Who do you support in this case? Deception

[stvdv]

Really Great true short story
Just 50 sec (incl. 6 sec ads)
So I won't tell the clue
(Shows how far/low some go)

Who do you support in this case?
How do YOU FEEL about this case?

https://youtube.com/shorts/y6wIdKEmrwo

Thanks:
@Sedim Haba (reply w/o poll is much appreciated too)
@Estro Felino (I am interested in how others feel here)

*) Text version of YouTube giving details
Husband secretly divorced wife after wedding ‘to protect assets’

 

[Sedim Haba]

Really Great short story
Just 50 sec (incl. 6 sec ads)
So I won't tell the clue

Who do you support in this case?

https://youtube.com/shorts/y6wIdKEmrwo

First off, no ads with an ad-blocker.

It's complicated, (not a choice in the poll) but hold on... let me explain.

If prenups worked, he wouldn't need to resort to this sneaky tactic. But they don't work.
No-fault divorce means that a woman can just decide to divorce and take 1/2 his money.
(and 80% of divorces in no-fault states are initiated by the woman. 80%. Think on that)

HOWEVER. She stuck with him for TWENTY years, so she's no gold-digger.
His plan would be justified if she turned around and divorced him in six months.
(but It's half, not all) But, she didn't. 20 years. So she deserves alimony, IMHO.

PLUS! I bet they traveled in? or lived in a state that has common-law marriages laws.
Twenty years most certainly qualifies for common-law marriage. She could file there.

Bottom line: His plan was smart if she did turn out to be just a gold-digger.
However, that plan is a bit obsolete as she stayed with him TWENTY years.

 

[Estro Felino]

I dont know American civil law in detail.

But the civil law of my country clearly says that an alleged divorce in another country is juridically irrelevant, unless a Civil Court of my country validates it with definitive ruling. That is the matter becomes res judicata. Irrevocable judgement.


So...first I need information about American private law, and family law.

 

[stvdv]

First off, no ads with an ad-blocker.

It's complicated, (not a choice in the poll) but hold on... let me explain.

If prenups worked, he wouldn't need to resort to this sneaky tactic. But they don't work.
No-fault divorce means that a woman can just decide to divorce and take 1/2 his money.
(and 80% of divorces in no-fault states are initiated by the woman. 80%. Think on that)

HOWEVER. She stuck with him for TWENTY years, so she's no gold-digger.
His plan would be justified if she turned around and divorced him in six months.
(but It's half, not all) But, she didn't. 20 years. So she deserves alimony, IMHO.

PLUS! I bet they traveled in? or lived in a state that has common-law marriages laws.
Twenty years most certainly qualifies for common-law marriage. She could file there.

Bottom line: His plan was smart if she did turn out to be just a gold-digger.
However, that plan is a bit obsolete as she stayed with him TWENTY years.

Thank you very much, I really appreciate your thoughts. Indeed not easy to answer in a poll, unless you are against divorce (when well treated). But I did add some poll items all can answer

 

[stvdv]

I dont know American civil law in detail.

But the civil law of my country clearly says that an alleged divorce in another country is juridically irrelevant, unless a Civil Court of my country validates it with definitive ruling.


So...first i need information about American private law, and family law.

You don't need to know law details miss lawyer
I am just interested how YOU FEEL about this case

Thanks for sharing though
I added it in the OP

 

[Estro Felino]

By the by...
Berlusconi is 85 years old. He has just married a 32 year old parliamentarian, Marta Fascina.

 

[Estro Felino]

You don't need to know law details...I am just interested share how YOU FEEL about this case

As a jurist I side with free will.
If this man considered appropriate to divorce his wife in the Dominican Republic, good for him.

 

[Estro Felino]

First off, no ads with an ad-blocker.

It's complicated, (not a choice in the poll) but hold on... let me explain.

If prenups worked, he wouldn't need to resort to this sneaky tactic. But they don't work.
No-fault divorce means that a woman can just decide to divorce and take 1/2 his money.
(and 80% of divorces in no-fault states are initiated by the woman. 80%. Think on that)

HOWEVER. She stuck with him for TWENTY years, so she's no gold-digger.
His plan would be justified if she turned around and divorced him in six months.
(but It's half, not all) But, she didn't. 20 years. So she deserves alimony, IMHO.

PLUS! I bet they traveled in? or lived in a state that has common-law marriages laws.
Twenty years most certainly qualifies for common-law marriage. She could file there.

Bottom line: His plan was smart if she did turn out to be just a gold-digger.
However, that plan is a bit obsolete as she stayed with him TWENTY years.

As far as I understand, American family law is a bit arbitrary.
Here there are very precise articles of code, so the judge's hands are tied, whenever he rules.

But the principles are very similar...because if the husband is unfaithful, the fault of the divorce is charged 100% onto him.
So he will have to pay for the hedonic damage.

 

[Sedim Haba]

As a jurist I side with free will.
If this man considered appropriate to divorce his wife in the Dominican Republic, good for him.

It was an insurance policy, nothing more. They stayed together 20 years.

 

[Sedim Haba]

As far as I understand, American family law is a bit arbitrary.
Here there are very precise articles of code, so the judge's hands are tied, whenever he rules.

But the principles are very similar...because if the husband is unfaithful, the fault of the divorce is charged 100% onto him.
So he will have to pay for the hedonic damage.

EXCEPT in no-fault states. Then it's always on him. Even if he did nothing. The system is broken.

 

[stvdv]

First off, no ads with an ad-blocker.

I meant the ad (at 25sec) of the person who does the talking promoting his other video on how to erase anything from your photos

I thought this ad was like "burned in", but I will install an ad blocker to see the magic (thanks for reminding about ad blocker...I did notice an abundance of ads lately)

 

[Sedim Haba]

I meant the ad (at 25sec) of the person who does the talking promoting his other video on how to erase anything from your photos

I thought this ad was like "burned in", but I will install an ad blocker to see the magic (thanks for reminding about ad blocker...I did notice an abundance of ads lately)

Ya, there's no getting around that kind of in-stream ad except scroll past them.
Youtube ads are out of control, as they push the premium membership. F that.

 

[Estro Felino]

EXCEPT in no-fault states. Then it's always on him. Even if he did nothing. The system is broken.

I see. I had forgotten that each state has its own legislation.

 

[stvdv]

If prenups worked, he wouldn't need to resort to this sneaky tactic. But they don't work.
No-fault divorce means that a woman can just decide to divorce and take 1/2 his money.
(and 80% of divorces in no-fault states are initiated by the woman. 80%. Think on that)

Thanks for this, I don't know anything about divorce laws

What is your personal view/feeling...if the man is the perfect husband (of course hypothetical), and the woman decides to exchange him for a better looking man (her only reason).

I feel "the man should not be forced by law to pay, if he wants he can give money of course)"
What would you say in such hypothetical case?

 

[Sedim Haba]

Thanks for this, I don't know anything about divorce laws

What is your personal view/feeling...if the man is the perfect husband (of course hypothetical), and the woman decides to exchange him for a better looking man (her only reason).

I feel "the man should not be forced by law to pay, if he wants he can give money of course)"
What would you say in such hypothetical case?

The sad fact is, she can do this in many jurisdictions and the man just has to pay her per the law.
Many men. my own sons included, are simply checking out of the legal contract that is marriage.
It's called MGTOW. Men Going Their Own Way. I'm proud of my sons, getting RAPED in divorce
court is stupid. They are NOT Chads, taking advantage of women. They simply see the law
is stacked against them and refuse to be abused. Good on them, sad that things are like that now.

 

[stvdv]

The sad fact is, she can do this in many jurisdictions and the man just has to pay her per the law.
Many men. my own sons included, are simply checking out of the legal contract that is marriage.
It's called MGTOW. Men Going Their Own Way. I'm proud of my sons, getting RAPED in divorce
court is stupid. They are NOT Chads, taking advantage of women. They simply see the law
is stacked against them and refuse to be abused. Good on them, sad that things are like that now.

Thanks, I thought you would agree it's not good to walk out of marriage w/o a valid reason (if the other cheats on you then it's the other who already divorced you by cheating (=divorce), hence cheating is a valid reason to stop the hypocracy and get a divorce)

Because men and women divorce too easily (50%) nowadays I decided to never marry and stay alone.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Why isn't there an "I don't care" option?

My only comment here is Gabriel is a jerk for deceiving Christine for 20 years.

 

[fantome profane]

If the couple lived like a married couple it should be considered a common law marriage. Especially if one party believed they were legally married.

I think that is correct legally, but I am not a lawyer. But either that is how the law works, or that should be how the law works.

 

[mangalavara]

Who do you support in this case?
How do YOU FEEL about this case?

I'd support Christine IF he treated her not well. Allow me to explain why this is my position. First, Gabriel certainly does not have my support because what he did was deceptive. Marriage is not the institution for deception, especially that sort of deception. Second, I don't know Christine's reason for wanting to divorce Gabriel. Nonetheless, if Christine had to endure any kind of abuse from Gabriel, she would have my support because it would be obvious why she wanted to divorce him.

My only comment here is Gabriel is a jerk for deceiving Christine for 20 years.

Indeed he is.

 

[stvdv]

Why isn't there an "I don't care" option?

Because I don't care to know if others don't care

Also, I reached my 10 limit