Pre nup agreements - legal?

[mf1]

Mf1,
There may be no legal disadvantage to a pre-nup, but if it isn't currently enforceable under Irish law, there is no advantage either, as there would be no legal protection offered by it.

I suspect that they will become more used and I think that the legislators should look at making them enforceable BUT, until that happens, having one would at least concentrate peoples minds on the long term issues when entering into a marriage.

Brianne
"The present situation is ridiculous and suits nobody. It should be more equitable and the family courts should be open to more scrutiny."

You have to give three months notice of marriage. That is enough time for anyone to consider what they are doing. Human nature resists it though - always has, always will.

Our marriage break up laws are actually very good and very fair. Most cases settle - allowing the parties themselves to regulate their break up. Often, settlement comes only after a lot of very unrealistic expectations are buried by the parties' lawyers. I am a practising family lawyer and the only issue I have are the waiting times. None, I repeat, none of my clients want their private affairs opened up any more publicly than is necessary in a Family Law Court. So I'm not sure what you mean by more scrutiny - who would do that?

mf

 

[dereko1969]

As a lot of people aren't that interested in the serious legalities of Church marriage

what are these serious legalities of Church marriage? Impacts on Canon Law? They don't have civil law implications but State marriage does.

 

[bond-007]

Was there not be an agency that would report on family law cases with all names removed etc?

Our marriage break up laws are actually very good and very fair.

Would you not agree that the current laws are a carpet baggers charter? An adulterous spouse can get away unpunished and take 50% of the innocent persons processions. Hardly fair now.

 

[mf1]

Was there not be an agency that would report on family law cases with all names removed etc?

Would you not agree that the current laws are a carpet baggers charter? An adulterous spouse can get away unpunished and take 50% of the innocent persons processions. Hardly fair now.

The rule is proper provision. That is not a carpet baggers charter. Most cases I see involve people who have been married for a long time. Short marriages/ no kids are entirely different to the long term ones.

I've never gotten the idea of "punishing" - it does not change anything. The marriage will still be over. We have a "no fault" system of marital break up law. In 25 years of practice, I have never seen someone " take 50% of an innocent persons possessions". I've seen plenty of guys who want to keep everything, claiming that their wives just sat at home doing nothing ( forgetting the child rearing and provision of home life which enabled them to acquire assets), women who made their husbands lives miserable and wonder why he left them, control freaks ( both genders), mental illness, physical illness, selfishness, greed, self absorption, and, equally, situations where the marriage was never a good idea and separation is the only answer.

One other thing, I have a view that people behave in break up the way they behaved in the marriage. So, if they were lazy, feckless and idle...........it won't change in the break up.

mf

 

[Faultless]

I myself obtained a fault divorce in New York a few years back.

The advantages are that it dispenses with all the waiting periods and attempts at reconciliation that no fault requires. I simply got the divorce on the grounds that she was an adulterous. The best thing about this was that despite her having very little assets of her own I did not have to give her one penny in alimony, that is the punishment for her behavior.

Also fault divorce stops the carpet baggers from stealing a persons assets where they intentionally break up a relationship to get money out of the other spouse.

It is about time the laws in Ireland were changed.

 

[bond-007]

The advantages are that it dispenses with all the waiting periods and attempts at reconciliation that no fault requires. I simply got the divorce on the grounds that she was an adulterous. The best thing about this was that despite her having very little assets of her own I did not have to give her one penny in alimony, that is the punishment for her behavior.

Good man yourself. What was her reaction?

Also fault divorce stops the carpet baggers from stealing a persons assets where they intentionally break up a relationship to get money out of the other spouse.

Indeed. Something the legal profession here seems to disagree with.

It is about time the laws in Ireland were changed.

Again, the legal profession are not too keen on that.

 

[mf1]

"Also fault divorce stops the carpet baggers from stealing a persons assets where they intentionally break up a relationship to get money out of the other spouse."

Yeh, I know. Jayze, the poor sucker who freely gets married to someone who is so patently setting it all up to rip him off. There really should be a law against that.

And Bond, I have yet to see any case anywhere where there were not, in fact, two people involved , both of whom shared a great deal of responsibility for the marriage and the break up. One of the biggest issues is actually staying with someone and allowing the marriage to perpetuate long after the best reasons to separate have surfaced.

mf

 

[bond-007]

Fair enough mf1.