Millionaire's Wife, Gets Prenup Thrown Out


#1

I think the guy is an idiot. When you’re presenting a prenup to her to sign onto, you don’t make other conditional promises.


#2

dont get married!


#3

So glad that women’s rights = fuck you, men


#4

Fucking disgusting.


#5

See, it doesn’t really make sense (for men specifically) to get married…at least not in modern-day America. It’s probably better to just wait until you’re mid to late 60s, maybe even 70+, when you don’t have much time left in this world anyway. Fortunately for me, I don’t have this silly little problem of people even wanting to get married to me in the first place.

*but yes, why in the blue hell did he add the special condition concerning kids? Heh, what a maroon, as Bugs would say.


#6

You’d be surprised how much a verbal agreement holds its weight in law and court. As much as I would want to side with the guy here, it’s his fault for saying that shit and getting her to sign the prenup under those conditions.

You guys are idiots if you think this is another case of “MAN GETS FUCKED BY HIS WIFE AND THE COURTS. AGAIN.”


#7

Watch that they dont end up being his kids… LOL


#8

Yeah verbal contracts muddy up the legal field quite a bit, recently did a case study on one for class. If I was a baller I’d definitely give every woman within 10 miles of the the side eye…I’ve seen Intolerable Cruelty! (didn’t like it though).


#9

So wtf, she had kids to have money her word over his?

Fucking liberal ass new york


#10

This subject was brought up on IRC and Ultradavid happened to see it. Apparently verbal contracts are okay, but when there’s a written contract in a situation like this, the written contract is enforced and the verbal contract is ignored. Why this rule was ignored is beyond me.

Moral of the story: law sucks.


#11

2 words, white woman


#12

Someone else mentioned that in this case it may be considered fraud, since a verbal agreement was made in order to sign the prenup and the prenup was not thrown out after she had children. A judge may then come up with a new contract that can merge both the verbal and written contracts together; in this case a prenup that would be null and void should the woman have children.

In any case, the law is funny.


#13

Yes that is the law, but the American court system “favors” women by treating them like children and letting them avoid adult responsibilities like the consequences of signing a written contract. (Which is actually discrimination against women hidden under a politically correct guise, but your average feminist is too stupid to understand it. You don’t get equality by happily accepting benefits that are fit for children and not adults.)

If men weren’t so stupid and spineless they’d all just stop getting married because that’s the only way to keep the ball in your side of the court.


#14

Yeah, that’s pretty much how the Court saw it, and that interpretation is nothing new, really.

What I would like to know is if the husband admitted to having this verbal agreement or not. If he stated to the court that they made that verbal agreement, that’s that…

…but if he stated that that agreement was never made, and the Court decided to believe the wife anyway, THAT sets a terrifying precedence.


#15

That’s BS. A written contract beats a verbal agreement clean. Marriage is a joke.


#16

misleading title.

why would you say something like that???

New York is bitch made, since when does a verbal agreement mean shit?? If it doesn’t hold merit in business, this shit shouldn’t hold weight here.
That’s why people need to marry people intelligently, I don’t know why people marry on the merit of looks only.


#17

Did he admit to saying those things to his wife? If so then I feel zero sympathy for him. If there’s no proof of him saying those things, well fuck. Going to have to devise a bullet proof prenup that takes into account children, affairs, children outside of the marriage, change in career etc.


#18

What proof did she have that he said that he’d rip up the prenup? If this dude admitted in court to making the statement that he’d tear up the prenup is she had kids, then he deserves to get bent over. Otherwise, this is beyond stupid.

Seems weird.

When I first started to read, I assumed that he sprung the prenup on her last minute, and after all the wedding arrangements had been made and guests confirmed. Kind of forcing an ultimatum of either signing or forcing her into an embarrassing cancellation. Kind of how predatory mortgage companies wait until a couple days before closing, when the buyers have packed up, paid to break their lease, etc., and suddenly spring a new, higher interest rate on them.


#19

I read the article and did not see where it confirmed that he acknowledged the verbal agreement. The family court system has shown for the last several years that it doesn’t give a shit about prenups. Once a woman pops out a baby, (the husband’s biological child or not) then the husband has to pay.


#20

If this were a dispute were between a creator and a wealthy entertainment corporation, the written contract would be iron-clad no matter what the initial conditions were, what verbal promises were made, or how badly the individual is getting fucked over by the terms of the contract. :coffee: