>Footballer Achraf Hakimi's wife filed for divorce and demanded half of his property.
>She was however informed by court that her "Millionaire' husband owns nothing as all his property is registered under his mother's names.
>Hakimi receives €1 Million from PSG monthly but 80% of this is deposited in his mother Mrs. Fatima's account.
>He has no property, cars, houses, jewelry or even clothes in his name.
Anytime, he wants anything, he asks his mother who buys it for him.
Or maybe people aren't owed money for having been in a relationship with someone.
It depends on a lot actually. If a couple decides that one will be stay at home, and then later split up, since being a stay at home parent doesn't get you a tax receipt, you're fucked. So now you're out on your own with a giant resume gap and a lot of time of missed opportunities and sacrifices, while your ex spouse jets off with all the family income and advancement. Would you as the stay at home dad think that's fair? Cause I think that parent is owed a damn lot. I say this as the one who brings home all the money in my household, my stay at home spouse does more and is more valuable to this family than I ever hope to be, she's just straight up better than me, so if we ever split, damn right I'll take care of her and feel she's entitled to that, especially as the mother to my children, it's my duty to make sure she's ok even without me.
p.s: this footballer's wife divorced him after he was caught in Paris with sexually abusing an underage girl
I'll concede, in specific circumstances, it may be warranted, but it is assumed to be the default currently. Far too often, the courts are used as a cudgel by a disgruntled former spouse who just wants to punch their former partner in the wallet. My father was such a disgruntled person. He was even engaged for the better part of a decade, refusing to marry until the alimony ran out. He was not a stay at home spouse, but due to his own choices, he made less than my mother. The default position should be that neither party is owed anything unless proven otherwise by specific evidence.
Edit: ihad to look these two up. A 31 year old woman courted a 19 year old up and coming footballer and married them. Guess it takes a predator to know one. Even if it left her destitute (it wouldn't), she doesn't deserve a cent.
Suppose you put your career on hold to help put your spouse through school. They'll be earning 4 times what you are once they're out of grad school, so you have turned down promotions and the like to keep the 2 of you as well as your kid afloat and catered to their schedule and needs while they go through this.
Now your spouse wants to split with you once they're out of school. You'd hitched your wagon to them and hadn't planned for a future where you wouldn't be moving forward as a unit.
Because that's the position I'm in now. Dammed fucking right I feel entitled to some sort of support given promises and vows were made.
Gold diggers exist, sure... but get some life experience before some bullshit hot take about something you have zero experience with
I'm also going through this but it's not that painful because I had the foresight to get a prenuptial agreement before the marriage.
Glad to hear that.
The way this was worded, I have to say, did come off smugly superior. Something like “…through this though I’m thankful it’s not as painful as it could be owing to a prenuptial agreement before marriage” would soften it kindly.
Yeah, I'm going to come out okay when all is said and done. I never signed anything, but it helps to have asshole lawyers in your immediate family.
Yeah, this should be argued on a case by case basis and not made the default. Sorry your former spouse hung you out to dry like that tho
Or maybe people shouldn't marry someone if they don't expect to share finances.
Wah wah bad take.
You are not obligated half of my shit I earned myself simply for existing and signing a paper
Marriage is a scam anyway
Because the paper you sign means they are obligated to half your shit.
Lol agreed
I don’t understand the downvotes, you’re absolutely right. It’s unfair to the person with the greater amount of resources, and I don’t understand why you should pay to uphold someone’s lifestyle unless they’re responsible for your child in some way.