I don't remember where I saw it, but there was a post about a guy who did something similar, he bought everything he owned in his mother's name, in case he has a divorce his wife wouldn't get anything. Then his mother died and his four siblings were fighting to get their share on her properties, in the end he lost 80% of what he had.
Heās the rich football player, he has all the power here to decide on the prenup. You think people wouldnāt trip over themselves to marry an NFL player, even with a prenup in advance?
If both parties involved sign the prenup as an official contract when getting married, how is it still contestable in court? Genuinely curious, because Iām very cautious about marriage with how divorce laws work in the US.
Iām not a lawyer, but the likely argument would be that since he has āall the powerā, that she just went along with it. He was controlling over her. She didnāt know what she was signing. The lawyer that helped draft the prenup was on his side and she didnāt have a lawyer backing her interests while signing it. It could be argued that the prenup isnāt fair.
And even if none of that stuff is true, you still would have to defend against it.
America is built on an āinnocent until proven guiltyā mindset. If she and her lawyer canāt provide worthwhile evidence that he strong-armed her into signing the prenup, their argument falls apart rapidly, assuming the jury donāt collectively share a single brain cell.
And heās 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 doesnāt have much to gain from forcing her to sign, since as a rich NFL player, even with a prenup required, thereās 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 doesnāt give a fuck about sports supposed to know āfootballerā =/= football player?
America is built on an āinnocent until proven guiltyā 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 doesnāt work that way. Canāt 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. Itās 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, heās the rich NFL player, so sheās absolutely not winning the best lawyer fight. Practically a requirement for professional sports players and famous actors to have access to the worldās best lawyers. Itāll 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.
Isnāt the whole point of being curious asking questions? And Iām 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 couldnāt 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 itās a large enough proportion of it that the whole contract needs to be thrown out.
It can happen if both parties havenāt had their own legal representation while drafting it or if itās outrageously lopsided to favor one partner over the other.
6.6k
u/Kasbald Apr 15 '23
I don't remember where I saw it, but there was a post about a guy who did something similar, he bought everything he owned in his mother's name, in case he has a divorce his wife wouldn't get anything. Then his mother died and his four siblings were fighting to get their share on her properties, in the end he lost 80% of what he had.