[DickDastardly]

delete

[CH-Toronto]

That just sounds like a nightmare. It's unfortunate he went through it twice.

[Gringuito]

(06-11-2015 07:00 AM)DickDastardly Wrote:  

Then he loses his job again. Honestly I don't know why but all I can think of is that whatever personality trait that leads to his white knighting must be translating into something else at work that is rasing some red flags.

That's a tough story to read. When you're in the upper management making insane money there's quite a bit of competition below you that would like you to fail to make room for them at the top. If you're a white knight without a killer instinct that just tries to please everyone.....not going to end so well. I hope he gets his life together. He must have some great skills in his industry to climb the latter twice. Maybe this time he will be a little wiser for his experiences.

[DickDastardly]

delete

[Vitriol]

(06-11-2015 09:24 AM)DickDastardly Wrote:  

Looking at his story as a whole though I would have to say that his choice in women was exceptionally poor.

I don't know if you can really blame something like this on the guy rather than the women. Pretty much every close male friend I've had has been through something similar when going through a job loss. The girl who they were in a LTR with or engaged to left shortly afterwards (thankfully none of them were already married). Some of these guys knew the girls for years when it happened and most of the girls seemed pretty normal--a couple were girlfriends the guys had all through college.

Keep in mind that women are ultimately opportunists and there's also the entire divorce porn industry that encourages this kind of behavior in women. If our laws and culture keep putting that temptation right in women's faces, they're eventually going to succumb.

[samsamsam]

Lose job = lose girl.

Not saying that is an absolute but man that seems tough.

I guess that is a sign of a good girl when she sticks it out with you.

There is that expression floating around, just paraphrasing.

A man's loyalty is tested when he has everything. A woman's loyalty is tested when her man has nothing.

[worldwidetraveler]

It sounds like something is missing in this story. This guy is sought after worldwide by big companies yet loses his job not once but twice.

It sounds like this guy has some problems that isn't necessarily related to his marriages.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Corporate careers can end rather abruptly from a certain age on. You become a pariah at the level you were at and way more overqualified even for a mid-level position. While those guys could get an entry level position, their ego is often too strong.

In his case he is likely left with massive debts. The wives got the pure equity, while he got straddled with massive mortgages and consumer debt. When that happens then even a low-level job is such a massive failure to him, that he collapses mentally. I know some corporate guys after a steep fall, but they were not alcoholics and accepted tacitly their lower station in life suddenly making 90% less.

In this guy's case it is also the happy family life Beta Provider paradise that fell apart. He is not only without money and prestige, but without his children and no hope in his mind left to ever get a similar wife again. So yeah - pretty hard fall, but homeless is overdoing it really. He must have started lashing out to his former friends as well. Usually if you are at least cordial, then influential friends can give you some pity jobs so that you don't end on the street. He may be able to turn that around at least.

[DickDastardly]

delete

[worldwidetraveler]

(06-11-2015 02:36 PM)DickDastardly Wrote:  

His industry is notoriously fickle, particularly concerning age.

However I suspect that what happened is the first divorce affected his performance at work and couple this with the fact that his wife worked with the same company remember and well...a woman scorned etc

Then with the second marriage, I think the problems in the relationship may have started before he lost his job and whatever problem was there was exacerbated when he did lose it.

Regardless of what happened however, two things stand out to me.

1) Even before he got to the very top of the game job wise he was on to a good thing, the high status social life was there from the get go due to the nature of the job, when he rose to the top he got the money to go with it.

2) His choice in women considering the above left a lot to be desired. The first wife was below average, he definitely could have pulled better. The second wife made even less sense, she was average looking but ticked the wanting kids box. As he did for her. She had money, so had he (though less than before). She still left him and I suspect just used him. She had her fun and wanted a beta sperm donator. His white knighting marked him out from the beginning.

After the first divorce he was still young enough, successful enough and rich enough with a high status job to plunder all round him with younger women.

It doesn't make much sense to me. The one thing he wanted was kids. Now he looks set to lose them too.

I sometimes wonder if some men put everything they have into their jobs to leave nothing behind for other parts of their lives. Maybe he just settled for those types of women simply because he had everything vested into his career and accepted a partner who was easy to attain. More time to focus on business.

The irony is that many women will end up hating you for the time you continue putting into your career that made you desirable to them in the first place.

With that said, the best looking women don't necessarily make the best wives and mothers.

I think guys that are driven by careers and their own businesses should stay single. It's just easier without the distractions of marriage. Especially with kids.

[Menace]

After the first divorce, this man should have been in the office of the top asset protection attorney in his state getting his act together. All his assets (tangible and intangible) into LLC's and trusts. He owns nothing. Of course, you need to have a killer instinct which this guy totally lacked. If someone is in a prison of his own mind, there is very little that can be done. The first time was tragic, so there is no excuse for the second time.

[samsamsam]

(06-11-2015 03:09 PM)Menace Wrote:  

After the first divorce, this man should have been in the office of the top asset protection attorney in his state getting his act together. All his assets (tangible and intangible) into LLC's and trusts. He owns nothing. Of course, you need to have a killer instinct which this guy totally lacked. If someone is in a prison of his own mind, there is very little that can be done. The first time was tragic, so there is no excuse for the second time.

This is my plan before marriage, but I always hear that this shit isn't bulletproof.

Anyone here do take these steps and survived a divorce?

[Aenigmarius]

Quote:

This is my plan before marriage, but I always hear that this shit isn't bulletproof.

Anyone here do take these steps and survived a divorce?

There is a legal concept known as "piercing the corporate veil" which can allow a court to decide that a particular corporation or LLC is not really a separate entity, but is in fact just an extension of its owner. In other words, the corporation or LLC exists as an independent entity, and it can own property, do business, etc., in that vein. But if you stick all of your assets in the company and then just use continue to use them like your personal assets, the court can come along and decide the company's existence was just a sham.

In other words, if you put all your assets into a corporation or LLC just to hide them from a divorce court, the divorce court can (sometimes) pierce the corporate veil and still get those assets.

This concept may or may not be applicable depending on what country or state is adjudicating the divorce, but it's fairly prevalent.

[samsamsam]

I guess I should have clarified. I am more interested in the irrevocable trust aspect. You can have llcs etc within the trust. Separating the owner from the beneficiary. I have heard from lawyers that even though you are no longer the owner you can actually be a manager of the llcs owned by the trust. Seems weird to me but apparently it is ok and defensible. Supposedly, you can't be forced to sell what you do not own and the trust has certain instructions preventing your ex wife from getting at it.

[worldwidetraveler]

Make your fortune prior to getting married and don't marry a woman that doesn't have her own assets/career. If you want a stay at home wife you better be prepared to pay for it if you get divorced.

[Gringuito]

Asset protection could be useful for lawsuits and other issues but during a divorce could be less useful. You don't want to hide any assets during a divorce. If they are found often times all/most of that money will be given to your ex-wife. Also, people have been jailed for hiding assets. The best asset protection is not getting married of course. If you really want to marry than you need the best pre-nup that you can get. Make sure to disclose all of your assets, everything. Make sure the soon to be wife has her own lawyers and that the pre-nup is completed long before the marriage itself (6 months or more at least). Make sure she is filmed during the signing and that her lawyer is recorded advising her of her rights and what she is possibly waiving. Even then it could be set aside but it would be tougher to justify for the judge.

samsamsam, your case of using irrevocable trust for a divorce would be dangerous. This is a case where bankruptcy or lawsuit would work with an irrevocable trust but divorce not. The family court judge would order you to hand over the money. You would say, sorry judge the trustee doesn't take my commands but I'll be sure to ask him nicely for you. The judge would find you in contempt. You would remind the judge that you have no ability to comply with his order. He would then say you need to find the money ASAP. When you don't comply, off you go to jail.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=8101209

He spent 14 years in jail. He said he lost the money, the judge didn't think so (but had no proof) and off to jail for 14 years he went. Welcome to marriage 2.0.

[djk100]

I was just reading about Tiger Woods divorce and I wonder if despite his cheating, he got played by his now ex wife to get married and get kids, etc. There's lots of examples of getting screwed for sure

[bacan]

I appreciate you sharing the story, but can you elaborate on how this previously rich man is now homeless? Seems like he'd have a few G's left over to put a roof over his head..

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(06-11-2015 04:45 PM)Gringuito Wrote:  

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=8101209

He spent 14 years in jail. He said he lost the money, the judge didn't think so (but had no proof) and off to jail for 14 years he went. Welcome to marriage 2.0.

That story is quite interesting and very rare.

The guy is a super-frugal control freak who gave his wife 600$ to live on, clean and cook and she even had to saw her own clothes. He even rationed out toilet paper.

It clearly looks as if he really hid his 2.75$ mio. and he is stubborn enough to remain in court for 14 years in order to hide it all.

So you are telling me that some US states have conditions in place that would give all of the money to his ex-wife, because he hid it? Still - it's terrible and despotic if a judge can throw you in prison for 14 years just because you refuse to pay your ex-wife some cash. They would have had a higher chance of letting him go and then hire detectives/investigators. It should have been clear after 3-6 months in prison and this guy obvious eccentricity that a man like that is rather going to die than to give it to a bitch. Somehow they misjudged a man who is rationing toilet paper.

MEN ABSOLUTELY MUST NOT GET MARRIED nowadays.

[Beyond Borders]

There are a lot of details missing from this story.

[germanico]

(06-11-2015 04:24 PM)Aenigmarius Wrote:  

In other words, if you put all your assets into a corporation or LLC just to hide them from a divorce court, the divorce court can (sometimes) pierce the corporate veil and still get those assets.

If one is going to take the trouble to set up LCCs and corporations just to avoid getting divorce-raped, why get married in the first place?

[Gringuito]

(06-12-2015 01:30 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

So you are telling me that some US states have conditions in place that would give all of the money to his ex-wife, because he hid it?

Yes, this is a case from California:

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/nov/17/news/mn-34537

Another from Michigan:

Sands v. Sands. The landmark Michigan 'hidden assets' case is Sands v. Sands, 192 Mich. App. 698, 482 N.W.2d 203 (1992), aff'd 448 Mich. 30, 497 N.W.2d 493 (1993). The case explains the procedural steps necessary to find and use hidden assets to increase the marital estate. The defendant, Mr. Sands, deliberately hid assets during the primary trial period. When assets were found after the trial, the court reconsidered the property division at a new partial trial. The Michigan appellate court awarded Mrs. Sands all of the found assets. The Supreme Court later affirmed the judgment for Mrs. Sands. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court cautioned that in each individual divorce case the circuit court must equitably divide the assets. The burden is on the party seeking redress to show the opposing party behaved so egregiously that the court should award the complaining party the value of the entire found asset. No automatic rule exists requiring the party concealing the asset to forfeit the entire concealed asset to the other party. What about attorney fees in the case? Mrs. Sands had increased attorney fees and costs because of her husband’s behavior in failing to cooperate with discovery and engaging in devious and deceptive conduct. While the court divided the known assets equally, it directed Mr. Sand to pay 70 percent of his wife’s attorney’s fees in order to compensate for the time spent uncovering the hidden assets.

[Dr. Howard]

(06-12-2015 07:46 AM)Gringuito Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 01:30 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

So you are telling me that some US states have conditions in place that would give all of the money to his ex-wife, because he hid it?

Yes, this is a case from California:

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/nov/17/news/mn-34537

Another from Michigan:

Sands v. Sands. The landmark Michigan 'hidden assets' case is Sands v. Sands, 192 Mich. App. 698, 482 N.W.2d 203 (1992), aff'd 448 Mich. 30, 497 N.W.2d 493 (1993). The case explains the procedural steps necessary to find and use hidden assets to increase the marital estate. The defendant, Mr. Sands, deliberately hid assets during the primary trial period. When assets were found after the trial, the court reconsidered the property division at a new partial trial. The Michigan appellate court awarded Mrs. Sands all of the found assets. The Supreme Court later affirmed the judgment for Mrs. Sands. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court cautioned that in each individual divorce case the circuit court must equitably divide the assets. The burden is on the party seeking redress to show the opposing party behaved so egregiously that the court should award the complaining party the value of the entire found asset. No automatic rule exists requiring the party concealing the asset to forfeit the entire concealed asset to the other party. What about attorney fees in the case? Mrs. Sands had increased attorney fees and costs because of her husband’s behavior in failing to cooperate with discovery and engaging in devious and deceptive conduct. While the court divided the known assets equally, it directed Mr. Sand to pay 70 percent of his wife’s attorney’s fees in order to compensate for the time spent uncovering the hidden assets.

I'm going to ask Gringuito to correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason why you see these cases where found assets are awarded to the wife despite the husband not legally owning them etc is because of this:

- divorce judgments are at the complete discretion of the judge.

I think its pretty easy to piece together who is in control of a business or trust, even if they don't legally own it. If it rubs the judge the wrong way, then bam she'll just say "you owe 100k to your ex wife" she won't specify that you've got to sell half of company x to do it. There doesn't need to be proof that you actually own it, because the judgement doesn't need to be tied to your assets, income or anything like that...its just how the judge feels that day. It seems that way with childsupport as well, that its all just guidelines, not law so the judge can choose to ignore it and just make up judgements as they feel like it.

I'd also imagine that family court judges, are like family court lawyers...they are the bottom rung of their peers in the legal profession and so are prone to doing whatever they feel like vs. thinking about reasonable, sound judgement based on precedence and circumstances.

[Gringuito]

(06-12-2015 08:31 AM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

I'm going to ask Gringuito to correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason why you see these cases where found assets are awarded to the wife despite the husband not legally owning them etc is because of this:

- divorce judgments are at the complete discretion of the judge.

I think its pretty easy to piece together who is in control of a business or trust, even if they don't legally own it. If it rubs the judge the wrong way, then bam she'll just say "you owe 100k to your ex wife" she won't specify that you've got to sell half of company x to do it. There doesn't need to be proof that you actually own it, because the judgement doesn't need to be tied to your assets, income or anything like that...its just how the judge feels that day. It seems that way with childsupport as well, that its all just guidelines, not law so the judge can choose to ignore it and just make up judgements as they feel like it.

I'd also imagine that family court judges, are like family court lawyers...they are the bottom rung of their peers in the legal profession and so are prone to doing whatever they feel like vs. thinking about reasonable, sound judgement based on precedence and circumstances.

It depends on the individual state law but in most states the judges are given almost complete discretion. For example, in Florida there are cases where the facts are almost identical but the outcome of the divorce is radically different. It depends on the mood of the judge in many cases. They have been trying to pass laws to create some type of guidelines for the judges in Florida but they never have been passed into law.

If you are making good money at the time of your divorce the judge may calculate an amount of alimony. If in the future if you get laid off or your salary/bonus is reduced there's a process (usually lengthy) to try to reduce your alimony amount. The problem is sometimes the judge doesn't approve the reduction, and there's not much you can do about that.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...me-alimony

Getting permanent alimony means never retiring, working until the day you die, and never getting paid less than you were paid when you were divorced. Getting married is inviting a third party (the government) into your relationship. And this third party controls everything (money, assets, access to your children), even your freedom if they want. It's been said over and over again because it's true:

Don't.....get.....married

[Pinocchio]

I didn't read any examples of whiting knight in op? Lots of beta behaviour though..