when will men learn? [Mandy Moore, Ryan Adams Divorce Official]

i wonder if this anti-male mindset is just in the US? is it like this abroad too?
im not big on celebrity shenanigans, or other rubbish they get up to? but isnt mandy moore like a 'sweetheart or whatever'? $37000/ month and nooo kids in the picture? wtf?


story

Last December, Moore ripped Adams in legal documents for allegedly failing to jointly care for their six cats and two dogs. The singer-actress alleged Adams had promised to take two of the cats, but had not done so. Moore also put in a request for spousal support of $37,000 month until the divorce was finalized, claiming he was only ponying up to split their mortgage.

really?

so now prenup is protection for men? just men.

Now, however, comes word that the exes have not only reached a divorce agreement, but their marriage dissolution has also become final. According to TMZ, neither Moore nor Adams will receive spousal support, but he will shell out a one-time lump sum payment of $425,000. In addition, Moore will retain possession of their home in the Griffith Park area of Los Angeles, as well as a Beverly Hills condo, and 2012 Prius. Adams, meanwhile, was awarded multiple bank accounts, in addition to a 1959 Cadillac, a 2008 Porsche Carrera, and various material things, ranging from comic books to pinball machines to furniture. The settlement further calls for each to hold on to the publishing rights to music created during the marriage. Moore and Adams, pictured above in 2012, have not publicly commented.

if those bank accounts were worth a damn, she would have fought diligently for them, im sure.

so if i marry a woman, she works has a career, i work have a career. if we divorce, im entitled to give her money and stuff i earned with blood sweat and tears? what?!
what law of the land is this?

where's the 'equality' woman are always raging about? this abuse is always ok in their eyes... this is becoming like some sort of scheme.... i already know the outcome of the jhonny depp debacle...

a reply to: odzeandennz

Sounds like they split their assets. Who cares.

a reply to: odzeandennz

Don't know or care who they are, or who "won out" on the deal overall, but he got the 59 Cadillac and the Porsche. She got a 2012 Prius. El oh El

a reply to: dogstar23

id trade for the condo and the house.
she wanted 37k$ per month, how do they justify this?
was she getting 37k while they were married? i dont get how this works

a reply to: odzeandennz

When you marry someone without a prenup, you're basically saying, "Okay, cool, we've entered an equal partnership." From this point on, expect to split things basically 50/50 in a divorce. If your spouse makes significantly less than you, and their lawyer didn't come from a vending machine, and depending on the reasons for divorce, they can claim alimony or palimony based on the agreement made during marriage. You know, love and "care" for them forever and ever, amen, etc.

If Mandy Moore wanted $37,000 in temporary support (which she didn't even go after in the end, so it's a non-issue) it was likely because she was using her own assets to support marital properties (homes, cars, pets, etc), and felt her ex was not splitting it fairly; or, he had control of a larger portion of liquid assets, which she and her lawyers felt should be split accordingly; or, it was a bargaining tool.

Divorces are complicated. They're probably more complicated when you're wealthy.

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: odzeandennz

When you marry someone without a prenup, you're basically saying, "Okay, cool, we've entered an equal partnership." From this point on, expect to split things basically 50/50 in a divorce. If your spouse makes significantly less than you, and their lawyer didn't come from a vending machine, and depending on the reasons for divorce, they can claim alimony or palimony based on the agreement made during marriage. You know, love and "care" for them forever and ever, amen, etc.

Divorces are complicated. They're probably more complicated when you're wealthy.

My jaw fell to the floor.
So if i marry and 2 months later divorce, i gotta give my ex half of my life's belongings.
When was the last time a man got a big 'pay off' (for lack of worse terms) from a woman? Why is it 99% of the time on the man to pay...

a reply to: odzeandennz

How do you know that 99% of the time, "men have to pay". Besides this likely being because men often make more money than women, splitting assets 50/50 is not "men having to pay", it's just the law. Don't like it, don't get married.

If you were in a marriage that lasted two months, there was likely some fraud involved, and you could have your marriage annulled.

Why not do some research instead of feigning outrage over a topic you don't know much about.

a reply to: Atsbhct

Instead of you making ad hom and pushing litteralism on opinions, then you show me this law then? Or is that your own opinion on the subject, or are you paraphrasing.... Too?

you're basically saying, "Okay, cool, we've entered an equal partnership." From this point on, expect to split things basically 50/50 in a divorce

Historically men pay out to women. I don't know why thats the 'law'. Even when in some cases of celebrities where women earn more than their spouse the pay out is meager.
Im sure you can find examples to concur or refute this statement. (check the sports world and film industry, or just regular old joe schmoe next door getting a divorce.
Its almost always a payday for women, with some ridiculous monthly payout

Im not even sure what you're defending here when its the truth.

In America, men are forced to pay around 40% of their income to ex-wives, regardless of wrongdoing on the woman's parts (often called "no-fault" alimony). She could commit adultery and beat her husband or kids, and none of it will influence the court's decision.

More shockingly still, a woman can simply accuse her husband of sexual or physical abuse (or simply express a fear of it) and instantly win a restraining order forcing him away from his home and children, without so much as a hearing. In fact, most divorce lawyers will advise a woman to do this, and those who do not can be sued for legal malpractice.

And once she has the kids, the family court will be loath to enforce visitation rights for the father. All the mother has to do is ask.

the war on men

With divorce on the rise — today, more than 50% of all marriages in the U.S. result in divorce — men's rights are being increasingly overlooked to the benefit of women. Consider this: statistically, the first person to file for divorce usually wins. While 70% of all divorces are initiated by women, 85 to 90% of custody awards go to the women. The numbers alone reveal the ugly truth when it comes to men: marriage has become a gamble in which the odds are heavily against us.

a reply to: odzeandennz

Don't worry equality is coming, read the other day ladies will have to sign up for the draft in the event it is needed soon too

Senate votes to require woman to register for draft

a reply to: odzeandennz

Historically men pay out to women because in the past a woman's options on her own were very limited. She married and gave her best years to the marriage. No work, just housewifing.

Now those days are long past, but the residue and stigma of that remain. It does create a bias.

a reply to: odzeandennz

Your quoted source, I had to Google since you didn't provide a link, seems to be "askmen.com". There is obvious bias, and a lack of citation.

That being said, the good thing about legally binding contracts like marriage is that you can amend these contracts with documents like prenups. If this is an important issue to you, all you have to do is get a prenup before you ever get married, and encourage others, men and women, to do the same.

If people don't know the laws of marriage and divorce in their area, and they live in a relatively free country, that's their fault. Unfortunately, marriage isn't just about the romance.

If your partner doesn't want to sign a prenup, a marriage between these individuals probably isn't the best idea for various reasons.

a reply to: odzeandennz

I'd bet that is also Ca. marital law. I'd also opine that is why Agent Zuckerberg got married in Ca. which is a 50-50 split State. So when The People finally realize that farcebook™ is nothing more than a big info seine extracting their info and keeping tabs on them, this way Mrs. Zuckerberg, also an Agent, will get to keep $50 Billion as the 'spouse'..

That is why folks that get exorbitant amounts of money for menial tasks, hire ¢o$tly attorneys to hammer out pre-nuptial agreements, so when they finally realize that "Money can't buy Love" they will fight and scratch for every cent so their soon to be ex spouse has ZERO opportunity in finding a new love...

well I don't care much about what's going on with others unless this has something to do with me..still what I find fascinatingly ridiculous is this phrase 'failing to jointly care for their six cats and two dogs'..what kind of court judge would take that into account while splitting the assets??..and for what it's worth cats are pretty independent animals, they can take care of themselves..about dogs I'm not so sure..anyways..this doesn't matter..I'm a woman myself but I don't think I'd go to such great lengths in order to extort money from my ex-husband-to-be