[RatInTheWoods]

Prenup Contested in Court


HE WAS a divorced, 67-year-old property developer worth tens of millions, while she was half his age.

They met on a dating site and he organised to fly to her home country in the Middle East to meet in person, promising to marry her if they hit it off.

Now, after a four-year marriage, she is contesting a prenup she signed on the eve of the wedding, which left her with just $50,000 of his fortune.


PRENUP OVERTURNED

When Ms Thorne’s application was initially heard, the Federal Circuit Court found that she had had no negotiating power when she signed the prenup, while “every bargaining chip and every power was in Mr Kennedy’s hands”.

“Ms Thorne’s powerlessness arises not only from her lack of financial equality, but also from her lack of permanent status in Australia at the time,” the court found, noting that she relied on Mr Kennedy “for all things” and had an emotional investment in the marriage.


Of course she had no fucking "power", she was a broke ass gold digger marrying for the cash.

It seems that logical can be used to overturn any prenup.... "He had more 'power' (read money) then her" - OF course you fucking idiot, why else would he be after a prenup if he didn't have more money than her?

How does this logic not apply to every prenup ever signed?

Moral of the story - PRENUPS ARE WORTHLESS.

[Suits]

Would a court overturn a business contact because one person was negotiating from a position of weakness?

She did have a bargaining chip. She could have ended the relationship and returned home at any time.

[Jim Johnson]

the p-pass is strong. You think this would have been the same if roles were reversed?

If this is upheld, even fewer guys will want to commit to marriage.

[scrambled]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_Italian_Style

[TheMaleBrain]

This is not a regular case.
Most prenups are honored, and are best practice. They are not worthless.

It seems that this new ruling will require changes in prenup creations.

[not_dead_yet]

Australia is a feminist toilet, and it's not the U.S. legal system.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(06-14-2017 11:05 AM)TheMaleBrain Wrote:  

This is not a regular case.
Most prenups are honored, and are best practice. They are not worthless.

It seems that this new ruling will require changes in prenup creations.

Correct. This prenup was just moronic. He was worth tens of millions and offered her 50.000$ at divorce?

Come on - this discrepancy was simply too much.

Quote:

The union lasted three years and, after the separation, Ms Thorne took her ex-husband to court seeking for the agreement to be overturned. She sought a property settlement of $1.24 million, including spousal maintenance.

He is worth 18-20 mio $. If he had offered her 100.000$ for every year they stay married and no spousal support, then it may have worked.

As a side note - that bloke is likely Game-less. It would have been cheaper and better to get seeking-arrangement beauties at his side and offer them yearly contracts.

Now he is going to pay likely the full sum at 1.24 mio. $ for 3 years of marriage (and likely sex tapering off soon after the wedding) in addition to spousal support in the 100k/year ballpark.

So essentially he paid some 500.000$/year for lackluster sex with a 36yo broad!

Better option:

1. Learn Game
2. Invest 50.000$ / year in hormones and work out - look like this guy in his 80s:

3. Get yourself seeking-arrangement cuties that you offer 200.000$/year. You may even get one for 50.000$ in many areas of the world and if you are bangable enough. The more ugly, fat and old you are the higher the price will be.

I met once a rich South African in his 60s (who looked like that). He was a former Player with Game and Alpha frame. He lived in his estate with 5 girls in a hard harem. Occasionally he exchanged them for younger ones or when the girls started to make demands. Most were happy doing it and he was dominant as fuck.

Alternatively you stay with your wife and fuck mistresses on the side. Marrying a much younger woman without Game or Red Pill understanding is just dumb.

[Ballr]

What about having a wedding, minus the legality of a marriage license? Change her last name to yours.

I wonder if it is this simple. That would solve any weak contract or law in place.

[Suits]

(06-16-2017 09:38 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Fuck!

It's NTP.

[Luther]

I think you need to prove that each party had seperate legal counsel before signing. That would of helped him/upheld the agreement.

[Digimata]

How does this particular case invalidate prenups?

Without the prenup, as laughable as the terms were, the deceased defendant and his estate would be paying full sticker price.