What if marriage was temporary?

Often times alimony represents the investment that one partner made in the other expecting future gains. Many nasty divorces involve a spouse who sacrificed their own career to raise the children or help support the other as they worked to get a degree. In such cases there was an unspoken agreement that these sacrifices would be repaid in future financial security.
 
Brainster said:
Surely you are not talking about contemporary American culture?
Click to expand...

Yep, I am. The meme about "finding the one" and those "til death do us part" vows. I'd bet there are scant few marriages that are intended by either party to be temporary. Nearly everybody intends their marriage to be forever. Some do it more than once.
 
Weak Kitten said:
As The Don stated, marriage is a financial contract as much as it is a social one. Unless these temporary marriages have better rules as to how the breakup is handled (which would be a minor miracle) then all it would mean is that every marriage that reaches a certain age will face a divorce court. I'm sure the lawyers would celebrate but the rest of us would be rather frustrated.
Click to expand...


I dunno. Suppose a marriage dissolved automatically after the youngest child turned 18, unless the parties elected to remain married. That would eliminate child custody and support issues. Then if the law included a standard division of property (maybe each party keeps what they brought to the marriage plus inheritances from their own relatives, and anything acquired during the marriage would be split down the middle), that would eliminate most financial issues. Staying together would be the result of a positive decision, rather than inertia or resignation. Divorce is easier than it used to be, but in many cases it's not really very easy or cheap.
 
Bob001 said:
I dunno. Suppose a marriage dissolved automatically after the youngest child turned 18, unless the parties elected to remain married. That would eliminate child custody and support issues. Then if the law included a standard division of property (maybe each party keeps what they brought to the marriage plus inheritances from their own relatives, and anything acquired during the marriage would be split down the middle), that would eliminate most financial issues. Staying together would be the result of a positive decision, rather than inertia or resignation. Divorce is easier than it used to be, but in many cases it's not really very easy or cheap.
Click to expand...

Boy, that would make the youngest kids 18th birthday a bit awkward.

Happy Birthday!
So, I'm leaving your mom, but no worries, right?
What, when did you and mom decide this?
I decided when she laughed at my Harley. And why do you assume I've told her, that's up to you Mr. Eighteen-year-old-setting-his-daddy-free. Later.
 
Edx said:
The difference is that with no fault it means you can enter into a contract and nullify it whenever you like for no reason, which wouldn't be so bad except that you are being forced to split assets and make alimony payments of course.
Click to expand...

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a pre-nuptial agreement?

I'm no expert, but I think they tend to address the very issues you are concerned with.

Or were you wanting to have your view of marriage kept secret from your bride until you decided it was time for a divorce?
 
Bob001 said:
I dunno. Suppose a marriage dissolved automatically after the youngest child turned 18, unless the parties elected to remain married. That would eliminate child custody and support issues. Then if the law included a standard division of property (maybe each party keeps what they brought to the marriage plus inheritances from their own relatives, and anything acquired during the marriage would be split down the middle), that would eliminate most financial issues. Staying together would be the result of a positive decision, rather than inertia or resignation. Divorce is easier than it used to be, but in many cases it's not really very easy or cheap.
Click to expand...

The division of property is never that easy. Let's say that I inherit £100k and that 15 years later I get divorced do I get:

  • Just the £100k
  • The £100k indexed
  • The 70% of the equity in the family home that the £100k bought - which is now worth £200k (or is now worth £50k)
  • What if the £100k enabled me to sit at home eating crisps while my wife went out to work. Do I get the £100k and half of everything she has worked for ?

Who gets the trinkets and gee-gaws that have little cash worth but have a lot of emotional value ?

Who gets the cats ?
 
The Don said:
The division of property is never that easy. Let's say that I inherit £100k and that 15 years later I get divorced do I get:

  • Just the £100k
  • The £100k indexed
  • The 70% of the equity in the family home that the £100k bought - which is now worth £200k (or is now worth £50k)
  • What if the £100k enabled me to sit at home eating crisps while my wife went out to work. Do I get the £100k and half of everything she has worked for ?
Click to expand...
I don't know specific laws but I believe that in many cases, an inheritance would remain the property of the inheritor unless/until it (in the case of cash money) was invested into community property. So, if the hypothetical 100k was kept in a separate account in your name, you'd probably get to keep the whole thing in a divorce. If you spent it on the family home or used it to fund an extremely long vacation it would then become community property. In short, it would only remain your personal property as long as you could prove it continued to be separate...but, again, IANAL.
Who gets the trinkets and gee-gaws that have little cash worth but have a lot of emotional value ?

Who gets the cats ?
Click to expand...
Trinkets go to wives, gee-gaws go to husbands. Cats are butchered and the meat is split equally.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Boy, that would make the youngest kids 18th birthday a bit awkward.

Happy Birthday!
So, I'm leaving your mom, but no worries, right?
What, when did you and mom decide this?
I decided when she laughed at my Harley. And why do you assume I've told her, that's up to you Mr. Eighteen-year-old-setting-his-daddy-free. Later.
Click to expand...

The bigger question is - do you leave on the kid's 18th birthday or do you wait for the weekend?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom