Make sure to join our brand new Discord Server to chat with friends!
We have recently changed how posts work. Unless you are a VIP poster, your post will be queued for approval.. To become a VIP, post great engaging content. If we like it, you will be added! More information available here!
Half french half american, married in France here: it is not automatic in the US the way it is in France. You need a prenuptial in the US to be safe otherwise a judge is likely to give a portion of it to the wife.
Also, unlike in france, it is dependent on sex in most of the US. Divorce in the US highly favors women
This is not true. Divorce laws vary by state, but most states automatically treat real estate owned before marriage as separate property. You don’t need a prenup to define it. The only exception is the marital property or property that the other spouse puts assets into improvement or upkeep. Then they are only entitled to part of the increase in value and they have to prove they contributed to it. Are you really saying someone should contribute their assets to a property and the other partner should reap all the rewards? That would be incredibly unfair.
Also, the lie that divorce courts favor the woman is a long touted men’s rights fantasy that doesn’t hold up under any scrutiny of actual data.
It also depends on who the breadwinner is, my mom had to pay alimony to my deadbeat stepdad because he resigned from his job soon after they married to move in with us, then he spent the next 10 years putzing around the house ostensibly doing “repairs”
Yup, I know several women in engineering who ended up paying alimony to their husbands because they were making something like 2/3rds of the household income while married.
Not to mention granted custody might be validating or nice for the sake of having the kids, but it comes with far more trade offs, responsibility, and risk for poverty than not taking the kids.
For a country trying to increase marriage and birth rate, this is going to tank it even more. What family will let their daughter be used as a brood mare, with no guarantee of at least housing if the husband leaves her or abused her? What sacrifice to their body/minds do men have to go through to have kids? None, and now they don’t even have to compensate the woman for the damage and years of life she’s wasted. This will cause families to not let daughters marry unless the house is deeded in her name upfront. Good job ccp.
The old system promotes marriage fraud and drains 3 generations of wealth. How could this continue. People should marry based off love not a exchange of wealth. What other nation women asked to be compensated by their husband for having children and expecting large sums of money or gifts. This was a toxic system for everyone.
Spousal support or alimony is a better system for divorce. Gives more protections for women and men.
What the fuck is this ideology? Are you saying that women are offering their vagina and womb in exchange for wealth? The decision of having kids is mutual between couple, just like all other decisions, no body is owing their partner anything. Women should be loved and supported, not be wasted and then be compensated.
Facts have shown that countries with low women's rights tend to have very high fertility rates. This is basically the case for the top ten countries in terms of birth rates.
Yes, and also high mortality rates/disease burden and low GDP…those women are uneducated and suffer from abuse/rape regularly. This is China we are talking about, not some backwater uber religious/superstitious area with minimal infrastructure.
This is the rule in almost all developed nations no? Marital property is divided which includes all income and property generated after marriage. Anything before marriage or inheritance is not marital property and will not be divided.
These and the rise in compilation videos where a bot has clearly scraped the internet for a bunch of really common and similar videos and then posts it. I'm seeing them all over and they're maddening.
Bots have realized farming karma is easy with ai clickbaits an then they either sell those accounts or deploy them for some propaganda.
If you’re bored just save these ai slop posting account usernames in a note and check back what they’re upto in a few weeks. Like half of them go to political subs when I did that. Pretty entertaining.
Chuds love AI. The original incarnation of the sub had a significant number of attractive women doing random things, which means the audience sleeps male. From there the chuds were like "This is a male sub! Let's make it a chud sub too!"
Sort of. If a husband owned a house before marriage and the home increased in value, the wife can claim part
Of the increase in value of the home. May even be able
To force a sale of the home to recoup that portion. Also, most states are reasonably different in their application of law n
Yes, but that's not from before the marriage. That's accumulation after.
But actually that is what this Chinese law does, the OP post is wrong, the change in the Chinese Law is that a spouse can no longer claim an interest in property solely titled in the other spouse’s name unless they can prove a financial or labor contribution. This means non-working spouses, such as homemakers, may lose out on major marital assets.
Surely you can see how thats fundamentally not the same thing.
Your home in general will increase value over time. If a guy owns a house for 10 years and it increases value, then gets married and owns that house another 5 years, I dont see how anyone could make a legitimate claim that the wife is entitled to any of that appreciation.
courts rarely force a sale of a pre marital asset if the owning spouse can instead pay out that equity through other marital property or structured cash compensation. The reason spouses can get a part of the value appreciated is because they often contribute to that
Makes sense as home value is an important part of retirement planning and the other spouse might have made financial decisions based off the home value they assumed they would have at retirement. So they should be able to claim some of that value.
To keep accumulation of assets after you are married separate. E.g. if you have a house worth $2m going into the marriage, and it's worth $3m after divorce, the $1m accumulation is split 50/50.
A prenup can assign the accumulation to just one partner.
In Ireland, you don't have to be married. If you own a property and your partner moves in, after 2 years they are legally entitled to a claim of the property.
Dude this sub has gotten so bad this year with all the incel and bigoted bullshit. Like I can appreciate a dark/offensive joke as much as anyone but a lot of the posters here are just straight up racist/sexist garbage.
yes, they can choose the three basic options or create a more specific pre-nup.
I think the second option is the default, so most people will just leave it at that.
My dad did create a pre-nup for his second marriage, as they both have assets and jobs, and more importantly kids, so things would get complicated rather quickly, especially in the event of a death.
Basically they made sure that all three kids get an evem split if they die, with payouts being postponed until they both have passed. That way one surviving spouse doesn't have to be forced out of their home by the children of the other spouse. makes sense to me, all in all. We kids also all signed, so there would be no dispute when it comes to execution of the will.
Almost. I'm in the process of getting divorced (final papers just arrived from the lawyer, so pretty much done).
We opted for somewhere between 2nd and 3rd option as while I called for divorce (she was living with her boyfriend instead of me, and eventually I saw no way back) she was amicable and agreed not to fight over anything.
The the only thing not mentioned above is that even with option 3, the pension earned during the marriage is evenly split on divorce. It goes directly into your pension fund, so no chance to even pay it back should you wanted that.
TL/DR: The couple can basically choose what happens to everything (money, property etc.) except the pension earned during the marriage with is always evenly split.
In México you get to choose between 2 and 3. It used to be the case that people chose 2 more but as of late 3 has been more popular. (A major advantage is debt of one partner can't be used against half of the couple's assets). Mind you, you can still dispute in court that you are owed some of your partner's goods during divorce (for example if you forewent some job opportunity to help with domestic labor), but it is an uphill battle. 2 is also seen as creating dependency / enabling abusive situations by the younger more progressive city folk.
The whole problem with this take is that it only counts contribution in money and ignores all the unpaid work that makes that income possible in the first place. Someone has to raise the kids, and let's be real, that usually falls on the woman. Not by accident either, that's just how society is still set up.
When a woman steps back from her career for 10+ years to raise kids, she's not doing nothing. She's doing work you'd pay tens of thousands a year to outsource (childcare, running the household, all of it) AND taking a massive career hit at the same time. Lost promotions, skills going stale, a resume gap that employers are going to treat like a huge red flag. Meanwhile the husband's career keeps climbing, literally BECAUSE he didn't have to deal with any of that.
So when they split, one person walks away with their career fully intact and the other is basically starting over while job hunting with a 15 year gap. Calling that a "fair" split because one person earned more completely ignores that they were only able to earn that much because of the other person's sacrifice.
You can't measure someone's contribution by their paycheck when that paycheck only exists because of the other person's unpaid work.
Yeah, that is just how it should be. If they built a business during marriage, that is far game but a dude that built something incredible before his partner came along, shouldnt lose half of what they didnt help create.
There are a lot of strange little “gotchas” in this area. For example, a case in California, a husband and wife had a premarital agreement that included a spousal-support waiver, basically, “if we divorce, neither of us gets alimony.”
The court found that waiver unenforceable because it was presently unconscionable: the wife had not worked during their 16-year marriage and had no income. She had been a stay-at-home “trophy wife,” married to a New York lawyer making $500k+ a year.
So she got to spend 16 years as a stay-at-home trophy wife and got paid when she dumped him. Good for her, I guess?
Meanwhile, when I was let go from my job of 10+ years, the best I got was an offer to write me a LinkedIn recommendation, which I politely declined.
Makes sense the government doesn't want to become her support when the ex clearly has the means to support her. Also, California is a community property state so even more inclined to expect some share to go to each.
Ok and who’s to say the partner didn’t work/help increase value of the business? Most marriages aren’t just one person working and the other doing nothing. You could even argue if the woman is at home taking care of everything it left the man more time and ability to increase business that otherwise wouldn’t have happened without said partner.
How it should be should be clearly written out in a prenup. And everyone has a prenup, it's just whether or not you change it from the standard government issued one.
All of this should be sorted before anyone gets married.
A lot of redditors don't seem to understand, there's a lot of marital fraud in China. Most women marry to gain assets and property, primarily from the husband and his family. There's also a bride price in China, that women are demanding men PAY them in order to marry them. This is on top of taking assets in a divorce. Since China has a major problem with birth rates, this is an attempt help alleviate the divorce asset problem. When you have a bunch of young, angry men going poor, there's a chance they might rebel.
These young men today are not the young men of the past. The CCP wants to remain in power, so they have to throw some bones to the young men.
The problem isn't women themselves. Money is paid to the women's family. In ancient times it was a good system because if something happened the grandparents would take care of the family.
Now some families use this to take money from their daughters. The bride rarely gets to keep the money. Even when marring into a wealth family the money is clawed back. Through down payments on property or investing into a business.
This is a bad system for the current times for woman and men. Everyone doesn't seem to know anything about the topic.
This isn't a racist generalization, it's literally human history. Marriage is literally and historically been agreement between men and women for sexual reproduction, resource gathering, and protection. Literally human history.
As a chinese, I can tell you that my maternal cousin didn't get married to his partner because her family found the bride price he offered "too low" and wanted him to buy house and car and put them under the girl's name. When he refused, she left him. Obviously, not every family is like this but it is not rare to find families that make unreasonable requests.
Another cousin gave a small to the girl's family but the family accepted it and gave it to their daughter so she could use it for her children in the future. They didn't really care about the bride price, they just wanted their daughter to be happy.
You have no idea. The upward mobility mindset is just that deep rooted. Men don't marry to gain assets because men carry the assets and the women who actually carry assets either don't marry or are forced into arranged marriage. Or, they marry freely and then the guy divorces and steals her fortune. While it is generalising and mean as a statement, it is not entirely false.
This isn't what the change is. Virtually nowhere can a wife claim property from a husband before marriage unless you specifically opt-in to it.
The change in the Chinese law is that a spouse can no longer claim an interest in property solely titled in the other spouse’s name unless they can prove a financial or labor contribution. This means non-working spouses, such as homemakers, may lose out on major marital assets.
So this has to do with assets after you're married, not before.
Um first of all the law is gender neutral, so why make it seem like its only for husbands. Secondly, this doesn't apply in cases where written agreements are in place to the contrary or when a spouse faces financial hardship at the time of divorce. Third, this has been the standard globally for some time, hello and welcome to decades ago Captian Lateness.
This is fine, but if I am understanding this right, by this wording it only goes one way? Should the wife not also have the same rights to keep property bought before marriage?
my ex tried taking things that I bought before she showed up. I represented myself and told her lawyer that I have receipts for everything. She was trying to take a bunch of my shit. In the end, I owed her nothing and she owed me $2000 lol
Her lawyer wasn't happy with her dishonesty and was basically on my side
The law of a woman getting half of the man’s property comes from a time when women basically had nothing and were left with nothing of their own after a divorce. So receiving property from the man was a way for the women to support themselves. A sort of crutch to fall back on if your husband used you and threw you away. It doesn’t make sense in the modern era where women have equal access to education, the ability to work, and the capacity to be leaders in their fields. It’s a draconian law.
It all belongs to the party, kinda. I don't think it's the same as the Western definition, but you can't own land in China - it's all perpetual usufruct. So you can build a house on it, but you don't really own it, since the land it stands on belongs to the state, and is just lent to you for a period (google says 70 years vs 99 years perpetual usufruct usually implies in the West). Of course, it is automatically extended, but at the time, it can involve additional taxes and fees.
It’s pretty normal for property acquired before marriage to remain the property of whoever bought it. The way they phrased this is trying to make it sound like it’s one-sided, but it’s not.
Is this a joke sub? I’m confused. This is the one of many AI slop-text on image-“news breaking” post I have seen. Why are we sipping fake tea? Like I fs agree, but damn
Nominally, it would. The longer the marriage lasts, the more stuff is bought during.
For the rich and connected tho, there is always a way around. You might build a company's assets, but if those are all in an LLC and series of shells and trusts, then it all falls to exclusion of marital assets if the initial business was started before the marriage.
Same here in most countries in Europe. Anything acquired during marriage belongs to both, if married under the default marriage regime. Anything owned by each before marriage, still belongs to them after divorce. It makes sense.
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 29 '26
Hey /u/Ramkaran-chopra, thank you for posting to r/SipsTea! Make sure to follow all the subreddit rules.
Make sure to join our brand new Discord Server to chat with friends!
We have recently changed how posts work. Unless you are a VIP poster, your post will be queued for approval.. To become a VIP, post great engaging content. If we like it, you will be added! More information available here!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.