Have you ever heard of a court judgement that makes is look like it encourages gold diggers?

Sounds good to me. I would say, money or not, that he took advantage of her!!

@rowenaz I don’t know about the “take advantage” part. But why wouldn’t a $2 miliion dollar house and the rest be enough?

I’ll probably get flamed for this, but I think the way that many men are treated in family court shows that it encourages “gold diggers.”

The judge sounds like a gold digger.

I don’t think so. It depends on the style of living she was accustomed to, and whether or not that state had common law status and the division of property.

I don’t know who came up with this “to living in the style accustomed to” business. People get unaccustomed to it when they want to. It is a scam.

When women, or men, do that they are saying “I am a commodity. I am not a human being”

Common law marriages are not willingly created. If you live with a person under the pretense of marriage, you become married to them. The common laws vary by state.

In the end, the judge was looking at the cold hard facts.

- Were the two living under common law, and thus married?
– Was the woman dependent on the man?
– Would her quality of life be diminished by this divorce?
– Was she in custody of the children?
– Was this divorce the result of infidelity?

Short of infidelity, and where it seemed the male was leaving for personal reasons, the judgement was made in favor of the woman so she could continue her quality of life. A 2 million dollar house is merely an asset, but when it’s sold, all she would have is less than 2 million dollars after their marriage. Which is not fair.

People make choices in life, and when doing so are preparing for their future. Life changes, but it’s not fair to collect eggs in a basket, and then one person gets all the eggs, leaving another with the empty basket. Marriage or not, the judge knew the laws, looked at that individual situation, and called it like he saw it. If someone is concerned that another person is after them for their money, then they need to take steps to protect their current and future assets. I’m sure someone with all that capital, would have had the foresight and opportunity to contact some lawyers and make sure the division of assets would be handled appropriately. If people play a game, and try to shirk responsibilities, they shouldn’t be surprised that the game doesn’t go in their favor.

Calling women Gold Diggers doesn’t change the power structure in a relationship, especially one involving children, and diminishes both people.

Why, yes, I have. HB.

@TheOnlyNeffie noone has flamed you yet.
@rowenaz
My response from “18 hours ago” says ”...women or men…” So, I am not only calling women “gold diggers”. One of us can put a link to an article about a male gold digger. I just chose this story because this stands out as the most shameless that I have heard, ($50 million on top of everything else). Can there be a better example of shamelessness?
Isn’t the concept of “a life to which one has come accustomed to” the creation of gold diggers, their lawyers and their sympathizers?

“Calling women Gold Diggers doesn’t change the power structure in a relationship, especially one involving children, and diminishes both people.” What diminishes people is making money their slave master.

If you leave your wallet somewhere and your supposed friend stole it, the person who is diminished would be your “friend”, by his/her action, not whoever called her/him a thief. Are you are saying it would be your fault for not protecting your wallet, a third party is bad for calling him a thief, and that there is nothing wrong with your friend who stole it?

@squirbel some people just refuse to get married or live common law, just becase they don’t want to be “gold diggers”. They refuse the money that the court would allow them, by not suing. People get unaccustomed to things when they want to.

”People make choices in life,” she made the choice to marry him eventhough he told her no marriage.