorce. She was petty before the divorce. She was argumentative before the divorce. When people show you who they are the FIRST time believe them. Don’t marry someone who shows you traits that could lead to a shitty divorce. Men who marry without a plan are the one’s who end up losing half + spousal support. Men who marry for more than love and are equally yoked don’t have this issue.
This one time... I had an internship which was supposed to enable me to talk to A TON of real men about their issues, men who make between about 40 and 60k a year and want legal support from a nonprofit.
and, uh...a lot of them were just kind of, well, unjustifiably winy.
Also, they don't make anything near what Dr. Dre makes.
Let’s just imagine she will get 400 million and „survive“ another 50 years. She could spend 20k every single day for 50 years and still have around 40 million left at the end.
You don’t have to get married to be in a healthy functional relationship. All marriage does is open up the breadwinner to what amounts to blackmail and paying a grown adult an allowance. Marriage is a scam
We are all entitled to our perceptions and opinions, but I do not see things the same way as you do.
Marriages can be both great and devastating to the people involved. That's not because of the functions of a marriage, it's because of the people involved.
The functions of ending marriages is completely fucked up. Not marriage itself per se. but you don’t need a piece of paper from the government to be married. That’s only effective in screwing someone in a divorce
Me and my wife got married on the beach with cheap metal rings and a bunch of ribs being cooked for a total of $200, not that expensive if you don't want it to be, we could have made it cheaper.
Then whoever you're with isn't the right person. There are women out there that don't want a big wedding or an expensive ring. I signed a piece of paper in a coffee shop and no ring at all. Putting all women in the same category doesn't do anyone any favors. Be up front with expectations and communicate. I agree weddings are a sham but I also respect other people have different dreams and I'm ok not sharing in those dreams.
Me and my wife see eachother as equals and take equal responsibility, if anyone had an issue with that we would have thrown them out of the wedding ceremony.
You probably just want that to be true because your relationship didn't work out the way you wanted, there aren't many other reasons to hop on someone who is simply stating they have a happy relationship. Either way that's disrespectful and I would think twice before saying that face to face to someone.
Eh, not really. You do get some incentives for doing certain things as a married couple. Like tax breaks, automatic inheritance for your children, etc.
Why should you need to be married for those things to apply? That doesn’t make sense to me. It’s the govt fucking around in people’s personal relationships and I don’t like it. That’s just me
Children born from unmarried couples don't automatically qualify for inheritance of anything. You have to go to the trouble of going to court for that.
Some countries have laws that give married couples tax breaks for the number of dependents they have.
Marital Tax Deduction.
Joint Filing of Taxes.
There are health insurance benefits that can be availed only if you're married.
There's a lot you can't do if you don't marry. Do these outweigh the risks of getting married? I don't know and it's not exactly my goal to prove it. I'm only here to contest the notion that " All marriage does is open up the breadwinner to what amounts to blackmail".
That’s my point. None of those things should be dependent on you getting a piece of paper from the govt. you should just go to the govt and get a piece of paper for individual shit. Have a kid? Go get that inheritance paper. In a committed relationship? Go get the health insurance paper. This all encompassing piece of marital paper that offers all these benefits is outrageously intrusive by the govt.
You don't get it. You get all these AUTOMATICALLY after getting married. Without marriage, you have to prove everything you claim here to qualify for all these things. You can go through all the trouble of proving that instead of just getting married, and that's up to you.
You want me to take all the immensely varying human emotions, manners, culture, upbringing, etc., assign a numerical value to it, use it to calculate the likelihood that a marriage will fail, weigh the risk over benefits, and give you a solid figure? LOL!
I've been posting on this sub for quite a while because I support our rights, but saying that marriage is a waste of time and nothing but a trap for the breadwinner, which you think is you because they are often men, because there's women involved is pretty much issuing a blanket statement against them while totally disregarding the individual.
That's what feminists do and not what we stand for.
The benefits are there to promote the most effective way to secure a future for the country, ie an intact family unit with two adult role models. I know you've all read those posts about how kids turn out better adults with a father figure involved, it's actually better to have BOTH parents present. Being legally bound together means you all have documentation, which makes it easier to prove who you are, therefore less paperwork, therefore less man hours to process you when you need to avail some government services, meaning less cost, meaning less taxpayer's money.
If you hate the system so much, then just don't get married.
She made the big personal sacrifice to divorce her basketballer husband of 3 years to get with Dre. Her ex husband mustn't have been supporting the lifestyle she wanted
Depends. I don't live in a HCOL state by any means but it's fair to say that if your combined income is less than 70k before taxes, it's better for one person to stay home until the kids can go to free school because of the cost of child care. If you have two kids you can easily end up making an exotic car payment a month for full time day care. The parent who leaves the work force will have a harder time going back so alimony for a short period of time makes sense in that case.
Alimony for a SHORT time (four years, tops, i.e., the length of a college degree) may be justified. Also, after the kids enter school, there is simply no excuse to not get back into the work force. Additionally - if alimony was rehabilitative, not an entitlement - women would take steps to have productive careers which is better for them and society.
Make sure they have the life they are used to but the other spouse has to live in less even though they are the one that worked.
I like Texas solution, there is a maximum amount period and there is a maximum time frame period. Yeah if you were a housewife for ten years it can take a few years to get back into the work force with a decent pay, but with $400,000,000 you can have a decent pay just on interest alone, shit 0.1% would yield 400,000 a year. No spousal support is needed whatsoever.
I agree with you that alimony is archaic. She is ASKING for spousal support, probably because she doesn't have access to funds at this time.
It's complex to explain but that is her initial pleading with the court. Of course her attys are asking for a home run, because it's a negotiating position. Most of divorce pleadings are boilerplate and with a case like that the attys are just trying to bill my friend.
I expect their divorce will end up amicably. They will settle without mud flying in the papers.
I have had cases with the woman being the monied spouse - there is a reason they don't get alimony. You don't get to be a trophy husband get fat and drunk and expect to get severance pay.
Sorry I am not reinforcing your paradigm. I imagine you do not work in family law or law in general. Maybe you've been divorced, that some good anecdotal evidence.
Check your wiki sources first. you cant count worldwide lightening strikes and then limit the alimony number to us solely.
Then, your forbes article says that about 12,000 men are receiving alimony. As you know, most cases do not go to trial (\~80%) the are settled between the parties.
SO, isn't it men themselves that don't want alimony as they agree to the terms of the divorce?? Wouldn't you want the money upfront lump sum?
I think your little victimhood complex is blurring your vision bruh
Why? Dude is still worth $400 million even if she gets what she wants. It's not like the fucker gonna be working 3 minimum wage jobs to pay her. Dude is still a half billionaire
$400M is reasonable. She was his partner while THEY amassed that wealth. Spousal support is absurd, as she's no longer his spouse and has plenty of resources at her disposal.
Im sorry but no. Who worked for it? % Divided should be by the amount each person contributed to the relationship. If he amassed more wealth than her why should he give up his hard earned money when in this day and age where a woman can accumulate the same, be entitled to his? Its her fault she didnt earn the same amount there is no excuse. Especially if the results are in the millions, why in tf she needs spousal support after that? Nobody is entitled to the other person’s lifestyle. You want it? Work for it. Equality right?
That's not how it works. You're in a partnership, equally. His risk is hers and vice versa. Oprah's husband is entitled to 1/2 her earnings if they were to be separated as well.
Gotta love this shit. You have to believe everything they say in court; and they can do absolutely nothing with their lives except marry a rich guy and end up a multimillionaire. Fuckin broads
Came here to remind everyone, he is a piece of shit. His history of beating women is quickly forgotten somehow. Doesnt have anything to do with his divorce....? But I have little sympathy for him.
“I’ve been talking about my abuse for many, many years, but it has not gotten any ears until now,” said Michel’le, who was romantically involved with Dr. Dre from the late-’80s until the mid-’90s. (They have an adult son.)
During that time, she said, he was often physically abusive, hitting her with a closed fist and leaving “black eyes, a cracked rib and scars.” Michel’le said she never pressed charges because, “We don’t get that kind of education in my culture.”
Also, from the same article. "Tairrie B, a.k.a Tairrie B. Murphy, said that Dr. Dre punched her twice in the face at a Grammys after-party in 1990 after she recorded a track insulting him."
Im a guy getting down voted for reminding people of his bullshit and abuse. Don't become like the blind sheep feminists we dislike. If we use guys like this to prove our point, our arguments will be easily dismantled.
If I was Dre, I'd be buying an expensive house in a country that doesn't extradite. Then I'd buy a big lawn ornament that looks like a middle finger when viewed from space.
Uhm, we're missing a lot of context here. And the genders don't really matter.
Sure, it may be quite - even grossly - unfair, and discrimination based on sex.
Or it may not be at all. We lack lots of relevant information.
E.g., what jurisdiction? US? And if so, community property state? And yes, as stated, no prenup.
So, matters not the genders, let's call 'em A, and B.
Let's presume US and community property state, and as sated, no prenup.
So, in such case, most all that's acquired since the marriage equally belongs to each, 50/50 ... there are some exceptions, e.g. like typically family inheritance.
Let's say both were flat broke, but neither in debt, before marriage.
Let's say one (A) does the work/career thing, and B, mutually agreed by both of them, becomes a stay-at-home-parent, fully taking primary responsibility for raising and caretaking of the kids ... and lets say, for sake of argument, also fully taking on homeschooling of the kids, and to reasonably do all that, foregoes any and all career advancement, further related training/education, etc. - basically forefits all that to focus on the kids - B does that, while A keeps on career track and rakes in the money and savings, etc.
Okay, so, they get divorced.
A's earned tons - all the money. B has earned nothing. However B, and mutually agreed - or even at A's request, gave up all career aspirations to be stay-at-home-parent and home school the kids ... so, 24 years later, they divorce. Now, B is at exceeding disadvantage to (re)enter workforce, having for 24 years been out of it and not pursued such. E.g. in most regards, less able to jump into work force than a fresh college grad with about zero workforce experience ... about as employable as a high school grad +- a bit (about 24+ years older, but also some life experience). Whereas A continues raking in the dough on career track. So, them both entering into this knowing full well it was community property state, and both opting to do so and with no prenup at all, what sounds fair, equitable, and legal to you? Should it not, in such community property state - and without prenup, be that was earned/gained while they were married belongs 50/50 to each? And B sacrificing completely career, to raise kids and such, and perhaps even very much so at A's request. So A still has huge earning potential, whereas B hardly at all. And, by most states, is considered "long term marriage" (more than 10 years) - with that + community property state, future earnings of each, retirement, etc., will generally get split 50/50 (or semi-close to that). Might not sound great, but is that not fair - especially for the expectations of community property state, no pre-nup, and long-term marriage?
So, assign genders: A-M, B-F, ... then flip 'em around: A-F, B-M. If you haven't come up with the same result and recommendation regardless of which way you assign the genders (or heck, could be MM, or FF - whatever), then you've not done it correctly and fairly.
Now, whether or not community property states ought exist and handle things like that, and likewise for long-term marriage and so handling - that's a separate question/debate.
But regardless which way one sets/flips the genders, things should work out the same relative to roles and such, not genders - otherwise you're doing it wrong.
Note also that other jurisdictions are not community property states, and don't handle long-term marriages like that - may handle them very much like short-term marriages - even very short. And, what does one think would be fair if our hypothetical A and B were under such a system? And regardless of which way the genders were assigned?
He, stay-at-home-dad, gave up everything for 24 years to take care of the kids, earned nothing, passed up all career opportunities at the request of the wife, to take care of and raise and home school the kids. Meanwhile she raked in the dough and is a huge breadwinner. And he, can't do better employment-wise than about a fresh high-school grad - and has sacrificed all manner of career opportunity and potential to take care of the kids, etc. at her request. And they both much agreed no prenup, and community property state - all that's earned by each is owned 50/50, and long-term marriage, that should they split, that each would not only be entitled to assets 50/50, but likewise future earnings, and retirement. So, you're saying under such circumstances, he shouldn't be entitled to half of assets and half of earnings and retirement? What if her assets/savings were only $5,000.00 USD 'cause they both spent most all of it, but she earns, let's not say millions, but pulls in $300,000.00 USD per year in income on average. He should not get half of that? He should have to work at McDonalds or the like to try and survive, 'cause he's been out of the workforce for 24 years, and has nothing but a high school diploma, having sacrificed all to raise and home school the kids, at the request of the wife, and their agreement that they'd split all future earnings and retirement? 'Cause getting married in a community property state, and long term marriage, and no prenup, that's what they both agreed to - if not explicitly, at least implicitly. Oh, and not only no prenup, but presumably, all 24 years together and never did a postnup either ... so they not only agreed at marriage, but for the 24 subsequent years.
In terms of spousal support it is completely unfair. 50/50 assets and paychecks means that person A (the worker) has to continue working a very difficult job while person B (the stay at home person) Gets to relax for essentially the rest of their life and get a free. Half of all assets should buy person B enough time to get housing and a job and have a little left over for retirement. (Assuming person B saves a percent of their paycheck they should be okay for retirement.)
What if person A doesn't have to do diddly to earn all that income? Maybe they've got it all in a bunch of investments? Or even if they're working to "earn" it, maybe they don't even have to put in anything close to 40 hrs. per week to pull in all that income. And what if the best B can manage is at/near minimum wage jobs - that hardly/barely covers a roof over one's head and essential expenses, let alone allowing for retirement savings ... at least beyond what Social Security would provide.
But I will agree, though, if B can get half of A's (comparatively huge) income, without working at all (and A half of B's meager income, if working full time minimum wage), then yes, true, B has negligible incentive to work - e.g. whether they work like a dog, or not at all, their net resultant income (including alimony / spousal support / etc.) would be about the same. Is that "unfair", or a quirk of the system. How 'bout a settlement order, such that each hour that A and B works, goes into a combined pool, And each gets from that pool, in proportion to the hours they work? (and presuming empty nesters and kits mostly or entirely out of the support equation - or the supporting of the kids and custody and such is split evenly). Arguable perhaps if that would be "fair", but ... would it be closer to fair?
So, person A is banking $300k a year while paying out $2,500 to person B. Yeah, that’s totally enough money to try to support yourself while trying to get trained to enter the workforce at 50.
Person B sacrificed their future earning potential to be a stay at home parent and homemaker. You have recent college grads that can’t find jobs and you think a 50ish year old with no prior work experience is going to pull in any decent paying job?
It can also be argued that person A has a high paying job because person B was a stay at home parent. That’s why it’s not black and white.
The point the original poster made was that someone could have a good salary but next to no assets so saying that the SAH spouse only gets half of the assets is unfair. SAH spouse has effectively given up any and all prospects of a decent career after being out of the workforce for 24 years and the work spouse gets all the money because their job is outside the home.
Technically she should get half but cmon there should be cap how much you can get paid by divorcing the right person lowkey i think around 50 mill should be good
Another lazy bitch who wants to be handed shit in life because she’s incapable of getting it on her own. Shooooooooocker. No lazy bitch should be able to have kids.
If I understand correctly, $400 Million is a one time thing, spousal support is monthly until it ends.
If he's worth $800 Million, she may be entitled to half. One issue is what is he actually worth. Things like appraisal on house(s), savings, investments (IIRC, counted at 70%), taxable income, and so forth would determine all that.
"I told that ex-bitch to get the fuck out when ya done. But then she took me to court for a shit ton. That's why I'm back in the studio making tracks and busting beats...for you to bump out on the street.
You don't pay a hoe for services you pay her to go away. Little did I know she got me for 400 million when she left the other day..."
I have a prenup. Some advice given to me by my attorney was, have the other person find their own attorney and pay out of their pocket when going over the prenup. That way they can't say they didnt have proper representation.
I met him a long time ago when I was working at Toys 'R' Us. He was getting a present for a friend's kid and he cared so much about it, it was genuinely heart warming. Most people that came in grabbed the first toy they saw and called it a day but he gave great detail about their likes and interests. I had no idea who he was at the time and my co-workers swarmed me after he left. Seriously amazing man who deserves better.
God damn all men deserve better. This is bullshit and only seems to be problematic for the public when women have to pay. How odd...
I'm dumb, I used the word "with" and not the word "without".
I don't understand why signing a prenup requires two parties. It seems counter-intuitive that one party can't solely determine that what's their's belongs to them.
If she is getting 400 million, why the fuck does she need fucking spousal support? Why the fuck isn't 400 million enough? Take your 400 million and move on you greedy bitch.
You split joint assets 50/50. That's it you're done. This isn't 1950, men and women can both work. If you've grown accustomed to a lifestyle figure out how to finance it or learn how to live a new lifestyle. Alimony is outdated. (Small caveat) If a spouse gave up a career or education to stay home and take care of household matters alimony for no more than 4 years and no more than what welfare would pay. If the government says that a living wage for someone not working than its good enough for this application.
Child support goes into an escrow account so the spouse paying it can see where it goes. (no money towards items or services benefitting the other spouse.) Anything outside of basic needs is split 50/50 (sports, clubs, events etc.)
If a spouse gave up a career or education to stay home and take care of household matters alimony for no more than 4 years and no more than what welfare would pay.
My thought is it should last the length of the divorce, but be reduced by one part per year. So for instance if they were married four years, and it is set at $1000 a month, the second year it becomes $750, the third $500, the fourth $250, and then $0.
On welfare, that is pretty broad area, can be worth tens of thousands per year. For instance, I have about $40k in student debt, but am disabled, and on an IBR. Between SSI, Section 8, IBR, and $8 in food stamps, I figure I'm getting about $3K a month, and i'm not sure how to calculate medicaid.
Child support goes into an escrow account so the spouse paying it can see where it goes.
IANAL, but i think there's some fourth amendment issues there.
(no money towards items or services benefitting the other spouse.)
What about a car the child is transported in, or a house they live in? The fact the parent may also benefit does not make it a bad choice.
Think of it this way. He knew she would ask for half, and he was so tired of her it was worth the legal fight and potentially half of his money to get rid of her.
Child support is pretty understandable, spousal support not so much. But it's pretty obvious she is being extremely rapacious and she wants to drain out of him as much money as she can. It's a dick move... hopefully there is smth that can be done about it
First, Andre "Dr. Dre" Young, has no monetary value on his worth.
This man has done so much for American music, and music industry in general there is no way to repay him. He has changed his industry more then once in his own life time.
No matter what, this is impressive, he earned whatever 800 million dollars he had, sorry she didn't. She isn't owed a dime.
Dre should get better than this, all men should get better then this, and we are thought of as "hate mongers" for talking reality.
I am sorry, but I can't tell you her name, I don't know it, I don't care, she did not change the way her profession is run, not once, but Twice in a few decades. I am all about saying a spouse can support their other half, but there is a point where that support is just a cheerleader when someone is on that level.
sadly, no march, no political figures will demand justice for Dre. And people will just sit back and watch, some powerless as we see this Artist robbed in front of us just like Paul McCartney was years ago.
You're right Not every guy is worth $400 million, even though Dr Dre is worth $800 million but he's going to go down to four hundred But my point being is I hate when everyone gets so uptight about these god damn celebrity divorces, like anyone of us is going to see any of that paper? Please.
I personally think child support makes sense (for either man or woman) if one parent has more custody but wtf is spousal support?? Especially if she already has that much money
Thank you, really. There's been a trend here where we're getting some extremists, including far-right trolls and misogynistic assholes. If it wasn't for you mods, this place would likely have become a cesspit already. I don't mind (or well, I do but I can stand it) being accused of misogyny because I support MRA. As long as I know it's not true, I can be at ease. But I couldn't support MRA if it got taken over by sexist assholes. I believe in true equality, and just because women have historically had it rough, or that their issues are perceived as more important, doesn't mean we can't solve both of our problems. Even I can worry about multiple issues at the same time, and I have ADHD, it won't kill someone that really cares about equality to worry about men's issues too.
What I don't want is this subreddit, and, by extension, our movement, to become a home for sexism and hateful views, which it currently isn't. We won't achieve anything with hate and confrontation. This movement is already at a disadvantage because it's not socially aceptable in most circles to support it, let's not validate their criticism. We aren't against feminism. Maybe extremist feminism (third wave? that was the most recent a while ago, but maybe they've moved past that). While they aren't willing to compromise and work together currently, the only chance of achieving that we have depends on how we approach the issues. For better or worse, they have a huge platform, which we lack. If they can move past an "us vs them" mentality, or at least realize that "them" should be sexist assholes, not men or MRA's, both feminism and MRA will benefit (though admittedly we stand to gain more, it isn't a zero sum game).
Having to constantly justify ourselves doesn't help, either. When our existence (as MRAs) is constantly criticized, sometimes this sub has to provide some of the many outrageous examples of why we're necessary. This is a double-edged blade, though, because outraged people are more prone to hate and hateful views. Especially outraged people whose outrage is not getting validated. I'm not excusing misogynysts, it's everyone's responsibility to be vigilant and not fall "to the Dark Side", so to speak. But we need to work together to change the system to a fair one. It's clear most feminists aren't interested in associating with MRA. The solution to this isn't throwing a tantrum and achieving nothing. We have to offer our hands to them.
Feminism, as a movement, has so much social standing that it's basically unstoppable, regardless of how its contents change. Polarizing more the issues will only work against us. Not to mention that, even if it could be stopped, that's never the best case scenario, nor a good one. Their hardships are also relevant, and though great improvements have been done, we're not quite there yet. Any sensible person will be a feminist and a MRA, though not in its most extreme variances (and don't hit me with enlightened centrism, because, at its core, equal rights for both men and women is not, or should not be a political issue, and not something that's at odds with each other).
Well, I started by wanting to thank him because his actions prevent an issue I care about, started explaining the issue, and got carried away. I tend to overexplain myself, sort of anticipating the answers I would receive if I didn't specify certain things. Sorry for the rant.
Maybe my language is wrong? But when you get married you agree to certain conditions. Including shared assets. California uses community property. If they were $800 million in debt she would get half of that too.
Lol ok. Good luck telling a judge that. Money earned during a marriage is shared assets. Could Dre have made that 800 million without his wife? Maybe, but he didn't, so it's half hers.
Honestly, given that Dr. Dre lives in CA (community property state) and got married in 1996, a prenup may not have done much.
In a community property state, every penny earned during the marriage is 50/50 by law. Now, obviously Dre had success before 1996, and he could absolutely have put that money in a separate account. But any new money he was making post-marriage would be 50/50. And he wouldn’t be able to commingle the pre-marriage money at all. If he did, poof, it’s all community property.
A quick glance at Wikipedia suggests that his ventures may have had some financial troubles and that things really took off in 1999 with Eminem. And then of course later Dre got into some real money with Beats.
So I suspect that regardless of what steps he took pre-marriage, the bulk of his wealth is half his wife’s anyway.
You can’t just write up a prenup that says something like “I fully own all the work I do in music and all anything I invest the proceeds in” and that’s that. It’s one thing with investment accounts, but it’s another with the product of labor.
This is all very simplified because we don’t know the details but the jist is that in the simplest terms a spouse owns 50% of everything moving forward, so if you made the bulk of your money after the marriage, a prenup hardly matters unless you keep your money very, very separate.
If what you say is true and I doubt a lawyer can't find a way out, like a residence in NY or a trust, then I wouldn't get married at all. But that's just me, I don't expect it to be shared.
Lawyers aren’t superheroes, and community property is stringent. This is why mackenzie Bezos got billions and billions. Amazon totally predated Jeff bezos’s marriage and there was no way around it.
And let’s remember since it’s 50/50, both spouses have access to the best attorneys in the world.
It’s much easier to keep assets separate if they’re passive investments though. Dr Dre or Jeff Bezos can’t do that as well because they go into work, and the product of their labor is split. Dr Dre couldn’t say put his music production business into a trust and say it’s premarital. The second he walks into a studio, to record or produce, his work product is 50/50 owned by his wife, pretty much no matter what. He’d basically have to split off all his premarital work and never touch it again except to passively manage the investment.
Obviously it can be done. People in community property states do maintain separate assets. But it’s challenging. And if they make their money via work, not capital gains or passive investments from entirely pre-marital assets...good luck.
The most important thing to keep in mind is that community property doesn’t care about how we define assets in marriage. It truly is split in half from day one moving forward. The money never legally was all or most Dre’s or Bezos’s. It was always half their spouse’s. They are, legally, equally entitled to it. MacKenzie Bezos has been the richest woman in the world for years. She was before her divorce.
There are other downsides, of course. Generally worse tax treatment (unless it’s two high income individuals), no easy health insurance coverage from your employer, some more legal headaches here and there, and potentially reduced parental rights in the event of a breakup.
But by and large it is entirely possible to craft a marriage-like arrangement between two people without getting married and thus without the potential pitfalls of divorce. In almost any jurisdiction in the US this also does not result in a “common law” marriage which most people totally misunderstand. A common law marriage doesn’t just happen. It’s entered into willingly in lieu of a traditional civil marriage.
Of course in the real world, people still get married. Many potential partners simply will not consider a long term relationship without marriage. But the important thing to remember is that we are all able to freely construct relationships and property arrangements the way we want, even without marriage. But if you do use marriage as that tool, there are lots of rules and it really isn’t a free contract environment.
Thanks for the complete answers. I'll personally go with no marriage and no kids, dodging bullets like a matrix chimp. I've seen far too many friends ruined by divorce, I'm not even considering it.
You're right many potential partners simply won't consider the possibility of a relationship without marriage but it also depwnds on age. At my age, they've already divorced once and already have kids so they take it pretty lightly too.
Normally there is no option for this kind of divorce agreement unless it is imposed on the person who disrupts the legal agreement (marriage in this case).
Think of the alimony as a punishment for braking the agreement you did (most likely in this case the fidelity to which he was contractually obligated).
In this situation, I agree with a 50/50 split of assets. Dre came to success with the support of his wife.
Alimony on the other hand is completely ridiculous in any situation, but especially this one. Dre’s soon to be ex wife is a licensed attorney and can easily be self-supporting.
A marriage is about more than tangible contributions. If she was the successful one and him the "supporting" spouse, I would still support the division of their assets regardless of gender.
Of course we all know that gold diggers very much do exist, but it shouldn't be shocking that exploitative people exist in the first place.
Great point. Watch Terrance Popp’s breakdown of how much each thrust/blowjob/etc. is worth. It’s eye opening. There is no alimony with no marriage gents.
Because they were married for 24 years. You aren’t separate individuals in a marriage. You both contribute to it. He sold beats during their marriage, which I bet most of this wealth is coming from. I don’t see why she shouldnt be entitled to half of it.
Are you saying because the law says blah blah blah, legally she is entitled to half? I think most people on this sub understand roughly what the law says, but we believe the law is wrong. Or maybe you are saying that you think she deserves half? I mean let's be honest with ourselves. Do we think this woman sat in a studio learning the intricacies of mixing sounds to come up with beats, or did she sit at home consuming resources while the maid did all the housework. I bet the latter is closer to the truth.
Except she did, while he was down at the beats factory in China surveying prototypes with his tech team for his corporation, she was at home in LA driving kids to school and packing lunches and doing homework.
Aside from childcare, we have no idea what her roles were in his businesses. Maybe she was more involved than any of us know and was a part of them growing as well.
Assuming she did nothing at all to deserve a share is a joke.
Lol packing lunches. Anything that is your obligation as a parent should not be thrown at the other parent’s face like it was a privilege let alone claim compensation for it. Im pretty sure any man and Dre can cook own/kids meals. If that “privilege” needs to be payed for then Dre should get payed for that support since he is also 50/50 entitled to that lifestyle of having his meals made and his clothes/house cleaned.
It’s 2020, nobody is entitled to anything in a marriage anymore, you get what you marry.
None of us know what his wife’s contributions were in their marriage. The spousal support and 50% asset split is typical, all divorce attorneys start at the top and work their way down in the mediation meetings to a settlement, then both parties agree on what is the final amounts. If they don’t then it’s all argued in court and a judge decides.
Everyone in here crying and moaning is fucking stupid already.
I like how everyone on here is speaking out fiercely for prenups, but in reality most do not have money or a girlfriend. My wife is my equal partner. If I succeed she succeeds and vice versa. If we divorce she deserves half because she stood by me when I needed her.
IDK here's a wild ass idea... has anybody bothered to check how he feels about this. Also, despite widespread belief an overwhelmingly majority of men willing pay spousal support. Dollars to donuts most people who object to it here have never been obligated to it.
grumpypoodle 4y ago
LMFAO -
First of all, I never said I am a lawyer.
And you are missing my point. I told the guy to speak to an attorney - he said no you tell me what I want to know. I gave him a brief rundown whatever. THEN some other dude came back and said I'm not supporting men's rights because I didn't give him free legal advice. I sarcastically replied that slavery bit. So here we are - I didn't want to explain to him the FUCKING PLETHORA of minutiae of premarital agreements - that I don't even have a license to explain. You forum trolls feel entitled to fucking free advice. My advice is talk to an attorney. I don't owe you guys shit - let me know if I can explain this shit to you further.
GrislyMedic 4y ago
I thought he was locked in Eminem's basement
NerdGuyLol 4y ago
It's been 20 years I should hope he had escaped by then
thewhitelie 4y ago
well dr dre's dead he's locked in my basement is the line. seems like it's pretty hard to escape while dead
YEEEHAN 4y ago
I thought all this time em and Dre been fucking with hats off
Why-say-it-again 4y ago
And yet feminist Women love Eminem
PM_ME_THICC_GIRLS 4y ago
Ahh, Slim Shady, I'm sick of him
Mandalina88 4y ago
Look at him, walking around grabbing his you know what, flipping the you know who "yeah but he's so cute tho"
Hunthunt127 4y ago
This is why I'll never get married, I already have trust issues, I wouldn't want to imagine the woman I loved for so much strip me of all that I have...especially if there's children involved.
tht_pod 4y ago
Fuck man why didn’t you get a prenup. This sucks but on a positive note he will need to make money so maybe we finally get that chronic detox album lol.
nocivo 4y ago
In several eu countries people with prenup still had to pay because they allegedly said they didn’t know what they were signed
tht_pod 4y ago
That’s ridiculous. I’m a record my wife singing it lol.
Slade_Riprock 4y ago
Think Michael Jordan, dude had nonprenup and ended up with the most expensive divorce in history.
I mean if a spouse was there from the beginning before you had anything. And was part of the rise up, an equal partner, raised kids, etc. Then I have no problem with them getting half of the assets accumulated during marriage. Jordan's wide, Bezos wife all are good examples.
What is bullshit is chick rides in after dude is rich and getting half the shit she had zero part of making.
mydoghasapassport 4y ago
Uhh maybe for sports. jeff bezos divorce was 35 billion. jordan was 135 million. Exwife of Bezos could buy Every brand he has, and still have enough to be the richest woman. Her Amazon stock bumped up and she is worth 56 billion now. And rupert Murdoch in 1999. Heck THIS divorce is larger than Jordans
Slade_Riprock 4y ago
Yeah sorry. In sports I meant.
tht_pod 4y ago
The spousal support after getting the 400 million is insane. Hopefully she doesn’t get that much.
Slade_Riprock 4y ago
Spousal support is 100% bullshit with a cash out of $400 million.
If I were to guess though she's asking for a cut of his businesses she was part of starting and its framing it as spudal support when Tia really royalty payments.
thebochman 4y ago
Reminds me of the pictures of Russell Wilson’s ex on draft day going crazy knowing she was coming into a big pay day
Emadyville 4y ago
Sounds like a bitch.
ThreeLF 4y ago
Because she was the love of his life, and they would never divorce. Just like every other divorced couple.
tht_pod 4y ago
Forget that lovely dove crap. If you love me sign right here lol.
Decent_Priority 4y ago
I know really. That’s the shocker of all of it. If you say to a woman that you’d like to get married and all she has to do is sign a prenup contract, and she tells you to fuck off and won’t sign it, is that not a huge red flag for people?? Lol...
Someone that loves you would sign it and not care, not have ulterior motives and refuse to sign it.
lonnie123 4y ago
On the one hand, sure...
But on the other hand what are the odds you are going to turn into a billionaire record producer, and more likely are going to be Mark the mid level manager at Best Buy who brings in $64k a year?
If she makes the same as you, boom - done. no splitting anything really. If she stays at home and raises the kids (a SHIT LOAD of thankless work) so that you can go do what you need to do to advance your career and your life, and without her you probably wouldnt have been able to do it... Who deserves how much money in that case?
What exactly is going to be in your prenup? "Bitch gets nothing in the divorce"? How much is "fair", or "enough" after 25 years of marriage?
Im not making any comment on this particular case btw, just asking for your thoughts on my thoughts.
Decent_Priority 4y ago
Most prenups are to absolve a spouse from obtaining any part of assets owned prior to the forming of the marriage.
lonnie123 4y ago
Right, and most people arent coming into a marriage loaded already.
Even in this case, Im sure Dre was doing quite well for himself at the time, but I bet he has made the majority of his nut since then... 2001 wasnt even out when they got married, then theres his Eminem production credits and 50 cent, not to mention BEATS. World Class Wrecking Crew aint doing shit compared to that.
MrPushaNZ 4y ago
24years ago dre was well on his way to being ludicrously rich
lonnie123 4y ago
Yep. but not nearly where he is at today, AKA the prenup he would have had her sign to wall off his pre-marital assets wouldnt have amounted to a hill of beans compared to the last 24 years.
hairybugbeardonger 4y ago
ive got enough proof to get everything in the upcoming divorce with my wife. ive got video evidence of her being abusive, cheating, performing disgusting revenge sex acts to punish me for some perceived slight, her pulling a gun on me on our anniversary, her being absolutely the worst human being to our two sons, AND both my boys are excited to go before a judge and shit all over her.
but im STILL scared i will lose. thats how fucked up divorce court is.
StonedDwarf16 4y ago
Im so sorry to hear that.
unfab 4y ago
!RemindMe 1year
RemindMeBot 4y ago
I will be messaging you in 1 year on 2021-07-09 08:05:05 UTC to remind you of this link
1 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) ^(delete this message to hide from others.)
lonnie123 4y ago
What state are you in? Lots of states are "no fault" divorces... AKA it doesnt matter who did what to who, everything is split evenly no matter what.
hairybugbeardonger 4y ago
texas. honestly, i want what she has. around valentines of last year she got a new car. at the time i believed her lie when she said it was a gift from her parents and i didnt question it, but ive since learned that one of the men she was fucking on the side gave it to her. shes also been given large amounts of money by men to pay for lawyers to divorce me. her sister let slip at thanksgiving that she owns 3 duplexes that shes been keeping hidden from me all these years. i want those too. she told a really nasty lie about 8 years ago to her parents that i was beating her(never laid a hand on her) and they gave her an unknown amount of money, i want that shit too. basically, all the assets that shes kept hidden from me in preparation for divorcing me, i want. shes done some really awful stuff to try to get this divorce to happen on her terms, like hiring a prostitute(i think) to try to seduce me, hurting herself and trying to get the police to arrest me, trying to convince my sons to say that i molested them as kids... i think im owed a little something for being treated like this all these years.
i want it all. my lawyer thinks i should go for whatever i can. not sure how its going to work, but im going to do what i can. my lawyer is from the same fraternity as me and hes giving me a pretty decent deal. hes also pretty excited because i managed to record a lot of stuff and screenshot/forward a lot of the messages she was sending/receiving.
this is the first time ive written all of this out, and it makes me feel good seeing it. and scared. but still good.
EDIT: its probably a pipe dream, but i also want alimony. i got laid off because of covid, and shes not passed up any opportunity to rub it in my face that she has a large income that she doesnt share with the family. her lying for years saying she only made $35k/yr has left a very sour taste in my mouth, made even worse when i think of all the times we were financially struggling when in reality it was only me and the boys struggling while she was secretly wealthy.
lonnie123 4y ago
I don’t think you are being unreasonable. If what you said is all true judges don’t like people hiding assets and I think she needs to sharing all the stuff she has been hiding. No way a judge would let the man just not declares cars and gifted money as non-marital assets.
hairybugbeardonger 4y ago
there so much. shes told me straight to my face that she was waiting for me to cheat on her in revenge... of her cheating on me... so that she could take me to court... i never cheated, not even flirted with another girl. ive tried dating now that shes out of the house and this divorce is actually happening, but everything is very different than how it was 20 years ago...
im so sick of her insanity. i cant even believe i once loved her.
mimiczx 4y ago
Sounds horrible. Heart goes out to you.
hairybugbeardonger 4y ago
dont get married without a prenup.
haha_supadupa 4y ago
better don't get married at all
RingosTurdFace 4y ago
Just don’t get married.
Apptubrutae 4y ago
Prenup doesn’t matter much at all of you make your money after getting married. Especially if it’s a community property state, then it really doesn’t matter.
hairybugbeardonger 4y ago
dont get married*
Apptubrutae 4y ago
I really feel like the true men’s rights issue isn’t what happens in a divorce, per se. After all, it’s a contract knowingly and willingly agreed to. Ignorance of the ramifications isn’t much of an excuse, and it’s absolutely no excuse at all for the wealthy.
The real issue is the lack of alternative arrangements to marriage, particularly if children are involved and parental rights are important. Fact is, if you want to have kids and protect your rights to them as a man but also protect your financial assets...well...pick one.
CrimsonT-Rex 4y ago
THIS! You also get fucked should you have kids while married but they aren't yours. I can't fathom the stress that must be involved in this. It isn't fucking okay. I pushed for a prenup between myself (woman) and my husband because I like to assume we'll be together forever but I have no fucking clue. It isn't okay that you cannot fully protect yourself and your assets without also having rights to your own god damn children.
However I'm also a firm believer in men being able to terminate their parental rights if they don't want kids. If a woman can decide she wants an abortion without the man's input (I do believe in this but it's a gray area for me) then men should be able to say they don't want the kid and then not have to pay fucking child support. Why don't men get the option? And why can't all kids be paternity tested?!
Sorry about my rant. I'm angry about our current culture and how okay it is to shit on men.
CrimsonT-Rex 4y ago
Even if it includes this? My husband chose an amazingly profitable career and my degree has me mostly working for non-profits who love to help others but think minimum wage is too good for their workers. I pushed for a prenup and I'm pretty sure it covers his ass for the money he makes during marriage. Am I wrong??
Apptubrutae 4y ago
Depends on your state, most importantly, but prenups are tricky for things. They always have to be reasonable in the eyes of the court or risk being thrown out. Which basically means a spouse has to get a healthy chunk of things. So if you’re a lesser-earning spouse, the higher earning spouse can’t just entirely carve you out. And generally you’d need to get more over time. A spouse married for 2 years carved out of some income might be more ok than one married for 30 years, so prenups need to plan for that.
You may have luck in a prenup placing non-50/50 limits on newly gained income, but in states that do go for that, things could still fall into community property if things change substantially from how they were pre-prenup, like a majorly more lucrative career shift, or say starting a new business and both spouses help out. Or even a spouse becoming more involved in the current career. Like say the earning spouse is a big law firm partner and they bring their spouse around to meet clients. Now they’re both working, essentially, even if slightly, and what was a separate asset may be marital.
It really really depends on the state, though. It’s just worth keeping in mind that prenups are not like your average contract. Judges will not just sit back and go along with what the prenup says if they feel it’s inequitable. And arguments for how separate property during a marriage might have been commingled are compelling to make.
And ultimately let’s not forget that the most important factor in how a divorce goes isn’t the prenup, it’s the attitude of the spouses. Separate property doesn’t matter if either spouse wants to fight a fight, because they can just drain the accounts in the fight. If you are a fair and reasonable person, you can have a fair and reasonable divorce. There is nothing preventing and uncontested divorce in a childless marriage even with lots of assets. The prenup would save you spouse a lot less money than you deciding you think the prenup is fair and abiding by it and not even involving lawyers for more than a few hours.
The adversarial legal system in divorce law is a genuine cancer. Divorces do not need to be adversarial, they can be collaborative. But the slightest things set either spouse off and suddenly they’re both poorer because of it.
CrimsonT-Rex 4y ago
What you said makes sense. It's frustrating because I love him and I like to think nothing could ever cause me to be vindictive but I have no idea what the future holds. And it goes both ways, I came into the marriage with a good bit of jewelry and other items worth good money and he has made the same comments about never being able to imagine a time where he would want to be vindictive, but we don't know the future.
That's why I wanted a prenup, to protect the man I love, even from me. I wish it was as simple as just reading the prenup because I am the one who chose my career path just like he chose his; he shouldn't be penalized for that. I hope we never divorce but if we do, he deserves everything he worked so hard for.
Apptubrutae 4y ago
I have the same aspirations as you, although my wife and I are co-owners of a business, so we're very much 50/50, and being co-owners like that tends to only make divorces worse!
But like I said, it really, really all boils down to attitude and approach. If there is, say, a one million dollar pot of money, and a prenup has split it let's say 80/20. $800k to spouse 1, $200k to spouse 2. Well maybe the spouse with less wants to get more. So they both hire divorce attorneys. Maybe it goes on for a year or two, which is un fun, and very expensive.
At the end of the day, the attorneys could end up eating $100k or $200k, easily. I've seen much higher. So let's say $200k. Now the pot is $800k. So the 80/20 split would be $640k for 1, $160k for 2. If spouse 2 loses, they're poorer for it. If they win, maybe they get a 60/40 split, so spouse 1 has $480k, spouse 2 has $320k. A win for spouse 2, obviously, but at a significant cost. And in many divorces, things become "win at any cost".
That's in the event of a pretty big difference in splits, though. If it started out as 60/40, and spouse 2 wanted 50/50, it's basically guaranteed they will walk away with less money if they hire an attorney and fight. And of course sometimes the spouse with more money decides they want it all and you have no choice to fight. But we as a society would be much better served by diplomacy, not military action, in divorces. Most of the western world spends a lot, lot less on a divorce.
Yodas-Fart-Chamber 4y ago
It's quite pathetic at her age she still needs a handout.
I_Got_A_Big_Ol_Taz 4y ago
My lady worked for an appliance company that serviced Dr. Dre's house when it was needed. The technician for the company said his wife was an absolute monster to deal with. Quite the spoiled brat apparently.
DanteLivra 4y ago
When you still want to be treated like a kid despite being 40+
Those women are pathetic.
thecatgoesmoo 4y ago
Y'all are pathetic here
Solace2010 4y ago
How is it a hand out? They were married for 20 years
Edit: unfortunate there is a bunch of neckbeards in here.
dave3863 4y ago
Why the hell would she need spousal support if she gets $400 million? There’s no basis in reality for that.
VegetableConfection 4y ago
Alimony in some very rare cases makes sense: where the spouse helped their partner reach success which will bring in a lot of money, but the two don't have many marital assets. In my opinion, this makes sense: a spouse can be instrumental in enabling someone to achieve success, and will often make sacrifices to their own ability to achieve success independently.
But she's getting 400m. Her input is very arguably not worth that, but fine, split their assets, whatever. But her input is not worth 50% of assets plus alimony. She is not who alimony was designed for. She is absolutely asking for a big handout.
MidNerd 4y ago
Half of assets isn't a handout, but spousal support on top of $400m is a handout. If she wants a divorce, no biggie. Take her half and move on. There's no reason why he should have to continue to pay for her after that point though.
Yodas-Fart-Chamber 4y ago
So what if they were married.
mustardpocket 4y ago
So you think he should just support her forever, without her doing anything for him? He should just keep paying her?
Buchwild 4y ago
What exactly are you implying, that she's a helpless child who can't support herself? If so that's pretty sexist
Yomyusernameiscool 4y ago
Can't handle arguments and logic
Throws in labelling words like "neck beards", " incels", "small penis" etc etc.
joevilla1369 4y ago
So being married is a job that deserves pay? What happened to love and all?
Kryto-Kun 4y ago
400 million is stupid.
if she doesn't work? make him support her untill she finds a job. that's how it should be.
more realistically? she should get no more then 1mil. she's probably hardly worked her entire life and that's plenty for her to continue doing so as long as she lives a normal life.
anything above 2 mil is absurd
Roflcockslap 4y ago
Shut the fuck up, why does she deserve 400 million of his money ?
Solace2010 4y ago
Lol child
mrwylli 4y ago
Dude my guess is that you have no idea what is to have a couple, one side or the other. Share fare is ok, getting 200 millions for licking or sucking some genitalia is not ok and never will be. Divorce laws in most western countries come from when the woman could not work. They have to be updated.
Solace2010 4y ago
Lol by the way you talk, I can guarantee you have not been married nor will ever be. Good day kid.
DiedSl0wly 4y ago
It's not like she has the inability to get a job and pay for herself.
ltstrom 4y ago
For all this shit given to Australia (my country) about its laws. The one thing we got right is spousal support. A judge has a cap on how long they can give spousal support here and how much it is allowed to be based on that years tax return.
For those that don't know a judge (magistrate) under very limited circumstances (spouse has not worked in years and has no education, and it is a very uphill battle to prove you need that support) can give spousal support for a maximum of 2 years of a maximum amount of 25% of monthly net earnings to aid in payment of schooling and aid in acquiring work.
However there is an exception that if assets are to be split and it exceeds the amount of the 25% for 2 years (for the avg high middle class person it is 50k threshold that is equal to 25% for 2 years). Spousal support cannot be granted. In essence the whole get 50% of the assets in cash and spousal support is not possible. As all real estate value is way above half what the avg person makes over 2 years.
If i recall there is also another exception that the person is illegible if the amount they receive from assets is over 100k.
Edit: some sources for this
https://www.mondaq.com/australia/divorce/321884/spouse-maintenance-or-alimony-in-australia-fact-v-fiction
http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/fcoaweb/family-law-matters/property-and-finance/maintenance/spousal-maintenance
totempoler 4y ago
Literally nobody says that she can't. Should she get nothing and be forced to go use her 20 years career gap to get an entry level McDonalds job while he keeps the 800 million? That's absurd. Marriages are a partnership, he went out and earned the money while she raised the kids. She sacrificed her own career to support him and have a family. She obviously deserves some payment. 400 million plus support? No, that's ridiculous. But saying she shouldn't get anything and should go get a job and start from scratch is equally ridiculous.
krawm 4y ago
was her career gonna be a 400 million dollar career?
aguszymite 4y ago
funny how she waited for all the kids to be out of the house to want a divorce though
NotTheOnlyFU 4y ago
I’m sure millionaires can’t afford in home nannies lol. I’ll bet she barely knows her kids.
DiedSl0wly 4y ago
I completely agree in the sense that she shouldn't get nothing. But 400 million plus spousal support is obviously ridiculous.
GenghisTron17 4y ago
It seems like she's going in high so she can negotiate down.
Kryto-Kun 4y ago
actually this makes sense to me.
still the idea that she would ever need more then 2 mil is stupid. that's already enough to live a decent life 0 work
totempoler 4y ago
If we are talking about need, why don't we take away all of Dr. Dre's money and donate it to charity? Leave him with 2 mil as well.
It's not about what someone needs to live a decent life. It's about what they deserve, and what they've earned. Marriage is a union. No partner is more or less equal than the other. When women argue they deserve the children because they've spent the time to raise them, men's financial contribution goes completely ignored. When men argue that they deserve all the money since they spent the time at work to raise it, women's familial contribution goes ignored. The money he earned was earned while in an equal partnership with his wife. She deserves half.
I will argue all day and night that a woman who marries an already rich man doesn't deserve a penny of what he earned before they were married. Anything earned after the marriage should be split 50/50. What is disgusting about this particular case is that half of their wealth plus support is obviously greater than half.
pinktoady 4y ago
Was with you till the end. The reason I agree with the support is because if they stayed married she would benefit from any money he continues to make. No one should ever be put in a situation where they feel like they have to stay married to not lose money or change their lifestyle. She didn't just lose the money she could have earned while they were together, she lost the years of career building she could have gained during that time that would have allowed her to make money. And I don't think this is even a men's rights issue, because it should go both ways. Even though men don't have the issue of taking time from career to take care of kids as often, if one spouse is making more money, then the other spouse doesn't need to and so may choose a lesser paying job because they can. What is a men's rights issue is jurisdictions where it doesn't go both ways equally. That is wrong and should be rectified.
CorleoneFettuccine 4y ago
He made that money. Not her. I’m sure they had a joint account with his name on it. Not hers.
Solace2010 4y ago
The fact that this comment is up voted tells me most of the people up voting, have never been married, nor will ever be married.
Veteran-Delly 4y ago
I’m married and I upvoted
CorleoneFettuccine 4y ago
Thanks for your support
Cm_Punk_SE 4y ago
Don Corleone, I am honored and grateful that you have invited me on the day of your daughter's wedding. And I hope their first child be a masculine child. I pledge my ever-ending loyalty.
CorleoneFettuccine 4y ago
You are now a friend of the Don. Which comes with its benefits. Someday, and that day may never come, I will call upon you for a favor.
Cm_Punk_SE 4y ago
Don Corleone I'm gonna leave you now because I know you're busy. Thank you.
karenovirusdoomer 4y ago
You didn’t look at the sub it was posted to as you were scrolling, didja?
Solace2010 4y ago
Didn’t realize this sub was filled with neckbeards that think men’s rights means we should go back 100 years.
shroud01 4y ago
if she can't support herself with 400 mil she needs mental help
and so does the judge that agreed with her
SonOfHibernia 4y ago
She’s asking for this, a judge hasn’t agreed yet. But with no prenup she’ll likely get half the assets-especially in CA-but the judge would have to be insane to grant support on top of that, especially with no children (who aren’t adults)
ringrawer 4y ago
He has the money to take it to the presume court. Perfect case to set a precedent.
Childrenstears 4y ago
If she keep fuckin’ around with him, she gone turn him back to the old him.
ItZYaBoi_445 4y ago
What, cause I’ve been in the lab, with a pen and a pad, tryna get this damn label off?
YEEEHAN 4y ago
Nowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say but nothing comes out when they move their lips
[deleted] 4y ago
[removed]
maybejustadragon 4y ago
He forgot the “but get the fuck out after your done” and now he’s going to be paying a shit ton.
sensuallyprimitive 4y ago
lick on these kernels and suck the private investigator
J2501 4y ago
Oh man, I think Eddie Murphy did a standup routine about that, when it happened to Johnny Carson.
yoitsericc 4y ago
Until the laws change, no man can afford a marriage without a prenup.
Even with a prenup, it might not hold up in court.
Countrysedan 4y ago
Ah yes this is true. Get a marriage past 20 years and things get a little dicey.
Dre should have moved out to Florida or some other non community property state.
Jim_E_Hat 4y ago
Asset protection is what's needed.
Taguroizumo 4y ago
You can do that if you put x amount of that money into a fund that can only be touched if all members vote on it.
Astrum91 4y ago
Don't prenups also only cover your wealth prior to the marriage, not anything you earned while married? Not to mention them often getting thrown out in court anyway.
grumpypoodle 4y ago
Premarital agreements can be 100s of pages long. Most of the time, someone is either 1. obscenely more affluent than the other, or 2. an asshole. OR BOTH.
​
sometimes premarital agreements protect both parties equally.
TheMasterSword60 4y ago
Correction: Prenups are not worth the paper they are written on 99% of the time.
gaia2008 4y ago
She was forced into signing remember,
TheMasterSword60 4y ago
Yea.. judges only care about prenups if you're like, really rich.
mhandanna 4y ago
Prenups aren't iron clad, all sorts of outs.
smolboi69420-57 4y ago
Make sure both parties right the prenup together to sort out what you want
yoitsericc 4y ago
You're 100% correct.
The first thing a good divorce attorney will try to do in a divorce will be to invalidate it. Make sure it's written by a great attorney and both parties have access to counsel before signing.
Even with a prenup - marriage is still a pretty big risk.
grumpypoodle 4y ago
mine are.
rdit_akont 4y ago
spread the knowledge brother ?? teach us !
bignick1190 4y ago
Just put a stipulation that states "this document is ironclad" and you're good.
hoorahqueen 4y ago
And approved by Jesus himself.
czgheib 4y ago
Etch it in iron
grumpypoodle 4y ago
I would recommend getting legal advice and opinions from a licensed atty. online forums might not be the best place to replace a law library.
djc_tech 4y ago
What about bird law?
grumpypoodle 4y ago
yes.
Frakmonster 4y ago
r/BirdsArentReal
osirisborn89 4y ago
This should be the most up voted comment
grumpypoodle 4y ago
And pay for an atty. Legal advice is usually you get what you pay for.
StealYoDeck 4y ago
Unfortunately so is freedom
grumpypoodle 4y ago
Lol wut, thanks for contributing tho.
rdit_akont 4y ago
bruh no shit . u r just claiming ur prenup is iron clad . wanted to know what makes your so special . like bullet points . not legal advice . ....
TrinaBinaTHEbeautyy 4y ago
I’m 8 hours late but, you got riggidy riggidy wrecked son. Never argue wit an “ATTY”
grumpypoodle 4y ago
I do not have A prenup. I draft premarital agreements for a living. I cannot distill the intricacies of premarital agreements in a post, and I'm not going to do it for free. (I charge clients 155 an hour) Start with the laws in your state and see if a prenuptial/premarital agreement is right for you. Make sure that both parties are represented by counsel at the time of drafting and consideration. Make sure the less monied spouse has time to consider the agreement prior to the wedding. (You cant have them sign it that morning.)
But again, speak with an attorney.
hatefulreason 4y ago
not all attorneys make ironclad prenups, obviously. that's why the guy was asking for some tips. way to support mensrights mr moneygrubber
grumpypoodle 4y ago
I gave him tips. I didn't realize working for free (slavery) is supporting men's rights/s
theb1ackoutking 4y ago
Lol I agree with w everything you have said, but slavery lmao.
Literally lmao. You are not his slave doing slave labour. He asked a questioned, which you politely declined with a small answer about local laws. Which is fine. But you gave your own opinion on a public social media site which allows people to reply to you etc. You didnt have to say shit. It is not slavery. Lol.
Just because someone works for free does not make it slavery either. Volunteer work is often free. I do free work for my Grandpa on his farm when I visit because it's the right thing to do. Not slavery. Now maybe when you did your graduate degree were you slaved away by higher ups but even that is not slavery.
I only say this because during the times our country is in, we should take serious what we say. You commenting on some forum pretty much for free, and giving your advice when you could easily have not, is not slavery and you shouldn't even mix the two up. If you are a lawyer I would have thought you would think of a better way to phrase it.
hatefulreason 4y ago
slavery is working for food and shelter, and is very often encountered today in the states. helping someone for free is doing God's work. but then again, we have long forsaken Him
[deleted] 4y ago
[removed]
Comegetme_ATF69 4y ago
The fact that you type like that and the word pompous is also in your vocabulary is impressive.
rdit_akont 4y ago
i hate to be this guy ... but .. i have bachelor degree in English literature .. its useless and im not using it in my practical life but i do have it nonetheless ... i type like that on purpose .. so i trigger small brain boomers
grumpypoodle 4y ago
I'm glad I could get my personality across.
be good to yourself.
Golden_Slippers 4y ago
Well you are a grumpy poodle after all
MotherOfLogic 4y ago
Go have a wank, you penis
grumpypoodle 4y ago
Thanks for sticking up for me - but he is right; I am a pompous fool. LOL!
Immaloner 4y ago
What, are you twelve? No sane adult types in text message. Grow up.
rdit_akont 4y ago
ok boomer .
SequinOBrianton 4y ago
Just don't get married.
pn1159 4y ago
This is the best solution I've heard. Tell me more.
SequinOBrianton 4y ago
Don't get married or live with a woman.
phoenix335 4y ago
Look up "common law / civil union" and weep, my friend.
In some jurisdictions, simple cohabitation for a while is enough to be regarded legally married.
And you can bet they will lobby for more jurisdictions to follow that.
Some elites want to rule and they cannot if any man other than them holds any power over their own life.
nweber2046 4y ago
Thats got a kind of sad poetry to it.
SequinOBrianton 4y ago
Just don't live with a woman.
phoenix335 4y ago
I'm not avoiding risks by jumping off a cliff and I won't stop living like a human being because some people make normalcy dangerous.
bluehonoluluballs 4y ago
Massey prenup? I hear they’re ironclad.
johnwayne1 4y ago
But why does the op not understand child support. It goes both ways ya know?
escaperscapers 4y ago
When kids are involved a prenup can be thrown out
yoitsericc 4y ago
No, this is not 100% true. There are circumstances dealing with kids that can invalidate a prenup, but as long as the prenup addresses circumstances involving children and doesn't violate any existing laws, it is perfectly legal and should hold up in court.
escaperscapers 4y ago
I am glad you posted. I will investigate further.
yoitsericc 4y ago
Talk to an attorney. I know if a prenup says something like no child support it can be invalidated.
Child support is law regardless of marital status. Things like that can't legally be upheld in court.
flipitsmike 4y ago
Dre doesn’t need a prenup. He can rise from the ashes like he did before.
Countrysedan 4y ago
Back to the studio!
davededaev 4y ago
I mean, I think Dre is a piece of shit so tbh I couldn't really care less if she cleans him out.
Nicolas64pa 4y ago
Why the fuck would she get support if she was gonna get 400 MILLION, HOW??
iwanajeep131 4y ago
At least they were married for 20yrs. Tiger Woods got royally screwed in his divorce. Married 6 years as lost 750mil.
Countrysedan 4y ago
They’re in California and married more than 10 years means alimony for life. She’s about to be A LOT richer than Dre.
Asking for spousel support on top of getting 400 FUCKING MILLION DOLLARS is pretty goddamned cunty of her.
Xanxan95 4y ago
Why would she think she deserves any of those 800 millions? What for?
bajatacoguy 4y ago
fukincunt
Bergatario 4y ago
400 million is not enough? She still needs spousal support?
grumpypoodle 4y ago
spousal support is short term. its a negotiating tool.
She is asking for her best day in court because that is her starting point.
Decent_Priority 4y ago
There will probably be no spousal support and she will be settled down to 100 million.
A good example is Jeff bezos wife.
She got some money out of him but it wasn’t no 50% of everything.
Crazy thing is that he made way more money now and so she technical fucked up and divorced him to early lmfao...
mauricekb 4y ago
Getting away from him is a pretty big win.
Phixer7 4y ago
That "woman" is hideous, he should drag the divorce on for the next 10 year and not give her a fuckin dime.
Move all of his money overseas and leave the country, she deserves nothing.
cokecain_bear 4y ago
"my nigga that's a man" -Atlanta
FindingKeeping 4y ago
Prenups are invalid in India. Smh married people
shrth114 4y ago
What options do men here have? I've heard so many stories of men getting screwed over that I'm genuinely scared. Especially now that I'm approaching "marriageability"
inkundu 4y ago
None , it’s a fucking huge business out there. There are no laws to protect men and to add the system is so corrupted that cops will register any case the girl asks without any evidence cause once the case gets registered there is a line of people who you have to pay to stop harassing you or putting you in jail.
While helping out my brother with his case, I realised that the amount of divorce cases are almost above 50% in the court and all have same story. Even the judges and lawyers know which stories are true and which are false , but they follow a set of system to make sure they get paid with the case ending in a settlement ultimately. And there is nothing you can do about it.
So to avoid this nonsense your best option is to get a career in police force or become a lawyer.
shrth114 4y ago
Fucking hell man. And boomers have the nerve to ask if you want to get remarried after shit like this.
FindingKeeping 4y ago
Do not get married. Not even live in. Get surrogacy when wanting children.
I personally lost 25L and 5 precious years of life. My 3 more cousin after me are paying price. One is paying Monthly maintenance, another paid 10L, other brother getting screwed for a Flat in Pune which costs around 50L minimum
Deathbysugar2020 4y ago
My home is in Pune. All of my cousins are getting married, and when I'm a little older my parents will get me to marry too. I haven't told them about my girlfriend yet because they probably won't approve of having a relationship. Could you give me advice on what to do?
FindingKeeping 4y ago
Bhau kas sangu kiti sangu
Deathbysugar2020 4y ago
My home is in Pune, but I'm from Andhra. I don't know Marathi for that reason lol
shrth114 4y ago
I don't want kids thankfully, so that automatically makes me unmarriageable.
FindingKeeping 4y ago
Don't worry there will be moments in your life that you had found the one, and in no time your biology would force different decisions on you. Be careful
shrth114 4y ago
Thanks for the heads up. Definitely getting a vasectomy.
FindingKeeping 4y ago
Smart of you. Be careful man. Really misandric out here
shrth114 4y ago
I was a little sad about probably dying alone, but better alone and free than chained to some succubus draining your life force.
FindingKeeping 4y ago
Absolutely. We were born alone and will die alone. Not even our clothing comes with us when its time
swefdd 4y ago
Divorces are very rare in India, and the women doesn't get half automatically.
FindingKeeping 4y ago
Bro, I owned nothing she took 25L from me. That's was 3 time my annual salary. Get your facts right
swefdd 4y ago
You had a stupid lawyer, or you are lying about your assets
FindingKeeping 4y ago
No lawyers in Hindu Marriage Act 13B (a)
Imy parents had to sell a property to fund the process
AbhorrentIngestion 4y ago
Roughly 50% of first marriages end in divorce and the % grows staggeringly with every extra marriage after that. There is absolutely no reason for people to not get a prenup before marriage. Divorces are stacked against men horrifically so you'd be a fool to not at least try and protect yourself with a prenup (though they may not be withheld).
No doubt this kind of nonsense will just lead to a decline in marriages as fewer men see the point in sticking their neck out on the line for little return.
n0tqu1tesane 4y ago
You hit one of my pet peeves, not understanding logic, statistics and math.
The original 50% was determined by dividing the number of marriages in a year by divorces, but very few of those couples got married and divorce in the same year.
The CDC data shows that in 2018 there was almost 2.75 (2.727) marriages that year for every divorce.
AbhorrentIngestion 4y ago
My stats weren't aimed at America, but thanks for the interesting information, stats aren't my strong point!
randonumero 4y ago
I'll correct that for you...Divorces are stacked against the higher earner and/or the person who spends less hours with the kid. Tons of women get fucked over too because they're the bread winner.
AbhorrentIngestion 4y ago
In the vast majority of cases, it's the woman who gets custody of the kids. Whilst women do get fucked over sometimes, it's by far and large the men who do
randonumero 4y ago
Yeah I don't have stats but essentially courts tend to leave kids with the parent they're currently with. The primary breadwinner also generally is the man. It's also fair to say that often it's the primary bread winner (man) who moves on when the divorce is pending often leaving the kids with the mom. Honestly the best legal advice I've gotten on this is to keep your dick in your pants until the divorce is final and under no circumstances vacate your home even if you have to sleep on the couch. When the day in court comes you want to be able to argue that removing you from your kid's lives is detrimental to them. That argument is tough when you're already only seeing them on weekends and living with your par amor
HumanGuyPerson69420 4y ago
Never make a ho a housewife, Doc
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
yatinbawa22 4y ago
Dont marry men, if you cant control yourself atleast get a prenup
n0tqu1tesane 4y ago
If a man wants to marry a man, let him.
Myself, I like women.
yatinbawa22 4y ago
Man to man is good anything that involves a woman can go wrong,
strainer123 4y ago
The worst part is that courts are made to steal your shit, so they'll eat it up, there's no justice, there is the guy and his juicy bank account which will be devastated by this. Thats why marriage isn't appealing to men anymore, at least not smart men, who would want to live this fucking nightmare?!
finallyinmy30s 4y ago
I see comments about prenups but no one is talking about how important WHO you marry is. Dr. Dre stole his ex from her first husband. How you get them is how you lose them. That is a horrible way to start a relationship.
Marry someone with similar financial attitudes as you. Marry someone who is a partner to you. Don’t marry just because you love someone. If you marry a woman who views money the same way as you and you water your relationship you won’t be getting a divorce.
Divorce just heightens traits that people always had. She was vindictive before the divorce. She was petty before the divorce. She was argumentative before the divorce. When people show you who they are the FIRST time believe them. Don’t marry someone who shows you traits that could lead to a shitty divorce. Men who marry without a plan are the one’s who end up losing half + spousal support. Men who marry for more than love and are equally yoked don’t have this issue.
[deleted] 4y ago
[removed]
[deleted] 4y ago
[removed]
[deleted] 4y ago
[removed]
AnmolSethi 4y ago
Happy cake day
TraumaJeans 4y ago
What is this, facebook?
lSUSPECTl 4y ago
She looks manlier than him.
intp_nc 4y ago
Bahahhaah! And i thought i got screwed with my 1k a month alimony...
ripdabs 4y ago
Maybe eminem should show Dre where the ocean is!
GuyWithTheStalker 4y ago
Yo. So..
This one time... I had an internship which was supposed to enable me to talk to A TON of real men about their issues, men who make between about 40 and 60k a year and want legal support from a nonprofit.
and, uh...a lot of them were just kind of, well, unjustifiably winy.
Also, they don't make anything near what Dr. Dre makes.
hopelessamerica 4y ago
Let’s just imagine she will get 400 million and „survive“ another 50 years. She could spend 20k every single day for 50 years and still have around 40 million left at the end.
terminalsausage 4y ago
Don't get married people
swefdd 4y ago
Unless you are Asian you shouldn't get married.
They are the only ones who know how to have long marriages.
goodmod 4y ago
I'm not Asian and my parents have been married for over 60 years. My sisters have been married for 25 and 30 years.
swefdd 4y ago
Few don't change the underlying stat
Cuddlyzombie91 4y ago
Not everyone is in a dysfunctional relationship. Not all women come after you that way.
iMnotHiigh 4y ago
It's getting worse and worse....
unklestinky 4y ago
The good ol vaginal lottery. Is she cool, will she rob you blind. Round and round we go, where she stops only the lawyers and judges know!
Trumps_Genocide 4y ago
You don't know how a person will behave in a divorce.
Especially when they stand to make a profit.
Don't get married until there is marriage equality.
ThingYea 4y ago
The movie 'Marriage Story' does a good job showing how people can fuck over eachother even if they love them.
SonOfHibernia 4y ago
You don’t have to get married to be in a healthy functional relationship. All marriage does is open up the breadwinner to what amounts to blackmail and paying a grown adult an allowance. Marriage is a scam
Cuddlyzombie91 4y ago
We are all entitled to our perceptions and opinions, but I do not see things the same way as you do.
Marriages can be both great and devastating to the people involved. That's not because of the functions of a marriage, it's because of the people involved.
SonOfHibernia 4y ago
The functions of ending marriages is completely fucked up. Not marriage itself per se. but you don’t need a piece of paper from the government to be married. That’s only effective in screwing someone in a divorce
Cuddlyzombie91 4y ago
I agree with you 100%
PhantomGhost7 4y ago
Not to mention insane wedding costs, and the bullshit scamming that is rings
slayer5934 4y ago
Me and my wife got married on the beach with cheap metal rings and a bunch of ribs being cooked for a total of $200, not that expensive if you don't want it to be, we could have made it cheaper.
PhantomGhost7 4y ago
"she deserves better, don't cheap out for your wedding!"
"she deserves a better ring than that trash"
etc etc. Social pressure is a big fucking deal.
alexis_grey 4y ago
Then whoever you're with isn't the right person. There are women out there that don't want a big wedding or an expensive ring. I signed a piece of paper in a coffee shop and no ring at all. Putting all women in the same category doesn't do anyone any favors. Be up front with expectations and communicate. I agree weddings are a sham but I also respect other people have different dreams and I'm ok not sharing in those dreams.
slayer5934 4y ago
Me and my wife see eachother as equals and take equal responsibility, if anyone had an issue with that we would have thrown them out of the wedding ceremony.
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
slayer5934 4y ago
You probably just want that to be true because your relationship didn't work out the way you wanted, there aren't many other reasons to hop on someone who is simply stating they have a happy relationship. Either way that's disrespectful and I would think twice before saying that face to face to someone.
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
Breaker-of-circles 4y ago
Eh, not really. You do get some incentives for doing certain things as a married couple. Like tax breaks, automatic inheritance for your children, etc.
SonOfHibernia 4y ago
Why should you need to be married for those things to apply? That doesn’t make sense to me. It’s the govt fucking around in people’s personal relationships and I don’t like it. That’s just me
Breaker-of-circles 4y ago
Children born from unmarried couples don't automatically qualify for inheritance of anything. You have to go to the trouble of going to court for that.
Some countries have laws that give married couples tax breaks for the number of dependents they have.
Marital Tax Deduction.
Joint Filing of Taxes.
There are health insurance benefits that can be availed only if you're married.
There's a lot you can't do if you don't marry. Do these outweigh the risks of getting married? I don't know and it's not exactly my goal to prove it. I'm only here to contest the notion that " All marriage does is open up the breadwinner to what amounts to blackmail".
SonOfHibernia 4y ago
That’s my point. None of those things should be dependent on you getting a piece of paper from the govt. you should just go to the govt and get a piece of paper for individual shit. Have a kid? Go get that inheritance paper. In a committed relationship? Go get the health insurance paper. This all encompassing piece of marital paper that offers all these benefits is outrageously intrusive by the govt.
Breaker-of-circles 4y ago
You don't get it. You get all these AUTOMATICALLY after getting married. Without marriage, you have to prove everything you claim here to qualify for all these things. You can go through all the trouble of proving that instead of just getting married, and that's up to you.
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
Breaker-of-circles 4y ago
You want me to take all the immensely varying human emotions, manners, culture, upbringing, etc., assign a numerical value to it, use it to calculate the likelihood that a marriage will fail, weigh the risk over benefits, and give you a solid figure? LOL!
I've been posting on this sub for quite a while because I support our rights, but saying that marriage is a waste of time and nothing but a trap for the breadwinner, which you think is you because they are often men, because there's women involved is pretty much issuing a blanket statement against them while totally disregarding the individual.
That's what feminists do and not what we stand for.
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
Breaker-of-circles 4y ago
The benefits are there to promote the most effective way to secure a future for the country, ie an intact family unit with two adult role models. I know you've all read those posts about how kids turn out better adults with a father figure involved, it's actually better to have BOTH parents present. Being legally bound together means you all have documentation, which makes it easier to prove who you are, therefore less paperwork, therefore less man hours to process you when you need to avail some government services, meaning less cost, meaning less taxpayer's money.
If you hate the system so much, then just don't get married.
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
Breaker-of-circles 4y ago
LOL! The government isn't going to meddle in your relationship. It'll just be there to give you tax breaks for using public services.
If you don't want to pay taxes, go live in the mountains. I didn't know you're all also paranoid conspiracy theorists.
O_continente 4y ago
Opportunity makes a...
atarax-e 4y ago
Well, I guess that makes it an even 100 problems.
blackwaterbomb 4y ago
Did you purposely misquote Jay-Z?
SchmidtytheKid 4y ago
I think he forgot about Dre
YooGeOh 4y ago
Nice
IRlyShouldntBeHere 4y ago
dantroit 4y ago
Good save
SonOfHibernia 4y ago
Well, everyone acts like that
ROAD_EGG 4y ago
*Ice-T
tbirdguy 4y ago
Hear Hear
speed of light? Fast...
It's like walkin barefoot over broken glass...
smolboi69420-57 4y ago
Even 20 million considering his worth would be fine but 400 fuck that shit
drueburgendy 4y ago
Never get married, that’s how they trap you!
M4Strings 4y ago
Damn, I'd go off on her like her name was Dee Barnes for that shit
Sweetjimmy87 4y ago
Spousal support is like admitting you’re a useless piece of shit and need to be supported.
docb30tn 4y ago
I'm not saying she's a golddigger......
DirtyVanDijk 4y ago
She made the big personal sacrifice to divorce her basketballer husband of 3 years to get with Dre. Her ex husband mustn't have been supporting the lifestyle she wanted
CuriousQuestionBoi 4y ago
This is why marriage is useless for men.
CrimsonT-Rex 4y ago
I don't think it's useless but I do think a prenup is in order.
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
Solace2010 4y ago
In this case I would agree.
randonumero 4y ago
Depends. I don't live in a HCOL state by any means but it's fair to say that if your combined income is less than 70k before taxes, it's better for one person to stay home until the kids can go to free school because of the cost of child care. If you have two kids you can easily end up making an exotic car payment a month for full time day care. The parent who leaves the work force will have a harder time going back so alimony for a short period of time makes sense in that case.
ThisIsWhoIAmNow71 4y ago
Yup I forgot to include that in my previous comment. Alimony for a short period of time is completely sensible.
goinsouth85 4y ago
Alimony for a SHORT time (four years, tops, i.e., the length of a college degree) may be justified. Also, after the kids enter school, there is simply no excuse to not get back into the work force. Additionally - if alimony was rehabilitative, not an entitlement - women would take steps to have productive careers which is better for them and society.
Adrewmc 4y ago
Spousal support is nonsense.
Make sure they have the life they are used to but the other spouse has to live in less even though they are the one that worked.
I like Texas solution, there is a maximum amount period and there is a maximum time frame period. Yeah if you were a housewife for ten years it can take a few years to get back into the work force with a decent pay, but with $400,000,000 you can have a decent pay just on interest alone, shit 0.1% would yield 400,000 a year. No spousal support is needed whatsoever.
Japilla 4y ago
disgusting
PyroTheAlpha 4y ago
Coming soon, Dre , snoop dog, and Eminem team up one a diss track against her
supernutcondombust 4y ago
But like you would have 400 million. Why would you need someone to support you?
johnkop4 4y ago
Because money
Switchroo 4y ago
Because she isn't good with money, she'll just loose all in gambling. And she knows she'll be left with nothing.
Grave_Heresy 4y ago
AWALT
grumpypoodle 4y ago
Guys, divorce sucks for everyone.
But if we did a role reversal... Gotcha.
therevaj 4y ago
more people have been killed by lightning in the last
52 years worldwide, than men who receive alimony in the US​
(edit: underestimated number of lightning strike deaths)
grumpypoodle 4y ago
I agree with you that alimony is archaic. She is ASKING for spousal support, probably because she doesn't have access to funds at this time.
It's complex to explain but that is her initial pleading with the court. Of course her attys are asking for a home run, because it's a negotiating position. Most of divorce pleadings are boilerplate and with a case like that the attys are just trying to bill my friend.
I expect their divorce will end up amicably. They will settle without mud flying in the papers.
I have had cases with the woman being the monied spouse - there is a reason they don't get alimony. You don't get to be a trophy husband get fat and drunk and expect to get severance pay.
therevaj 4y ago
Everything you said here was hilarious stupid but this was my favorite part:
As if women aren't given that shit literally all the time.
Bottom line: you're missing the point.
grumpypoodle 4y ago
Sorry I am not reinforcing your paradigm. I imagine you do not work in family law or law in general. Maybe you've been divorced, that some good anecdotal evidence.
therevaj 4y ago
You clearly don't know what that word means.
6k people die each year from worldwide lightning strikes ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning\_strike#Epidemiology )
=12k over 2 years.
3% of alimony of the 400k alimony recipients are men: https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmajohnson/2014/11/20/why-do-so-few-men-get-alimony/#3f6727f754b9
=12k
​
sad you couldn't do this simple correlation on your own and would rather lie than admit it.
LotBuilder 4y ago
Is this true?
therevaj 4y ago
I did the calculations a while ago. Turns out that I'm actually underestimating. will update soon.
edit: it's 2 years and not 5.
grumpypoodle 4y ago
it is hyperbole
therevaj 4y ago
no, it's not. In fact, i underestimated.
grumpypoodle 4y ago
it is not even verifiable. That isn't something that is kept track of by any entity.
LotBuilder 4y ago
I knew it was close enough that the question was worth asking.
therevaj 4y ago
it's dead on.
6k people die each year from worldwide lightning strikes ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning\_strike#Epidemiology )
12k over 2 years.
3% of alimony of the 400k alimony recipients are men: https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmajohnson/2014/11/20/why-do-so-few-men-get-alimony/#3f6727f754b9
=12k
therevaj 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning\_strike#Epidemiology
working off these numbers, bucko. 2-6 years for either number and either way it's ridiculous.
grumpypoodle 4y ago
I don't think you read that correctly. that stat is not helping you bud.
It doesn't matter anyways, they do not keep track of if alimony is awarded to men. if they keep track of alimony I am sure gender is left out.
If this is the hill you want to die on. just chalk it up you were using a figure of speach.
therevaj 4y ago
can you not do math?
​
Seriously? https://lmgtfy.com/?q=percent+of+men+who+receive+alimony
https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmajohnson/2014/11/20/why-do-so-few-men-get-alimony/#3f6727f754b9 (because i don't know if you can click more than one thing)
​
I was "using" basic arithmetic.
Maybe stop lying and get your head out of the sand.
grumpypoodle 4y ago
Check your wiki sources first. you cant count worldwide lightening strikes and then limit the alimony number to us solely.
Then, your forbes article says that about 12,000 men are receiving alimony. As you know, most cases do not go to trial (\~80%) the are settled between the parties.
SO, isn't it men themselves that don't want alimony as they agree to the terms of the divorce?? Wouldn't you want the money upfront lump sum?
I think your little victimhood complex is blurring your vision bruh
LilliamPumpernickel- 4y ago
That’s the face of a man who’s given up. Damn I feel bad for him.
Slade_Riprock 4y ago
Why? Dude is still worth $400 million even if she gets what she wants. It's not like the fucker gonna be working 3 minimum wage jobs to pay her. Dude is still a half billionaire
04BluSTi 4y ago
$400M is reasonable. She was his partner while THEY amassed that wealth. Spousal support is absurd, as she's no longer his spouse and has plenty of resources at her disposal.
trtryt 4y ago
She couldn't make a decent beat even if you gave her 10 years.
GraveyardZombie 4y ago
Im sorry but no. Who worked for it? % Divided should be by the amount each person contributed to the relationship. If he amassed more wealth than her why should he give up his hard earned money when in this day and age where a woman can accumulate the same, be entitled to his? Its her fault she didnt earn the same amount there is no excuse. Especially if the results are in the millions, why in tf she needs spousal support after that? Nobody is entitled to the other person’s lifestyle. You want it? Work for it. Equality right?
04BluSTi 4y ago
That's not how it works. You're in a partnership, equally. His risk is hers and vice versa. Oprah's husband is entitled to 1/2 her earnings if they were to be separated as well.
behrpaints03 4y ago
Child support is great if it wasn't usually fucked up by dumbass judges
SonOfHibernia 4y ago
Gotta love this shit. You have to believe everything they say in court; and they can do absolutely nothing with their lives except marry a rich guy and end up a multimillionaire. Fuckin broads
Only_If_you_ask_me 4y ago
Came here to remind everyone, he is a piece of shit. His history of beating women is quickly forgotten somehow. Doesnt have anything to do with his divorce....? But I have little sympathy for him.
xAlphaKat 4y ago
Username does NOT check out.
Only_If_you_ask_me 4y ago
Haha. Fair
NerdGuyLol 4y ago
He attacked a camerawoman in 1992 (I think 1992?). Is that fucked up? Yes. Does that mean he's a wifebeater? No
Only_If_you_ask_me 4y ago
He has a history of beating women. Here is an article from NY times. There is more than just the 1991 incident. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/22/arts/music/dr-dre-apologizes-to-the-women-ive-hurt.amp.html&ved=2ahUKEwjM3Niqzb7qAhWGyTgGHcKhDDsQFjASegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw0z4gZXigo62V_ecQPwZ1Y1&cf=1
“I’ve been talking about my abuse for many, many years, but it has not gotten any ears until now,” said Michel’le, who was romantically involved with Dr. Dre from the late-’80s until the mid-’90s. (They have an adult son.) During that time, she said, he was often physically abusive, hitting her with a closed fist and leaving “black eyes, a cracked rib and scars.” Michel’le said she never pressed charges because, “We don’t get that kind of education in my culture.”
Also, from the same article. "Tairrie B, a.k.a Tairrie B. Murphy, said that Dr. Dre punched her twice in the face at a Grammys after-party in 1990 after she recorded a track insulting him."
Im a guy getting down voted for reminding people of his bullshit and abuse. Don't become like the blind sheep feminists we dislike. If we use guys like this to prove our point, our arguments will be easily dismantled.
kaii_king 4y ago
So we berate Dre for his historical crimes and call him a piece of shit.
But George Floyd who held a gun to a pregnant woman’s stomach dies and everyone calls him an angelic martyr?
Where is the line, here?
UbiquitousWobbegong 4y ago
If I was Dre, I'd be buying an expensive house in a country that doesn't extradite. Then I'd buy a big lawn ornament that looks like a middle finger when viewed from space.
michaelpaoli 4y ago
Uhm, we're missing a lot of context here. And the genders don't really matter.
Sure, it may be quite - even grossly - unfair, and discrimination based on sex.
Or it may not be at all. We lack lots of relevant information.
E.g., what jurisdiction? US? And if so, community property state? And yes, as stated, no prenup.
So, matters not the genders, let's call 'em A, and B.
Let's presume US and community property state, and as sated, no prenup.
So, in such case, most all that's acquired since the marriage equally belongs to each, 50/50 ... there are some exceptions, e.g. like typically family inheritance.
Let's say both were flat broke, but neither in debt, before marriage.
Let's say one (A) does the work/career thing, and B, mutually agreed by both of them, becomes a stay-at-home-parent, fully taking primary responsibility for raising and caretaking of the kids ... and lets say, for sake of argument, also fully taking on homeschooling of the kids, and to reasonably do all that, foregoes any and all career advancement, further related training/education, etc. - basically forefits all that to focus on the kids - B does that, while A keeps on career track and rakes in the money and savings, etc.
Okay, so, they get divorced.
A's earned tons - all the money. B has earned nothing. However B, and mutually agreed - or even at A's request, gave up all career aspirations to be stay-at-home-parent and home school the kids ... so, 24 years later, they divorce. Now, B is at exceeding disadvantage to (re)enter workforce, having for 24 years been out of it and not pursued such. E.g. in most regards, less able to jump into work force than a fresh college grad with about zero workforce experience ... about as employable as a high school grad +- a bit (about 24+ years older, but also some life experience). Whereas A continues raking in the dough on career track. So, them both entering into this knowing full well it was community property state, and both opting to do so and with no prenup at all, what sounds fair, equitable, and legal to you? Should it not, in such community property state - and without prenup, be that was earned/gained while they were married belongs 50/50 to each? And B sacrificing completely career, to raise kids and such, and perhaps even very much so at A's request. So A still has huge earning potential, whereas B hardly at all. And, by most states, is considered "long term marriage" (more than 10 years) - with that + community property state, future earnings of each, retirement, etc., will generally get split 50/50 (or semi-close to that). Might not sound great, but is that not fair - especially for the expectations of community property state, no pre-nup, and long-term marriage?
So, assign genders: A-M, B-F, ... then flip 'em around: A-F, B-M. If you haven't come up with the same result and recommendation regardless of which way you assign the genders (or heck, could be MM, or FF - whatever), then you've not done it correctly and fairly.
Now, whether or not community property states ought exist and handle things like that, and likewise for long-term marriage and so handling - that's a separate question/debate.
But regardless which way one sets/flips the genders, things should work out the same relative to roles and such, not genders - otherwise you're doing it wrong.
Note also that other jurisdictions are not community property states, and don't handle long-term marriages like that - may handle them very much like short-term marriages - even very short. And, what does one think would be fair if our hypothetical A and B were under such a system? And regardless of which way the genders were assigned?
DiedSl0wly 4y ago
Regardless of the sex she doesn't need half of his assets AND spousal support.
michaelpaoli 4y ago
"need" and fair aren't the same. What's fair?
Let's flip the genders.
He, stay-at-home-dad, gave up everything for 24 years to take care of the kids, earned nothing, passed up all career opportunities at the request of the wife, to take care of and raise and home school the kids. Meanwhile she raked in the dough and is a huge breadwinner. And he, can't do better employment-wise than about a fresh high-school grad - and has sacrificed all manner of career opportunity and potential to take care of the kids, etc. at her request. And they both much agreed no prenup, and community property state - all that's earned by each is owned 50/50, and long-term marriage, that should they split, that each would not only be entitled to assets 50/50, but likewise future earnings, and retirement. So, you're saying under such circumstances, he shouldn't be entitled to half of assets and half of earnings and retirement? What if her assets/savings were only $5,000.00 USD 'cause they both spent most all of it, but she earns, let's not say millions, but pulls in $300,000.00 USD per year in income on average. He should not get half of that? He should have to work at McDonalds or the like to try and survive, 'cause he's been out of the workforce for 24 years, and has nothing but a high school diploma, having sacrificed all to raise and home school the kids, at the request of the wife, and their agreement that they'd split all future earnings and retirement? 'Cause getting married in a community property state, and long term marriage, and no prenup, that's what they both agreed to - if not explicitly, at least implicitly. Oh, and not only no prenup, but presumably, all 24 years together and never did a postnup either ... so they not only agreed at marriage, but for the 24 subsequent years.
DiedSl0wly 4y ago
In terms of spousal support it is completely unfair. 50/50 assets and paychecks means that person A (the worker) has to continue working a very difficult job while person B (the stay at home person) Gets to relax for essentially the rest of their life and get a free. Half of all assets should buy person B enough time to get housing and a job and have a little left over for retirement. (Assuming person B saves a percent of their paycheck they should be okay for retirement.)
michaelpaoli 4y ago
What if person A doesn't have to do diddly to earn all that income? Maybe they've got it all in a bunch of investments? Or even if they're working to "earn" it, maybe they don't even have to put in anything close to 40 hrs. per week to pull in all that income. And what if the best B can manage is at/near minimum wage jobs - that hardly/barely covers a roof over one's head and essential expenses, let alone allowing for retirement savings ... at least beyond what Social Security would provide.
But I will agree, though, if B can get half of A's (comparatively huge) income, without working at all (and A half of B's meager income, if working full time minimum wage), then yes, true, B has negligible incentive to work - e.g. whether they work like a dog, or not at all, their net resultant income (including alimony / spousal support / etc.) would be about the same. Is that "unfair", or a quirk of the system. How 'bout a settlement order, such that each hour that A and B works, goes into a combined pool, And each gets from that pool, in proportion to the hours they work? (and presuming empty nesters and kits mostly or entirely out of the support equation - or the supporting of the kids and custody and such is split evenly). Arguable perhaps if that would be "fair", but ... would it be closer to fair?
Kirrawynne 4y ago
So, person A is banking $300k a year while paying out $2,500 to person B. Yeah, that’s totally enough money to try to support yourself while trying to get trained to enter the workforce at 50.
Person B sacrificed their future earning potential to be a stay at home parent and homemaker. You have recent college grads that can’t find jobs and you think a 50ish year old with no prior work experience is going to pull in any decent paying job?
It can also be argued that person A has a high paying job because person B was a stay at home parent. That’s why it’s not black and white.
DiedSl0wly 4y ago
Woah woah woah. In your earlier post you said 50/50 on assets AND Paycheck. If they get 300k a year then 2500 is fair.
Kirrawynne 4y ago
I didn’t make an earlier post.
So, you think it’s acceptable for someone who has given up their life and future earning potential to walk away from a divorce with $2500 total?
That’s messed up.
DiedSl0wly 4y ago
No that's 2,500 a year plus some of the assets liquid or otherwise.
Kirrawynne 4y ago
The point the original poster made was that someone could have a good salary but next to no assets so saying that the SAH spouse only gets half of the assets is unfair. SAH spouse has effectively given up any and all prospects of a decent career after being out of the workforce for 24 years and the work spouse gets all the money because their job is outside the home.
alien__unknown 4y ago
Drop a diss track
RIPDODGERSBANDWAGON 4y ago
Smh
rumpletuffin 4y ago
She looks like she's gonna give your meat a good old rub
sensuallyprimitive 4y ago
play stupid games, win stupid prizes
Ragnar_OK 4y ago
ITT: people who have never actually been in a relationship, not understanding the desire to get back at someone who hurt you
scyth3s 4y ago
If you don't understand child support, you're an idiot. The rest of the post is good.
horonlapsi 4y ago
Technically she should get half but cmon there should be cap how much you can get paid by divorcing the right person lowkey i think around 50 mill should be good
idc1710 4y ago
Ouch
JDP518 4y ago
Men are stupid.
kirbyateme3433 4y ago
Then women are stupid
[deleted] 4y ago
Another lazy bitch who wants to be handed shit in life because she’s incapable of getting it on her own. Shooooooooocker. No lazy bitch should be able to have kids.
TheSakiBomber 4y ago
This is just disgusting. Things need to change.
Swine_Connoisseur 4y ago
Marraige :The only contract people sign with no exit clause
moria0 4y ago
Quite honestly if I was him I'd cheat on her too.
LOWapproachg 4y ago
She wanna act like she'll forget about Dre!
rborens 4y ago
Eli5 whats the difference between the 400 mil and spousal support?
n0tqu1tesane 4y ago
If I understand correctly, $400 Million is a one time thing, spousal support is monthly until it ends.
If he's worth $800 Million, she may be entitled to half. One issue is what is he actually worth. Things like appraisal on house(s), savings, investments (IIRC, counted at 70%), taxable income, and so forth would determine all that.
vavaloves 4y ago
I would recommend not getting married if you’re no willing to give up everything for that person.
Booyakasha_ 4y ago
Unpopulair opinion. But 24 years is a long time. 100% legit she helped him trough everything. Now i dont say 400m is fair.
GaySage 4y ago
fuck you too, whore
anaboogiewoogie 4y ago
What’s the source for this? Every article I have read says nothing about her seeking $400mil? Just that she’s seeking spousal support...
StonedDwarf16 4y ago
Thats an expensive hoe
AxalonNemesis 4y ago
"I told that ex-bitch to get the fuck out when ya done. But then she took me to court for a shit ton. That's why I'm back in the studio making tracks and busting beats...for you to bump out on the street.
You don't pay a hoe for services you pay her to go away. Little did I know she got me for 400 million when she left the other day..."
malemanjul1 4y ago
Lawyer is getting high % . that's why, the ridiculous demand. well, of course, bitches are involved.
mimiczx 4y ago
Lawyers are the worst. They win in every situation...
commander2131 4y ago
Is this sub really just reposting shitty Facebook posts now?
Buchwild 4y ago
Dr Dre is a gansta, he's gonna handle her
/S
anillop 4y ago
She can ask for anything she wants but that does not mean she will receive it. Ask for the moon and the bargain down that’s how a negotiation works.
ThatBookMalice 4y ago
Agree with you up until not understanding child support, if your children are not adults then you have the responsibility to provide for them, end of.
hfucucyshwv 4y ago
Bring out Bill Burr
Bonesteel50 4y ago
Bitch's aint shit but hoes and tricks.
burninfate 4y ago
Child support is fucking broken.
aguszymite 4y ago
she is not attractive, like at all
moshdagoat 4y ago
Men who get married in western societies in this day and age are morons for doing so.
escaperscapers 4y ago
Spousal support and $400 million?? No mam should marry
Dapper-Car 4y ago
I have a prenup. Some advice given to me by my attorney was, have the other person find their own attorney and pay out of their pocket when going over the prenup. That way they can't say they didnt have proper representation.
Drortmeyer2017 4y ago
She couldn't settle for 100 million? Fucking bitch
CrimsonT-Rex 4y ago
I met him a long time ago when I was working at Toys 'R' Us. He was getting a present for a friend's kid and he cared so much about it, it was genuinely heart warming. Most people that came in grabbed the first toy they saw and called it a day but he gave great detail about their likes and interests. I had no idea who he was at the time and my co-workers swarmed me after he left. Seriously amazing man who deserves better.
God damn all men deserve better. This is bullshit and only seems to be problematic for the public when women have to pay. How odd...
KaroBean 4y ago
If she gave up her time in the workforce to raise kids then she is entitled to something. I think spousal support or some money up front. Not both.
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
Kirrawynne 4y ago
Oh you mean commit forgery? Yeah, I kinda think that’s illegal.
WhitKeaton 4y ago
I'm dumb, I used the word "with" and not the word "without".
I don't understand why signing a prenup requires two parties. It seems counter-intuitive that one party can't solely determine that what's their's belongs to them.
(forgery bad)
Clubbeddread31 4y ago
Her head looks like a jalapeño pepper
LotBuilder 4y ago
Marriage makes zero sense for an average guy much less a celebrity.
fierfek66 4y ago
Eddie Murphy was right all along...they always want HALF.
thereisnopressure 4y ago
If she is getting 400 million, why the fuck does she need fucking spousal support? Why the fuck isn't 400 million enough? Take your 400 million and move on you greedy bitch.
WeEatBabies 4y ago
Don't get married, ever!
titwrench 4y ago
Every divorce solved:
You split joint assets 50/50. That's it you're done. This isn't 1950, men and women can both work. If you've grown accustomed to a lifestyle figure out how to finance it or learn how to live a new lifestyle. Alimony is outdated. (Small caveat) If a spouse gave up a career or education to stay home and take care of household matters alimony for no more than 4 years and no more than what welfare would pay. If the government says that a living wage for someone not working than its good enough for this application.
Child support goes into an escrow account so the spouse paying it can see where it goes. (no money towards items or services benefitting the other spouse.) Anything outside of basic needs is split 50/50 (sports, clubs, events etc.)
n0tqu1tesane 4y ago
My thought is it should last the length of the divorce, but be reduced by one part per year. So for instance if they were married four years, and it is set at $1000 a month, the second year it becomes $750, the third $500, the fourth $250, and then $0.
On welfare, that is pretty broad area, can be worth tens of thousands per year. For instance, I have about $40k in student debt, but am disabled, and on an IBR. Between SSI, Section 8, IBR, and $8 in food stamps, I figure I'm getting about $3K a month, and i'm not sure how to calculate medicaid.
IANAL, but i think there's some fourth amendment issues there.
What about a car the child is transported in, or a house they live in? The fact the parent may also benefit does not make it a bad choice.
spaz77 4y ago
Honestly she's ugly as fuck. He should of booted her years ago.
Justsomerandomguy202 4y ago
Think of it this way. He knew she would ask for half, and he was so tired of her it was worth the legal fight and potentially half of his money to get rid of her.
Wolf0133 4y ago
If youre upper class theres no real reason to marry anyone
n0tqu1tesane 4y ago
Love?
kllodza 4y ago
Child support is pretty understandable, spousal support not so much. But it's pretty obvious she is being extremely rapacious and she wants to drain out of him as much money as she can. It's a dick move... hopefully there is smth that can be done about it
McBeeff 4y ago
Because its a marriage. I understand the kids thing but she gets half guys thats the deal when you get married.
ShogunChance 4y ago
She wants half of what he has worked for his whole life. Damn.
gaia2008 4y ago
The courts/state matches the custody in federal grants. The lawyer is working for the State. So is his
cyruszane 4y ago
Are you kidding me.
First, Andre "Dr. Dre" Young, has no monetary value on his worth. This man has done so much for American music, and music industry in general there is no way to repay him. He has changed his industry more then once in his own life time.
No matter what, this is impressive, he earned whatever 800 million dollars he had, sorry she didn't. She isn't owed a dime.
Dre should get better than this, all men should get better then this, and we are thought of as "hate mongers" for talking reality. I am sorry, but I can't tell you her name, I don't know it, I don't care, she did not change the way her profession is run, not once, but Twice in a few decades. I am all about saying a spouse can support their other half, but there is a point where that support is just a cheerleader when someone is on that level.
sadly, no march, no political figures will demand justice for Dre. And people will just sit back and watch, some powerless as we see this Artist robbed in front of us just like Paul McCartney was years ago.
Snackasm 4y ago
As fucked up as it is, Dr Dre will be fine... He got 400 million, not like he's going to be on the welfare line anytime soon.
sircocklord 4y ago
Being sued for half what he's worth is the problem here.
DirtyVanDijk 4y ago
Hardly the point though is it, its the standard. Not every guy is worth 400m but get the same raw deal.
And in what world does she deserve half of the money he's earned through his music.
By the same logic "as fucked up as it is, give her 4m, she will be fine, she won't be going on the welfare line anytime soon"
like_an_emu 4y ago
They signed a contract 24 years ago. She's not taking "his money" she's taking half of their money
Snackasm 4y ago
You're right Not every guy is worth $400 million, even though Dr Dre is worth $800 million but he's going to go down to four hundred But my point being is I hate when everyone gets so uptight about these god damn celebrity divorces, like anyone of us is going to see any of that paper? Please.
f__ckyourhappiness 4y ago
He got 400mil of his own money, lucky him to get some of his own earned assets.
Are you insane?
Snackasm 4y ago
I sure wish I had $400 million
f__ckyourhappiness 4y ago
Would you demand child support after that?
Snackasm 4y ago
If I had 400 million I wouldn't demand a damn thing after that, would just invest it.
f__ckyourhappiness 4y ago
That's one of the issues here. She's demanding child support after taking half his life from him.
Kebabhantel 4y ago
Is she a dude?
inferii 4y ago
I personally think child support makes sense (for either man or woman) if one parent has more custody but wtf is spousal support?? Especially if she already has that much money
DarrenDean 4y ago
I mean, after all these years I'm sure she can get a job or find some reality tv show on VH1 or BET to be a part of.
tetas_grande 4y ago
Child support is a must unless they split the time equally. Now, as they are grown, no. Spousal support? If she wanted the divorce, HELL NO!
hemayneverloveme 4y ago
She doesn't need spousal support. I'm a woman
Hugged_By_Corners 4y ago
The only thing she should get is a job, this bitch doesnt deserve any of his money he made
Domkraft 4y ago
Are there any otjer western countries where you get spousal support?
iainmf 4y ago
Don't make any comments about violence.
You will be banned for even joking about it.
I've banned 4 or 5 people already.
Bellidkay1109 4y ago
Thank you, really. There's been a trend here where we're getting some extremists, including far-right trolls and misogynistic assholes. If it wasn't for you mods, this place would likely have become a cesspit already. I don't mind (or well, I do but I can stand it) being accused of misogyny because I support MRA. As long as I know it's not true, I can be at ease. But I couldn't support MRA if it got taken over by sexist assholes. I believe in true equality, and just because women have historically had it rough, or that their issues are perceived as more important, doesn't mean we can't solve both of our problems. Even I can worry about multiple issues at the same time, and I have ADHD, it won't kill someone that really cares about equality to worry about men's issues too.
What I don't want is this subreddit, and, by extension, our movement, to become a home for sexism and hateful views, which it currently isn't. We won't achieve anything with hate and confrontation. This movement is already at a disadvantage because it's not socially aceptable in most circles to support it, let's not validate their criticism. We aren't against feminism. Maybe extremist feminism (third wave? that was the most recent a while ago, but maybe they've moved past that). While they aren't willing to compromise and work together currently, the only chance of achieving that we have depends on how we approach the issues. For better or worse, they have a huge platform, which we lack. If they can move past an "us vs them" mentality, or at least realize that "them" should be sexist assholes, not men or MRA's, both feminism and MRA will benefit (though admittedly we stand to gain more, it isn't a zero sum game).
Having to constantly justify ourselves doesn't help, either. When our existence (as MRAs) is constantly criticized, sometimes this sub has to provide some of the many outrageous examples of why we're necessary. This is a double-edged blade, though, because outraged people are more prone to hate and hateful views. Especially outraged people whose outrage is not getting validated. I'm not excusing misogynysts, it's everyone's responsibility to be vigilant and not fall "to the Dark Side", so to speak. But we need to work together to change the system to a fair one. It's clear most feminists aren't interested in associating with MRA. The solution to this isn't throwing a tantrum and achieving nothing. We have to offer our hands to them.
Feminism, as a movement, has so much social standing that it's basically unstoppable, regardless of how its contents change. Polarizing more the issues will only work against us. Not to mention that, even if it could be stopped, that's never the best case scenario, nor a good one. Their hardships are also relevant, and though great improvements have been done, we're not quite there yet. Any sensible person will be a feminist and a MRA, though not in its most extreme variances (and don't hit me with enlightened centrism, because, at its core, equal rights for both men and women is not, or should not be a political issue, and not something that's at odds with each other).
UrDrakon 4y ago
That was unexpected
Bellidkay1109 4y ago
Well, I started by wanting to thank him because his actions prevent an issue I care about, started explaining the issue, and got carried away. I tend to overexplain myself, sort of anticipating the answers I would receive if I didn't specify certain things. Sorry for the rant.
amnot8yrsold 4y ago
I like over explaining, shows the person has passion about the thing they are talking about.
short_dude5ft3in 4y ago
She’s just want what the law allows her to take. It’s lawful...unfortunately for him.
Mythandros 4y ago
Just because it's lawful doesn't make it right, or OK.
Its an unfair law created at a time when women couldn't get jobs if their husband left them. That isn't the case anymore.
This law needs to be removed, it's obsolete now. What's worse, it's often used by gold diggers who want an easy life on someone else's hard work.
bufedad 4y ago
It used to be lawful to own people as property.
Lawful is not equal to moral.
Rougemak 4y ago
Here here.
Make an argument in favor of her demand that relies on principles of fairness and justice... anyone?
[deleted] 4y ago
[deleted]
Rougemak 4y ago
Oh dang. TIL. Thanks
like_an_emu 4y ago
How is 2 people voluntarily entering a shared asset contract immoral?? You're comparing marriage to slavery
bufedad 4y ago
Contact act what contract did they sign that said she got this?
like_an_emu 4y ago
Marriage is a contract
bufedad 4y ago
Really? Show me the signed contract with the this clause.
like_an_emu 4y ago
Maybe my language is wrong? But when you get married you agree to certain conditions. Including shared assets. California uses community property. If they were $800 million in debt she would get half of that too.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_property
bufedad 4y ago
You don't agree to anything of the sort when you are married.
That's like saying when you commit a crime you agree to live by the rules in the prison commissary.
There is no contract you sign or agree to when you get married.
like_an_emu 4y ago
Lol ok. Good luck telling a judge that. Money earned during a marriage is shared assets. Could Dre have made that 800 million without his wife? Maybe, but he didn't, so it's half hers.
bufedad 4y ago
Again, you've said it's a contract that they entered into. Provide the contract, not discriminatory legislation aimed at punishing men.
aofk 4y ago
Dude is worth 800 mil, but he doesn't have 800 mil in the bank. Makes this even more of a joke when you look at it that way.
imcream 4y ago
honestly at theis point the dumbest thing is getting married without a prenup and asset protection like a trust.
Apptubrutae 4y ago
Honestly, given that Dr. Dre lives in CA (community property state) and got married in 1996, a prenup may not have done much.
In a community property state, every penny earned during the marriage is 50/50 by law. Now, obviously Dre had success before 1996, and he could absolutely have put that money in a separate account. But any new money he was making post-marriage would be 50/50. And he wouldn’t be able to commingle the pre-marriage money at all. If he did, poof, it’s all community property.
A quick glance at Wikipedia suggests that his ventures may have had some financial troubles and that things really took off in 1999 with Eminem. And then of course later Dre got into some real money with Beats.
So I suspect that regardless of what steps he took pre-marriage, the bulk of his wealth is half his wife’s anyway.
You can’t just write up a prenup that says something like “I fully own all the work I do in music and all anything I invest the proceeds in” and that’s that. It’s one thing with investment accounts, but it’s another with the product of labor.
This is all very simplified because we don’t know the details but the jist is that in the simplest terms a spouse owns 50% of everything moving forward, so if you made the bulk of your money after the marriage, a prenup hardly matters unless you keep your money very, very separate.
imcream 4y ago
If what you say is true and I doubt a lawyer can't find a way out, like a residence in NY or a trust, then I wouldn't get married at all. But that's just me, I don't expect it to be shared.
Apptubrutae 4y ago
Lawyers aren’t superheroes, and community property is stringent. This is why mackenzie Bezos got billions and billions. Amazon totally predated Jeff bezos’s marriage and there was no way around it.
And let’s remember since it’s 50/50, both spouses have access to the best attorneys in the world.
It’s much easier to keep assets separate if they’re passive investments though. Dr Dre or Jeff Bezos can’t do that as well because they go into work, and the product of their labor is split. Dr Dre couldn’t say put his music production business into a trust and say it’s premarital. The second he walks into a studio, to record or produce, his work product is 50/50 owned by his wife, pretty much no matter what. He’d basically have to split off all his premarital work and never touch it again except to passively manage the investment.
Obviously it can be done. People in community property states do maintain separate assets. But it’s challenging. And if they make their money via work, not capital gains or passive investments from entirely pre-marital assets...good luck.
The most important thing to keep in mind is that community property doesn’t care about how we define assets in marriage. It truly is split in half from day one moving forward. The money never legally was all or most Dre’s or Bezos’s. It was always half their spouse’s. They are, legally, equally entitled to it. MacKenzie Bezos has been the richest woman in the world for years. She was before her divorce.
imcream 4y ago
Then best option is not getting married, that would reduce the risk right?
Apptubrutae 4y ago
Substantially. Very substantially.
There are other downsides, of course. Generally worse tax treatment (unless it’s two high income individuals), no easy health insurance coverage from your employer, some more legal headaches here and there, and potentially reduced parental rights in the event of a breakup.
But by and large it is entirely possible to craft a marriage-like arrangement between two people without getting married and thus without the potential pitfalls of divorce. In almost any jurisdiction in the US this also does not result in a “common law” marriage which most people totally misunderstand. A common law marriage doesn’t just happen. It’s entered into willingly in lieu of a traditional civil marriage.
Of course in the real world, people still get married. Many potential partners simply will not consider a long term relationship without marriage. But the important thing to remember is that we are all able to freely construct relationships and property arrangements the way we want, even without marriage. But if you do use marriage as that tool, there are lots of rules and it really isn’t a free contract environment.
imcream 4y ago
Thanks for the complete answers. I'll personally go with no marriage and no kids, dodging bullets like a matrix chimp. I've seen far too many friends ruined by divorce, I'm not even considering it.
You're right many potential partners simply won't consider the possibility of a relationship without marriage but it also depwnds on age. At my age, they've already divorced once and already have kids so they take it pretty lightly too.
tryingtosleepwell 4y ago
I think there is a misconception here.
Normally there is no option for this kind of divorce agreement unless it is imposed on the person who disrupts the legal agreement (marriage in this case).
Think of the alimony as a punishment for braking the agreement you did (most likely in this case the fidelity to which he was contractually obligated).
dannyFBW 4y ago
She look like scotty pippen any way
thefudmaster 4y ago
In this situation, I agree with a 50/50 split of assets. Dre came to success with the support of his wife.
Alimony on the other hand is completely ridiculous in any situation, but especially this one. Dre’s soon to be ex wife is a licensed attorney and can easily be self-supporting.
johnkop4 4y ago
I never understood why most married couples don't have seperate finances.
KodyLapointe 4y ago
what did she do to help launch and put work into his career that made him the man he is today?
bravado 4y ago
A marriage is about more than tangible contributions. If she was the successful one and him the "supporting" spouse, I would still support the division of their assets regardless of gender.
Of course we all know that gold diggers very much do exist, but it shouldn't be shocking that exploitative people exist in the first place.
Ninja_Arena 4y ago
She wants the support part just in case he makes more money. It's disgusting.. she wants to own him for life.
Alimony is likely the best way to make the whole proceedings take longer so the lawyers get more money.
thefudmaster 4y ago
You’re correct and alimony is no longer tax deductible to the payor/obligor (Dre). It’s bullshit.
f__ckyourhappiness 4y ago
Maybe 20/80, and that's stretching it. It's like saying me sucking your dick every day for a year entitles me to half your company.
Little did you know I would have done it for free!
thefudmaster 4y ago
Great point. Watch Terrance Popp’s breakdown of how much each thrust/blowjob/etc. is worth. It’s eye opening. There is no alimony with no marriage gents.
therevaj 4y ago
link?
thefudmaster 4y ago
https://youtu.be/rHZgwHL3EXM
f__ckyourhappiness 4y ago
So like, is that a yes to the implication or should I look elsewhere?
thefudmaster 4y ago
Are you asking if I agree with 80/20 split with 80 going to him and 20 to her?
f__ckyourhappiness 4y ago
I'm askin if u wan dat succ
thefudmaster 4y ago
Lol. I’m bueno.
welcometothejl 4y ago
She's 24, how did she help Dre become successful before she was born?
Throw-The-O 4y ago
They have been married for 24 years.
thefudmaster 4y ago
She’s about 50 years old.
punkeddiemurphy 4y ago
Wife of 24 years. Not 24 years old.
welcometothejl 4y ago
Oh, my bad. But he was still making music before they were married. And even if she was with him back then I just don't see what entitles her to half.
Solace2010 4y ago
Because they were married for 24 years. You aren’t separate individuals in a marriage. You both contribute to it. He sold beats during their marriage, which I bet most of this wealth is coming from. I don’t see why she shouldnt be entitled to half of it.
welcometothejl 4y ago
Are you saying because the law says blah blah blah, legally she is entitled to half? I think most people on this sub understand roughly what the law says, but we believe the law is wrong. Or maybe you are saying that you think she deserves half? I mean let's be honest with ourselves. Do we think this woman sat in a studio learning the intricacies of mixing sounds to come up with beats, or did she sit at home consuming resources while the maid did all the housework. I bet the latter is closer to the truth.
FreedomReigns1776 4y ago
She isn't entitled to shit since she signed a prenup. Stop being a simp. It's pathetic.
LandownAE 4y ago
Probably because she didn’t do jack shit to make that wealth besides sit at home, completely uninvolved?
Decent_Priority 4y ago
Except she did, while he was down at the beats factory in China surveying prototypes with his tech team for his corporation, she was at home in LA driving kids to school and packing lunches and doing homework.
Aside from childcare, we have no idea what her roles were in his businesses. Maybe she was more involved than any of us know and was a part of them growing as well.
Assuming she did nothing at all to deserve a share is a joke.
GraveyardZombie 4y ago
Lol packing lunches. Anything that is your obligation as a parent should not be thrown at the other parent’s face like it was a privilege let alone claim compensation for it. Im pretty sure any man and Dre can cook own/kids meals. If that “privilege” needs to be payed for then Dre should get payed for that support since he is also 50/50 entitled to that lifestyle of having his meals made and his clothes/house cleaned.
Decent_Priority 4y ago
It’s 2020, nobody is entitled to anything in a marriage anymore, you get what you marry.
None of us know what his wife’s contributions were in their marriage. The spousal support and 50% asset split is typical, all divorce attorneys start at the top and work their way down in the mediation meetings to a settlement, then both parties agree on what is the final amounts. If they don’t then it’s all argued in court and a judge decides.
Everyone in here crying and moaning is fucking stupid already.
Mazanec930 4y ago
Woman
kong23104 4y ago
I like how everyone on here is speaking out fiercely for prenups, but in reality most do not have money or a girlfriend. My wife is my equal partner. If I succeed she succeeds and vice versa. If we divorce she deserves half because she stood by me when I needed her.
SonnBaz 4y ago
What a bunch of bollocks!
andylowenthal 4y ago
Why does she look like if Kevin Spacey were a Kardashian?
SoddingEggiweg 4y ago
Let's not pretend that these women don't know that the system is in absolute favor of them. Of course they are going to take advantage of it.
jsmith234917 4y ago
On a more positive note, Dr Dre looks very good in a suit.
jjcc88 4y ago
Katie has some big ass titties
Shabazinyk 4y ago
She'll probably get it, too. California has some of the worst divorce laws in the country.
zomanda 4y ago
IDK here's a wild ass idea... has anybody bothered to check how he feels about this. Also, despite widespread belief an overwhelmingly majority of men willing pay spousal support. Dollars to donuts most people who object to it here have never been obligated to it.