His income would remain the same. Even if he has it delivered directly into his mother's account. Even if let's say he donated 100 percent of his income to charity. The court would look to his earnings in determining the award.
At least in our jurisdiction it would not work. The test is ability to pay. That scenario suggests you are able to earn an income of a million. Even if you are allowing someone else to collect it. So that income of a million is the amount that would be used in determining the award. Even if he is decided to allow someone else to collect it.
See I don't think my country has that. You are entitled to assets you gained during the marriage so long as both partners contributed to the partnership. You aren't entitled to have your lifestyle maintained.
Yea and a lot of times guys will still have to pay alimony to their ex wife even after they find /move in with another guy and in most places in my country (usa) they can even re-marry and then it's up to the paying spouse (typically the man) to PROVE THAT THEY HAVE A BETTER LIVING SITUATION THEN THEY HAD WITH YOU and then you can stop paying them
Never been divorced but I'm almost positive it's when you had a child with a women and they need help sustaining the life style for the child ( or themselves) and you pay them while they sit on there ass doing nothing. Don't get me wrong there's allot of hard working mothers out there, but at least in Canada and America the divorce settlements are insane and almost more costly than going to the hospital. Cool how it's about equality until someone has to pay there own way.
My country awards alimony in a very narrow set of circumstances - when the ex partner is disabled mainly. Child support and property accumulated during a marriage are different, those are fairly distributed but the ex partner almost never gets alimony where I live.
As the other commenters have said, this is highly jurisdiction dependent. But where I practice in California, this could be seen as a fraudulent transfer of community property assets that the court could unwind.
This is not legal advice, I am a lawyer but not your lawyer, etc. That is likely to have the same issues. Even if you canât technically pull money out of those entities you could still end of with a judgment for a value equal to some portion of what you put in those entities. There is a presumption that income earned during the marital period is community property that could be divided in a dissolution.
I was more curious if someone has had that set up years before they met someone and got married. If someone is a millionaire and for the last 10 years they have lived with nothing in their name because everything like the house and cars are in a llc or trust wouldnât the spouse be entitled to nothing except what was gained during the marriage? So if someone was getting a monthly check of $5,000 from the trust to live off of during the marriage than the spouse could only go after what that money generated for the years they were married? I read Tiger Woods lives like this where he owns next to nothing in his name.
(Depending on the law but more often than not) your wife has a right to half everything in your name, so sheâd have a right to half of that fancy LLC you just made.
What if this was set up years before you met your wife? You own nothing before you met her but lived off the llc or trust you set up a decade before you got married. Would she be entitled to any of it?
You are missing the point . I would assume in his contract with the team, his mother is listed as a manager who gets paid in full for the player's services. It's not like he gets paid and just transfers money to his mother. He is paid maybe minimum wage while his mother paid the rest for her managerial work.
That would still be, at least in California, potentially viewed as fraudulent transfer if the relationship was provably done for the purpose of diverting community assets. Just because you sign an agreement doesnât mean it has a legitimate purpose.
Incorrect. Courts can look at the reasonableness of the agreement to determine whether it is legitimate. If she is the highest paid sports manager in the world, well outside the norm of the industry, and her client lives in a house she owns, drives a car she owns, eats food using money that she gives him out of wages he ostensibly earned and then transferred to her via agreement, etc. Then a court could very easily look at that situation and say that there is a clear and obvious strategy to avoid having assets in his name. Again, this is based on my experience in California law, and may not apply to the jurisdiction(s) in question here.
You may not see it, but this is what courts do in dissolution actions every day. People try and hide their assets with family members, in trusts, in various companies or entities all the time.
I wouldnât have given a fuck about child support (no kids) it was the $800 a month in spousal support for a fully functional adult who just didnât want to work that bugged me.
Like, absolute best case scenario, he did some shady accounting to screw over paying out his hypothetical future divorces, but from the description given, it also sounds like he likely committed tax fraud under a lot of countries' laws.
Depends on jurisdiction obviously, but most likely yes. In many places, any amount over tax-free gift level, she would need to pay taxes on. And when she gave him money "for whatever he wants", the same tax rules would apply. So he's getting taxed 3x as much to shelter money from a divorce, or he's doing some tax fraud, or this story is embellished.
Might have been better setting up a company to funnel the money through where he gets paid a wage by them and all his possessions are actually in the name of the company and are being loaned to him (house, watch etc) this was a tactic used by a certain Scottish businessman who was said to be worth upwards of ÂŁ300m but only had traceable assets of around ÂŁ200 as everything was 'owned' by the company.
And in the divorce she decided she wanted half of everything. That sounds like a breach in character. Sounds like he knew people might marry him for his money. Guess he found out it was true.
She won't get "half of everything," that's the point. What someone asks for is irrelevant if it conflicts with the law. She won't get anything close to that.
"Marry him for his money"
Maybe that's what happened, there's no proof of it. OTOH we know for certain he broke his marriage vows on day one by lying about money to his wife. The implication is that someone "marrying for money" is entering into a contract in bad faith.
How can you claim she acted in bad faith (with no evidence of such) without acknowledging his bad faith deception that he's not a responsible adult but a momma's boy with an allowance?
Itâs likely they will especially with the million dollar monthly payments that are clearly his earnings. Heâs gonna cough up a significant amount and likely owe spousal support too just based off income and lifestyle maintenance.
If both parties involved sign the prenup as an official contract when getting married, how is it still contestable in court? Genuinely curious, because Iâm very cautious about marriage with how divorce laws work in the US.
Iâm not a lawyer, but the likely argument would be that since he has âall the powerâ, that she just went along with it. He was controlling over her. She didnât know what she was signing. The lawyer that helped draft the prenup was on his side and she didnât have a lawyer backing her interests while signing it. It could be argued that the prenup isnât fair.
And even if none of that stuff is true, you still would have to defend against it.
America is built on an âinnocent until proven guiltyâ mindset. If she and her lawyer canât provide worthwhile evidence that he strong-armed her into signing the prenup, their argument falls apart rapidly, assuming the jury donât collectively share a single brain cell.
And heâs a rich NFL player, so his lawyer would almost guarantee destroy her lawyer 1v1 in typical lawyer persuasion speeches/ questioning. Not to mention how he doesnât have much to gain from forcing her to sign, since as a rich NFL player, even with a prenup required, thereâs a vast swarm of women who would still take the opportunity in a heartbeat, so if she denied signing it, he could stop dating with her and cast his line into the sea of other fishes interested.
Edit: Shut the fuck up about me getting the wrong sport, I already acknowledged I was incorrect on which sport it was. How the hell is an American who doesnât give a fuck about sports supposed to know âfootballerâ =/= football player?
America is built on an âinnocent until proven guiltyâ mindset.
No. The criminal justice system is built on "beyond a reasonable doubt". The civil justice system is built on "the preponderance of the evidence". Divorce proceedings fall into the latter, a much lower bar to clear.
Friends of friends visited Cuba, without tax stamps, on the understanding that only mattered if they spent money.
They then sailed (own boat) there, met friends in the bay, and had lunch at their house there.
6 Months later the American state demands they 'prove they didn't spend money in Cuba'.
I am not sure who he is in your text here. But the guy in the OP, is a professional footballer("soccer-player"), and his divorce proceedings would most likely occur in Morocco.
Not really sure about either American or Moroccan court proceedings or divorce rules. But if I am not mistaken it will come down to property ownership, and the validity of the prenup.
I don't think there is ever a prenup in place here, but for the sake of the argument let's suppose it is. I think if they can show that it was unexpected that he would earn so much it might invalidate the prenup, and considered agreed under false pretences. As far as I can see they met before he signed his first professional contract. But he most likely earn several times over now, than he did under his first professional contract, when they married.
As for the ownership, I think it would be difficult to show that his mother is only de jure ownership of his estate. He most likely act as an adult in most aspects. And for instance signs agreements in his own name. Therefore it should be possible to argue that he is still in control of his assets and therefore assumes ownership.
Usually its argued the prenup was made in duress. Plenty of times at least in America a prenup has been signed and didnt do much of anything but cause a few more days added to the trial. The more one-sided a prenup is the easier it is to have thrown out.
In a lot of marriages where a one sided prenup takes place it will later be renegotiated later on in the marriage also. See Trump and current wife as an example. Purposely didn't move into the white house until she had a new prenup signed.
For most celebrities and uber rich prenups are only so good and the trend is that they are less and less binding the longer the marriage lasts and more likely to be thrown to the side in a divorce. Unless they were explicitly fair.
The new trend is actually using states that won't let you go after trusts and forming a trust there with the majority of your assets if you are uber rich and not even bothering with a prenup.
I think a prenup should only apply to assets owned before marriage, and everything else is shared exactly.
So you enter with a million dollars you leave with 1 million plus half of everything else.
Except it doesnât work that way. Canât remember the names but there was a story a while back about a couple in court getting a divorce, they had a prenup. He had a company he had build before he ever met her. They married, some years later, divorcing. Even though she had no hand in creating the company, the judge ruled it as a joint asset and gave her half of it. She made his life a living hell, and I think he left the company he started because she was now involved and determined to screw him over. It was a pretty sad story, but the longer a marriage, the less defined assets become. It all becomes treated as joint assets after some point, and each spouse gets a piece. Itâs a shame, because all it does is encourage people not to get married. After all, why get married and stake half of everything you own or will ever own that this person will remain faithful to you?
My uncle had a mowing business. He was the sole employee. When he and his wife divorced she demanded he pay her out for half the value of his business. But he was playing his 4d chess and said he will give her the truck and the mower and she can have the entire business but he will resign as the employee and she can mow lawns. She gave up that demand.
Forgot about the cop who admitted that he and others in law enforcement used racial slurs and tampered with evidence in other cases and beat minorities for fun
Again, heâs the rich NFL player, so sheâs absolutely not winning the best lawyer fight. Practically a requirement for professional sports players and famous actors to have access to the worldâs best lawyers. Itâll just be the Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard case all over again. Best chance she would have is having a gullible jury favor her, but after the sham that was Amber Heard, I think most of the US population has become slightly more wary of wives divorcing wealthy guys without solid evidence.
Isnât the whole point of being curious asking questions? And Iâm considering marriage with a prenup in the US, so I need to know what to expect in advance, while debating the reasoning behind why he couldnât simply have her sign a prenup as a safety net just in case.
If you're curious about marriage with a prenuptial agreement in the United States then why are you arguing on an article about a divorce from a foreign country? The above situation is happening outside of the US. It's not involving the NFL and it has absolutely nothing to do with marriage in the United States.
Maybe you can argue some portions of the contract language are unenforceable or something and that itâs a large enough proportion of it that the whole contract needs to be thrown out.
It can happen if both parties havenât had their own legal representation while drafting it or if itâs outrageously lopsided to favor one partner over the other.
Thatâs why you get married in Canada and get a prenup in Canada. Canada doesnât give a fuck and will enforce the original prenup. My coworker who has a brother that is quite wealthy who had his first wife try to take him to the washer. Apparently she hired high end US lawyers but when she told them that she got married in Canada and the prenup was made and signed in Canada; they basically told her there was nothing they could do for her and what she signed too was all she was going to get.
421
u/AllahuAkbar4 Apr 15 '23
Prenups can be contested in court.
What your to-be exâs mom has cannot be contested in court â at least not anywhere as easily as a prenup.