[temujin]

http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/wife-of-...17682.html

Notice the extremely biased way that the article is written.

Infuriating.

[Kitsune]

This article goes to show that the real winner in the divorce battle is the lawyer.

Quote:

Cioffi-Petrakis told Shine that she (with much help from her parents) shelled out nearly $475,000 in lawyers’ fees over the years, and that her husband has paid more than $600,000. “And we haven’t even gotten to the divorce,” she said. Despite the fact that the couple have been estranged since 2010 when Petrakis first filed for divorce, the proceedings were put on hold by the court until the the prenup matter could be settled. Now the two will be able to move ahead to make their split official.

In the battle of the sexes, this is another hollow victory for women, as more men are simply not going to 'man up' and get married.

[Barada22]

It is another reason not to get married. The details on the case (from an actual reporter rather than a womans website) show that it was truly scary that she won. The political correct rule as always: if it's he said/she said, he's an asshole.

[TheSlayer]

I just saw that, was gonna make a thread on it. Absolutely disgusting. Even a pre-nup is of no use now because she can just prove that she was "coerced" into signing this. And there are men out there that still wanna get married. Blows my mind.

[kdolo]

No man worth what he is worth should be marrying.

I know he thought he was protecting himself. but he learned a very expensive lesson.

Do Not Get Married.

[Cincinnatus]

Love browsing the comments. It's becoming apparent that a whole hell of a lot of men are fed up with this shit.

Good.

[attachment=10450]

[attachment=10451]

[attachment=10452]

[attachment=10453]

[attachment=10454]

[attachment=10455]

[attachment=10456]

[attachment=10457]

[RedPillSchool]

We certainly wouldn't want this poor woman to deal with the consequences of her actions. I mean, she was obviously coerced into this marriage. There was no way for her to say no. There was no way for her to decide not to get married if she didn't like the terms. There was no way for her to say, "Well if you're really doing this prenup this late in the game, we're postponing the wedding until I can decide on it."

Right?

Right guys?

She was coerced, and had none of the above options.. right?

[Merenguero]

(03-11-2013 03:44 PM)Kitsune Wrote:  

This article goes to show that the real winner in the divorce battle is the lawyer.

Quote:

Cioffi-Petrakis told Shine that she (with much help from her parents) shelled out nearly $475,000 in lawyers’ fees over the years, and that her husband has paid more than $600,000. “And we haven’t even gotten to the divorce,” she said. Despite the fact that the couple have been estranged since 2010 when Petrakis first filed for divorce, the proceedings were put on hold by the court until the the prenup matter could be settled. Now the two will be able to move ahead to make their split official.

Don't count on it. I have three rules:
1. Answer the phone/return all calls immediately
2. Always show up on time
3. Never make clients feel like they are being ripped off

When lawyers don't follow these rules, especially number 3, bad things can and will happen. Good luck trying to argue that $475,000 in fees or over $600,000 in fees is reasonable when you haven't even gotten to the divorce yet.

[Menace]

I read the story. If he truly asked her to sign the prenup 4 days before the wedding as she alleges, then his attorneys badly advised him. One would think this fact would be readily ascertainable. You need to do that shit WAY early, like months before the wedding to avoid situations just like this.

[Samseau]

Quote:

She also told the court the agreement included promises her ex never intended to keep. Among those promises, she said, was that he would add her name to the deed of their Old Brookville home, and that he would destroy the prenup after the birth of their first child.

Right... if this was true, why weren't they listed on the pre-nup?

[Menace]

Promises to convey land have to be in writing (statute of frauds). How can she even introduce "evidence" of this? Anyway, as usual with most legal cases, the facts as described in the article rarely tell all of the story and it's always more complicated. However, the bottom line is that the woman won because she was somehow able to show her husband was "bad" and thus rescind a contract she voluntarily entered into.

For those interested, the appeal decision is here: Appeal Decision

The appeals court just upheld the decision of the lower court. I'm not sure what the basis of the appeal was, but if it was abuse of discretion, that's a tough one to win on appeal unless there is something really egregious going on, especially in family court, where discretion of the judges appears to be plenary in many cases.

However, here is another lower court decision (I suspect there are many such decisions) where the husband wins: lower court decision

So, who knows.

[Basil Ransom]

(03-11-2013 04:05 PM)Menace Wrote:  

I read the story. If he truly asked her to sign the prenup 4 days before the wedding as she alleges, then his attorneys badly advised him. One would think this fact would be readily ascertainable. You need to do that shit WAY early, like months before the wedding to avoid situations just like this.

This is rule #1 of getting prenups - if you pressure your bride to be right before the wedding, there's a good chance the pre-nup will be thrown out if she contests it down the line. Instead, get that shit finalized weeks or months before. Rule #2 is make sure she has her own legal representation. This dude was being a dumbfuck and did neither. Given that, I'm not convinced this case is all that revolutionary.

[Timoteo]

I think the whole premise of coercion is bullshit. If she had a lawyer present or not, and didn't like the terms of the prenup, it's her responsibility to raise her objections and refuse to sign. You don't sign, go through with the wedding, then when you want out say you were forced to sign. You weren't forced - you, as an adult, have to make a choice, even if the choice is an unpleasant one.

[Lemmo]

(03-11-2013 06:07 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

I think the whole premise of coercion is bullshit. If she had a lawyer present or not, and didn't like the terms of the prenup, it's her responsibility to raise her objections and refuse to sign. You don't sign, go through with the wedding, then when you want out say you were forced to sign. You weren't forced - you, as an adult, have to make a choice, even if the choice is an unpleasant one.

If the legal system were concerned with treating women like adults, husbands wouldn't need to worry about having their assets seized in the first place. But this guy should have known he had to hire a separate lawyer for his wife so I don't have much pity for him.

[Basil Ransom]

(03-11-2013 06:07 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

I think the whole premise of coercion is bullshit. If she had a lawyer present or not, and didn't like the terms of the prenup, it's her responsibility to raise her objections and refuse to sign. You don't sign, go through with the wedding, then when you want out say you were forced to sign. You weren't forced - you, as an adult, have to make a choice, even if the choice is an unpleasant one.

Except the bride and her family could be responsible for tens of thousands of dollars of wedding expenses even if the wedding gets called off. Again, there's a right way to do it, and if this guy didn't do it, then it's his fault he lost in court. I previously posted about a case where the guy *did* do it right, and the ex got nothing despite his net worth in the mid-8 digits.

Of course, we don't really know if he threatened her with calling off the wedding right before - it's not clear if he disputed that.

Update: the original Yahoo article is shit. This one has more info (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11...53146.html ). What I said before doesn't necessarily apply.

"According to D'Antonio, three months before the couple's 1998 wedding, Peter Petrakis presented his bride with a prenup stipulating that all assets acquired during their marriage would remain his in the event of the divorce.

Elizabeth Petrakis was guaranteed $25,000 for every year the couple was married. When she refused to sign the prenup -- and still hadn't done so four days before the wedding -- Peter Petrakis is said to have promised that he would tear up the agreement after the two had children."

It sounds a lot more grey now. What he should have done is get the prenup signed before any wedding arrangements are made. Instead, she refused to sign, and they went on to organize the marriage regardless. And what if she had continued to refuse to sign it - would he have still married her? Very possibly. What she did was questionable, but he also made quite the tactical mistake.

[Celtic]

(03-11-2013 06:02 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

This is rule #1 of getting prenups - if you pressure your bride to be right before the wedding, there's a good chance the pre-nup will be thrown out if she contests it down the line. Instead, get that shit finalized weeks or months before. Rule #2 is make sure she has her own legal representation. This dude was being a dumbfuck and did neither. Given that, I'm not convinced this case is all that revolutionary.

Go even further than just weeks or months before. Get the prenuptial in before you set a date, and make sure she has legal representation. Otherwise you have no chance.

[Basil Ransom]

(03-11-2013 06:29 PM)Celtic Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 06:02 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

This is rule #1 of getting prenups - if you pressure your bride to be right before the wedding, there's a good chance the pre-nup will be thrown out if she contests it down the line. Instead, get that shit finalized weeks or months before. Rule #2 is make sure she has her own legal representation. This dude was being a dumbfuck and did neither. Given that, I'm not convinced this case is all that revolutionary.

Go even further than just weeks or months before. Get the prenuptial in before you set a date, and make sure she has legal representation. Otherwise you have no chance.

Yup, you're right. Didn't think of this until I saw more info on the case, as I indicate in my post above. In short, before you spend a single effing dollar on the wedding, get that prenup signed.

Haha, this might make the engagement process kind of hairy. Do you not announce your engagement until she signs a prenup? You probably won't want to buy her a valuable engagement ring, because she'll hold it hostage to avoid signing the prenup. She may try and pressure you into ditching the prenup, by threatening to break off the engagement and besmirch your reputation - but then you just grow a pair and not give a fuck if she does. Maybe the Roissy tack of making her propose is best - long before she proposes, you repeatedly, blithely state that you'd want a prenup, so that when she finally proposes, it won't come as a shock. The hardest part is not getting her to accept a prenup, it's getting her to accept one when she wasn't expecting one. It's like trying to make someone pay for something they're used to getting for free - the expectation is so strong that it will prove hard to change.

[Timoteo]

(03-11-2013 06:16 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 06:07 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

I think the whole premise of coercion is bullshit. If she had a lawyer present or not, and didn't like the terms of the prenup, it's her responsibility to raise her objections and refuse to sign. You don't sign, go through with the wedding, then when you want out say you were forced to sign. You weren't forced - you, as an adult, have to make a choice, even if the choice is an unpleasant one.

If the legal system were concerned with treating women like adults, husbands wouldn't need to worry about having their assets seized in the first place. But this guy should have known he had to hire a separate lawyer for his wife so I don't have much pity for him.

Point taken, but if the husband hires the lawyer, she'd probably challenge on the premise that her attorney didn't act in her best interests in advising her to sign...HA HA! All she had to do was make sure she had kids. In the even of divorce, the woman and children don't get thrown out of the house, and he would have had to pay child support also.

[temujin]

She and her parents shelled out almost HALF A MILLION in legal fees so her daughter could take a chunk out of this guy's net worth, now and into the future.

I never heard of a poor, ignorant, defenseless victim who could afford $450,000 in lawyer fees.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

The article insinuates this could be precedent-setting. If this does mean that pre-nups can be more easily overturned in the future it will spell the end of marriage. But (and this is a significant but) only for men who have something to lose.

That means the men that women will be left to marry will be the losers in life who achieved little and accumulated nothing. Any man who has property and a savings account would be an idiot to sign on to marriage after this. This is profoundly significant. And it basically upends what marriage was all about. Don't underestimate this. Quite a few men I know went into marriage assuming their pre-nups would be respected by the courts. If this is not the case, we're going to have a sea change on our hands that no one could have foreseen.

I'm expecting Mark Minter to chime in in 4...3...2...1...

[Lemmo]

(03-11-2013 07:30 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 06:16 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 06:07 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

I think the whole premise of coercion is bullshit. If she had a lawyer present or not, and didn't like the terms of the prenup, it's her responsibility to raise her objections and refuse to sign. You don't sign, go through with the wedding, then when you want out say you were forced to sign. You weren't forced - you, as an adult, have to make a choice, even if the choice is an unpleasant one.

If the legal system were concerned with treating women like adults, husbands wouldn't need to worry about having their assets seized in the first place. But this guy should have known he had to hire a separate lawyer for his wife so I don't have much pity for him.

Point taken, but if the husband hires the lawyer, she'd probably challenge on the premise that her attorney didn't act in her best interests in advising her to sign...HA HA! All she had to do was make sure she had kids. In the even of divorce, the woman and children don't get thrown out of the house, and he would have had to pay child support also.

To quote the computer Joshua from the 80's film classic WarGames: "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?" At least if the payment is contingent on her having kids, the guy will be sure to get some use out of the wife.

[CJ_W]

(03-11-2013 06:39 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 06:29 PM)Celtic Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 06:02 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

This is rule #1 of getting prenups - if you pressure your bride to be right before the wedding, there's a good chance the pre-nup will be thrown out if she contests it down the line. Instead, get that shit finalized weeks or months before. Rule #2 is make sure she has her own legal representation. This dude was being a dumbfuck and did neither. Given that, I'm not convinced this case is all that revolutionary.

Go even further than just weeks or months before. Get the prenuptial in before you set a date, and make sure she has legal representation. Otherwise you have no chance.

Yup, you're right. Didn't think of this until I saw more info on the case, as I indicate in my post above. In short, before you spend a single effing dollar on the wedding, get that prenup signed.

Haha, this might make the engagement process kind of hairy. Do you not announce your engagement until she signs a prenup? You probably won't want to buy her a valuable engagement ring, because she'll hold it hostage to avoid signing the prenup. She may try and pressure you into ditching the prenup, by threatening to break off the engagement and besmirch your reputation - but then you just grow a pair and not give a fuck if she does. Maybe the Roissy tack of making her propose is best - long before she proposes, you repeatedly, blithely state that you'd want a prenup, so that when she finally proposes, it won't come as a shock. The hardest part is not getting her to accept a prenup, it's getting her to accept one when she wasn't expecting one. It's like trying to make someone pay for something they're used to getting for free - the expectation is so strong that it will prove hard to change.

That sounds like Waaay too much work haha!

I'd rather just not get married, or at least get married to a young foreign woman in her own country when I'm in my early 60's and rich until then, I'd just stay single, slay women, build wealth.

[vinman]

I tell guys all the time, find a bitch you absolutely hate and buy her a house. It'll still be cheaper than being married.

[Vacancier Permanent]

That's the best and most original way of putting it that I've heard. I'm going to use it from now on. Thanks!

(03-11-2013 09:38 PM)vinman Wrote:  

I tell guys all the time, find a bitch you absolutely hate and buy her a house. It'll still be cheaper than being married.

[Quintus Flaminius]

The comments are Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelicious, wanna advertise the manosphere over there?