RE:Is this cutting off your nose to spite your Face

[Scaramouche]

A Melbourne man has given away hundreds of thousands of dollars to charity to stop his estranged wife from getting it.

The man, who cannot be identified, told the Federal Magistrates Court in Victoria that he donated the $395,000 they made selling their house by posting the money to hundreds of charities.

The 58-year-old also boasted that he put all his bank statements in a bucket of water and turned them into papier mache.

The court heard the couple were married for 20 years and sold their house just before they split up, the Herald Sun reports.

The woman went to court after becoming concerned about what happened to their money.

But by the time her case was heard the man revealed he had given it all away.

"I did it in an emotional way as I saw the greed of money destroying our marriage," he stated in a handwritten submission to the court.

The man said he made the donations anonymously to charities including Unicef, Oxfam, the Royal Children's Hospital and the Red Cross.

The man told the court he believed his wife's main concern after they split was the division of family assets and as a "good Christian" he felt he had to "remove temptation and greed".

He is currently unemployed, has $2000 in his bank account, a $1000 car and land worth $10,000.

The woman claimed the man was violent towards herself and their children.

 

[zekko]

I'm sure a lot of guys on here will applaud this behavior, but if that was their house half of that was her money. He had no right to give her half away without consulting her. Ethically speaking, anyway.
If you want to say "Good for this guy", what would you say if his wife had done the same thing?

 

[CaptainJ]

You know what I think he did? He took all the money out of his bank, and has hidden it in cash form somewhere. The charity thing is just an alibi, as if he used the money to buy things then it could be traced back to him, whereas an anonymous donation can't. his actions are also now seen as altruistic and justified, and he has used the excuse of money destroying the marriage. Lots of anonymous donations to a lot of charities would be hard to trace and not worth investigating. It's the perfect plan after a divorce. Some people should take a leaf out of this man's books.

 

[L B]

I hope this catches on, especially if the wife is a gold digging cheating wh0re.

 

[backbreaker]

actually it's very s m art.

if he knew she would have to get half, why not give the half to someone away who can actually use it?

 

[zekko]

I knew this would be supported here.
Again, if the woman had done this, I doubt anyone here would approve of it.

I'd be curious to see how the legal ramifications turn out.
Personally, I think he should be liable for all that money.
Of course, you can't bleed a turnip.

 

[backbreaker]

I knew this would be supported here.
Again, if the woman had done this, I doubt anyone here would approve of it.

I'd be curious to see how the legal ramifications turn out.
Personally, I think he should be liable for all that money.
Of course, you can't bleed a turnip.

something is wrong with the way you think, like seriously

it would never happen because for the woman tod o this, lshew ould have had to have actually made the money.

we "support" it because it's ****ed up that a man can go out and devote his life, blood sweat and tears, build up a fortune and to have robbed because a woman falls out of love.

if a woman goes out and builds a fortune and the man leaves, the woman is more than willing to **** over the man any way she see fits.

this is not a man - woman thing. this is a I earned money and you are trying to get over thing. that's the mistake in your thinking. I'm Pro keeping **** i earned.

 

[zekko]

this is not a man - woman thing. this is a I earned money and you are trying to get over thing

There's not enough information here to assume this. It doesn't say that he was the main breadwinner, or if he was the only one working. We don't know why they are breaking up. It doesn't even say if they have children.

It does say it was THEIR house, meaning it belonged to the both of them. That means she's entitled to a say in what happens to the money they made out of it.

I am just as much against women screwing over men as anyone else. But wrong is wrong.

Everyone complains about the divorce laws and all, but do you honestly think that upon divorce, the woman is not entitled to ANY assets from the marriage?

 

[Strelok]

There's not enough information here to assume this. It doesn't say that he was the main breadwinner, or if he was the only one working. We don't know why they are breaking up. It doesn't even say if they have children.

It does say it was THEIR house, meaning it belonged to the both of them. That means she's entitled to a say in what happens to the money they made out of it.

I am just as much against women screwing over men as anyone else. But wrong is wrong.

Everyone complains about the divorce laws and all, but do you honestly think that upon divorce, the woman is not entitled to ANY assets from the marriage?

You're right we don't know the situation however according to stats and our experience,how many women do you know that marry men poorer than them?

How many women do you know or heard that buy the home the car and fill the bank account while the husband do nothing all day?

Who gets screwed in divorce due to nazi laws? who gets the kids (so the house and half of the salary of the former partner) 99% of the times?

Again you are right saying we dont have enough info however this guy is the guy who found the way to cheat an unfair system in most of the cases,that's why everyone is talking good about him.
And also it doesnt matter whos the breadwinner and whos not cause the divorce screw always the same part no matter the settings.

And again when you said that nobody would approve in opposite situation,do you really think a woman would be deprived of something hers in a court? seriously? the worst divorce scenario for a woman is to not get enough from ther husband most of the times.

 

[zekko]

And again when you said that nobody would approve in opposite situation,do you really think a woman would be deprived of something hers in a court? seriously? the worst divorce scenario for a woman is to not get enough from ther husband most of the times.

Well, we don't know what is going to happen in court with this case.
Maybe the guy will get away with it, maybe he won't.

Obviously I agree the courts and divorce laws are tilted in favor of the woman. And obviously I agree the woman is more likely to screw over the guy than vice versa.
And I can see someone saying "Yay! This guy screwed over his wife instead!". But bottom line is, if you look at this objectively, I don't see how anyone could say that what this guy did was right. If part of the house belonged to her, he had no right to give away her part of the money from it. That is simply wrong.

Marriage is a partnership. If you don't realize going in that in the event of a divorce you will split your assets in half, you've got blinders on. When I got divorced, I made more money than my wife. But she worked and contributed to the marriage, so she got half. I knew that going in, so I wasn't bitter about it.

 

[Julius_Seizeher]

If I was married I would have a "break in case of divorce" parachute bank account in the Cayman Islands.

"Oh no, I'm getting divorced; time to go off the grid in a tropical paradise." instead of "I'm a divorced man living in a barn and I shave at the ymca" and the other crap I have seen.

 

[Warrior74]

Marriage is a partnership.

But divorce is usually war. And usually most men get done in by sneak attack. They think like you think and get blindsided. No it's not fair to blindside anyone and we really don't know his real motivations nor his real situation. We also don't know if she is telling the truth about him being abusive as many women are coached to say that in the event of divorced. We know nothing here but what is being reported. Everything else is what we see in it from our own perspective. We know nothing of their character, morals, or personalities. Nope. Nothing at all.

That being said, as a man you have to be proactive, not reactive in a divorce.

 

[backbreaker]

even if she was abused. that does not necessary give her the right to take his ****, eucase she picked a ****ty husband. I don't see how that equation is made.

when we get married (2 months away), if we split, i'm not stupid, she's going to get some stuff. to an extent I have no problem providing her with some stuff. but..; when you start talking lol, the house, the savings, the 401k... a person should be able to keep what they earn. that's all i ask.

 

[zekko]

But divorce is usually war. And usually most men get done in by sneak attack. They think like you think and get blindsided.

?? I think like me, I've been divorced, and I didn't get blindsided.
I'm a realist. I knew the divorce rate when I got married. I thought I would beat the odds, I was wrong. I was willing to take the risk, once.
I handled the finances in the house, I made sure we kept in good financial shape. So when we got divorced, neither of us were gutted.

When you say "think like me" that makes it sound like I am naive. I am not naive in any way, shape, or form when it comes to women. I know what they are capable of. If you pick one with a conscience, you can minimize the damage when the time comes. I was prepared to lose half going in. Like I said, I am a realist. My eyes are wide open. The problem is with some guys, they don't have half of anything to lose.

They keep no savings or run up huge debts, or let their women run up huge debts. Again, this comes down to making a good choice. She has to have been raised to be responsible with money.

when you start talking lol, the house, the savings, the 401k... a person should be able to keep what they earn. that's all i ask

When I got divorced, we each had individual retirement accounts. Mine were larger, but because we each had our own accounts, none of those traded hands. I don't know if that was because of the brilliance of my lawyer or what.

If there's a case where a very rich guy is going into a marriage and the girl has nothing, that's a case where I definitely don't think the girl should be entitled to half. Like when Paul McCartney got divorced, for example. She didn't get half, but she got too much IMO, considering the value of his estate was already well established before she entered the picture.

When I got married I was doing well but I was far from rich. If I had been wealthy, then I would have been more concerned about it.
That's probably a case when you might think about a prenup. I imagine you would want to make sure that you don't lose any of the stuff you brought into the marriage to begin with.

If you're the sole provider and she stays home to raise the children, that's a hard thing to place a value on. That's an exchange of services, and she will probably get half (which is probably fair). But then you have to pay child support, and that's where the guys can really get raped. Those are the cases I've seen where the guy really isn't even able to support himself, and has to live in a barn or something like Julius Seizeher said.

 

[jophil28]

??
I handled the finances in the house,

Excellent.

One of the biggest blunders that chumps in LTRs make is handing over his earnings and money management to the "little woman" in the belief that she will manage their money wisely .
There is a huge power shift in her favor when that happens .
Women frequently believe that 'his' money is 'her' money, so her role as domestic accountant can easily lead her to assume ownership because she has been given free access.
Huge mistake.

 

[backbreaker]

Excellent.

One of the biggest blunders that chumps in LTRs make is handing over his earnings and money management to the "little woman" in the belief that she will manage their money wisely .
There is a huge power shift in her favor when that happens .
Women frequently believe that 'his' money is 'her' money, so her role as domestic accountant can easily lead her to assume ownership because she has been given free access.
Huge mistake.

that just does not compute with me. partly because i have always been the guy that handles the money in everything I do and partly because, grow some balls man.



i know a few guys that actually take pride in the fact that the "wife handles all the money stuff" like that some's ****ing badge of honor or some ****. i 10000000% gurantee you every last one of them havef a rainy day fund.. if **** hits the fan they magically have enough money to ride that money to a new life lol.

this chick i banged when I was 21, I have talked about her before, beth a bartender, she was married with 2 kids. well, she spent so mjuch time over my house that they eventually got a divorce. i don't feel bad about it because if it was not me it was going to be someone, she's just a natural born bopper. anyway my point is, the day, he filed for divorce, she went and got an apartment and had it furnished. i was like what the **** lol i was going to throw her a few hundred dollars since i felt kinda responsible, she ****ing took ME out to eat. I was like where the hell did you get this money.s he said she had some put back for a rainy day. i asked how much. she said about 3 grand. she had been putting back like 30 dollars of his money a month for 6 years. he still thinks some guy paid for all that. '

I ran into her like a year later at this place called cajun's warf, this was right after my 100 day thing I did, and she bought me a few drinks, I took her home and tagged it again I remember thinking on the way home lol, she bought my drinks with his alimony check.

 

[jophil28]

that just does not compute with me. partly because i have always been the guy that handles the money in everything I do and partly because, grow some balls man.

?? You just agreed with me.

 

[zekko]

i know a few guys that actually take pride in the fact that the "wife handles all the money stuff" like that some's ****ing badge of honor or some ****.

They probably brag about it because they figure they're getting out of some chore, like washing the dishes or cutting the grass. I don't care for writing checks or balancing accounts myself, but I'm too obsessive when it comes to money to leave it to anyone else. Plus they don't realize there is a certain amount of power that comes with keeping the finances.

Most women I know are not that good with math. That's a stereotype, but it's backed up by research. Most women I know who keep their own books just use an "estimate" method, like they'll round up to a dollar or whatever. So they never know exactly how much they have. That would drive me crazy. Since guys are generally better at math, it seems only natural that they should keep the finances.

Unfortunately I do know guys who are simply too scatterbrained to keep the finances, so the girls have to do it. I know men who turn their checks over directly to their wives, then have to ask permission if they want to buy a pack of cigarettes. I don't think I could deal with that - even though I don't smoke

 

[grayclif]

I have a wealthy friend with a stay at home wife and she handles "all" the money. His monthly salary goes into their checking account with which she takes care of the family expenses. It was rumored that his wife was skimming some of it to support her deadbeat extended family.

So while we were drinking one night another friend of ours asked him about this rumor and what he thought. He said simply that it is an acceptable loss. His annual salary is one tenth of his bonus income he further mentioned that no body knows where the rest of his money is or how much except him and god. I thought this was so smart.

 

[jophil28]

They probably brag about it because they figure they're getting out of some chore, like washing the dishes or cutting the grass. I don't care for writing checks or balancing accounts myself, but I'm too obsessive when it comes to money to leave it to anyone else. Plus they don't realize there is a certain amount of power that comes with keeping the finances.

There is indeed a certain amount of power in keeping the books.
I believe that this power is both real and symbolic.
Allowing the 'little woman' to balance the checkbook may appeal to many married men because it relieves him of a 'chore" but by giving her this task he gives her power over disbursement of the rewards of his labor. He sweats -she spends.

Secondly, the rich , almost by definition ,invest their money, whereas the middle class 'manage' their money.
How many of you know wealthy men whose income and assets are controlled and administered by their wives?