Oh yeah, quit your job that pays so well you owe thousands of dollars in debt.
Maybe she can take this 150k go to school to work on a career and pay her debt off. [Edited 7/23/08 14:41pm] | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Slave2daGroove said: Well let's start a relationship on lies and deceit and wonder why shit doesn't work out.
You just summed this whole case up. Is there a pill for stupid? | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Slave2daGroove said: Oh yeah, quit your job that pays so well you owe thousands of dollars in debt.
:err2: | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Stymie said: violator said: That's why I compared the prenup to the idea of getting a credit report. Both go a long way towards protecting your financial interests. But one is generally presented as smart planning while the other (mostly associated with men) is suggested to be insensitive and 'planning for the divorce'. Maybe the general attitudes of women towards this are changing... Nah, it's just you and Stymie. [Edited 7/23/08 14:24pm] I couldn't agree more. And I'm one who seriously doubts that I'd ever marry. But I couldn't agree with you more. I have had the example of all types of married couples. I've known folks who were broke as a joke, folks who married under the 'ideal' circumstance of having money and being upwardly mobile to everything in-between and I've seen their individual struggles amidst it all. And the one thing I feel absolutely certain of relative to marriage is that if you don't do it for love, you are out of your fucking mind. If you don't marry that person because you are head over heels in love and can't imagine another day without that person by your side, you are putting yourself behind the 8-ball from jump. If that love happens to come with financial stability then that's wonderful, but love has to be first. I have a cousin who used to always say that she'd never marry a man who was achieving at a lesser rate in life than she was. She wanted a man who was at least bringing the same things to the table that she was. I disagreed with that stance, because as I said above, I think love has to come first and foremost. But I think it's at least a fair consideration. At least she's not suggesting anyone take care of her or provide her with something she can't go out and get on her own. So she married with that consideration first and has endured for over 10 years now, the most turbulent, difficult marriage anyone could ever imagine. And she stays in it for the same reasons she initiated it and none of it makes sense to me. Marriage has to be about love first. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Graycap23 said: Shell argued her fiance's promise of marital bliss amounted to a binding contract. She said she left a high-paying job in Florida to be with Gibbs and she said she has suffered financial losses since their break-up. She also said she has suffered emotionally.
Boo-hoo-hoo, cry me a muthaphuckin' river. What's she doing with so much debt? Sounds like a person with no money-sense. Bad job by the jury. Dude was smart. My cousin would be better off financially if he did the same thing. His wife brought serious debt to the marriage he didn't know about(she lied about her finances), and guess who got stuck with the bill. They're divorced, but he moved in with his sister and has to start all over again(in his mid-40s). As SCNDLS said, before y'all walk that aisle, KNOW WHO YOU'RE DEALING WITH! | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
violator said: Stymie said: If I ever marry, it'd be for love, not because someone could take care of me. I'd sign a pre-nup in a heartbeat.
I couldn't agree more. And I'm one who seriously doubts that I'd ever marry. But I couldn't agree with you more. I have had the example of all types of married couples. I've known folks who were broke as a joke, folks who married under the 'ideal' circumstance of having money and being upwardly mobile to everything in-between and I've seen their individual struggles amidst it all. And the one thing I feel absolutely certain of relative to marriage is that if you don't do it for love, you are out of your fucking mind. If you don't marry that person because you are head over heels in love and can't imagine another day without that person by your side, you are putting yourself behind the 8-ball from jump. If that love happens to come with financial stability then that's wonderful, but love has to be first. I have a cousin who used to always say that she'd never marry a man who was achieving at a lesser rate in life than she was. She wanted a man who was at least bringing the same things to the table that she was. I disagreed with that stance, because as I said above, I think love has to come first and foremost. But I think it's at least a fair consideration. At least she's not suggesting anyone take care of her or provide her with something she can't go out and get on her own. So she married with that consideration first and has endured for over 10 years now, the most turbulent, difficult marriage anyone could ever imagine. And she stays in it for the same reasons she initiated it and none of it makes sense to me. Marriage has to be about love first. But even those that marry for love end up in divorce court after the love is gone. At that point, most divorcing couples are not interested in doing what's right or fair when it comes to resolving financial issues. And depending on what's transpired since they were all in love and shit, they are now trynta hit each other where it hurts, usually in the wallet. So do the prenup amidst the love and hope you don't need it. But in the event that you do, the resolution of pre-marriage assets is one less thing you gotta deal with. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SCNDLS said: At that point, most divorcing couples are not interested in doing what's right or fair when it comes to resolving financial issues. And depending on what's transpired since they were all in love and shit, they are now trynta hit each other where it hurts, usually in the wallet. So do the prenup amidst the love and hope you don't need it. But in the event that you do, the resolution of pre-marriage assets is one less thing you gotta deal with.
These days, the attitude seems to be, "the marriage didn't work out, so f-ck you, pay me!" | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Graycap23 said: Gibbs testified that he had taken Shell on trips and paid $30,000 of her debt while they were engaged. He said when he found out she had even more debt, he canceled the wedding by leaving Shell a note in their bathroom.
Okay, but this part right here, shows me he was a punk ass muthafucka anyway. Yeah, he's got EVERY right to cancel the wedding but by leaving a note in the bathroom??? WTF???? He shoulda done that face to face especially since they lived together. No wonder she sued him, that was just payback for him pulling a bitch move. [Edited 7/23/08 14:53pm] | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SCNDLS said: violator said: I couldn't agree more. And I'm one who seriously doubts that I'd ever marry. But I couldn't agree with you more. I have had the example of all types of married couples. I've known folks who were broke as a joke, folks who married under the 'ideal' circumstance of having money and being upwardly mobile to everything in-between and I've seen their individual struggles amidst it all. And the one thing I feel absolutely certain of relative to marriage is that if you don't do it for love, you are out of your fucking mind. If you don't marry that person because you are head over heels in love and can't imagine another day without that person by your side, you are putting yourself behind the 8-ball from jump. If that love happens to come with financial stability then that's wonderful, but love has to be first. I have a cousin who used to always say that she'd never marry a man who was achieving at a lesser rate in life than she was. She wanted a man who was at least bringing the same things to the table that she was. I disagreed with that stance, because as I said above, I think love has to come first and foremost. But I think it's at least a fair consideration. At least she's not suggesting anyone take care of her or provide her with something she can't go out and get on her own. So she married with that consideration first and has endured for over 10 years now, the most turbulent, difficult marriage anyone could ever imagine. And she stays in it for the same reasons she initiated it and none of it makes sense to me. Marriage has to be about love first. But even those that marry for love end up in divorce court after the love is gone. True. They just generally seem to have a better shot at avoiding the divorce court than those who put other concerns first. But, again, I agree with being fiscally responsible in the process of marriage. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |