91–100 of 134 posts
> What caught me by surprise, and forced me to seek emergency loans from friends, were the enormous legal fees I had to pay my ex-wife's divorce lawyers. In a California divorce, the wealthier spouse must pay both sides of the battle even if they are not the aggressor. > The legal and accounting bills for the divorce total four million dollars so far, which is an average of roughly $170,000 per month for the past 24…
This is what you get for voluntarily involving the government in your personal matters. What bugs me most about the entire gay marriage debate is that it implies that the government should have control over the institution of marriage. The solution to the gay marriage debate is not to make it legal for gay people to get married, but to make it so that the government doesn't decide who can get married.
For example, immigration sponsorship. As a gay man with a non-American partner, this comes to mind first.
Currently, spouses do not have to testify against each other in court. This isn't codified in any law but British Common law (afaik). There are a few of these pleasantries that would have to be figured out.
Then, there are over 1,000 legal rights codified into contract law. Some of these can be emulated (power of attorney), some cannot.
It's a hard problem.
This whole thing is a bit surprisingly to me since it seems like Elon covered his bases with the separate property agreement. Yet it still has been a major hassle for him money wise. Gene Simmons (from the band kiss) has an interesting approach to this which he wrote about in his book. He never married his long time partner and playboy playmate Shannon Tweed. But he took it even a step further having her and other li…
This agreement was put in place after they were already married, right? That's what this case is basically about: determining if an agreement made in such a manner is valid.
For shame. I don’t understand how someone can be so greedy as to try to take wealth their ex-parter created after explicitly agreeing not to do so! Edit: And due to lawyers’ fees, the couple’s net worth is decreased by millions in the process.
This wasn't done in a prenup, it was done at a later stage in a legally (at this point anyway) ambiguous manner.
To be honest I have never been what you would call a huge Elon Musk fan but this was a very well laid out case. The amazing part of course is even though he had a prenup, the judges and lawyers have allowed this to go on so long he has huge legal fees. I have seen this happen to several entrepreneur friends of mine--in fact (true story)-- I know what entrepreneur who had a prenum and divorced and remarried the same w…
He didn't have a prenup. If he did the case would probably already be over.
Please don't flame me, but that's the kind of post doesn't really interest me on hacker news. (There are really few of them thought). If all news were like this, I would stop using HN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know about other countries, but most states in the US do not recognize common law marriage.
It's a British law thing so most commonwealth countries have this.
Most people think that, after they've been living with their partner for a couple of years, they become 'common law husband and wife' with the same rights as married couples. This is not the case. In fact, couples who live together have hardly any of the same rights as married couples or civil partners.
There is no such thing as ‘common law marriage’.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Your...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a British law thing so most commonwealth countries have this.
Direct from the UK government's website: Most people think that, after they've been living with their partner for a couple of years, they become 'common law husband and wife' with the same rights as married couples. This is not the case. In fact, couples who live together have hardly any of the same rights as married couples or civil partners. There is no such thing as ‘common law marriage’. http://www.direct.gov.uk/…
British law vs say Roman law.
Because of the widespread nature of the British empire remnants of these laws (and remnants of the Empire, such as the Queen being formally the supreme being in Canada) are still found all over the world, even if a lot of those laws have been abolished in the UK itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Direct from the UK government's website: Most people think that, after they've been living with their partner for a couple of years, they become 'common law husband and wife' with the same rights as married couples. This is not the case. In fact, couples who live together have hardly any of the same rights as married couples or civil partners. There is no such thing as ‘common law marriage’. http://www.direct.gov.uk/…
British law != UK current law but those laws that in the distant past were direct descendents of UK law at the time. British law vs say Roman law. Because of the widespread nature of the British empire remnants of these laws (and remnants of the Empire, such as the Queen being formally the supreme being in Canada) are still found all over the world, even if a lot of those laws have been abolished in the UK itself.