Can anyone tell me why there should be "community" or "marital" property, or the laws that provide for them, in the Twenty-First Century? It seems to me that today if anyone believes that their STBX owes them anything, the party should simply have to prove it, in the same way anyone would if they were not married to the other party involved or even living with them.
A recent survey shows that more people today are having permanent relationships without being married and without placing themselves under all the laws that control it, than are married. Why not treat everyone equally under the law, then, at least in a financial sense? If anyone then wants any other arrangements they can make their own valid, honest contracts to provide for them, and employ skilled attorneys to draft them. This is obviously better than having some confusing, subjective and not fully knowable law, which is constantly changing and evolving---all the while subject to many different interpretations and variations in judicial discretion--- and while posing as a “contract”, applied years later in a “no-fault” divorce?
How, at a future time often so removed from that in which the marriage occurred, can such a false “contract” be unexpectedly applied to the parties, based upon the assumption that they somehow "knowingly" entered into it when they got married? How can this happen when neither party ever saw such a contract, were not told where to find it, and were not even told that it existed?
I realize that many generations ago there were some valid arguments for these Community Property laws, with it being unimaginable---at that time---that any married couple would not be operating a business together, usually a farm or a ranch. Even in the rare circumstance that one of the partners were employed it was still necessary for the working party to have the support, at home, of their spouse. This is because marriage implied a great number of children would be born to the couple and the home necessary to care for them required a much greater degree of work to maintain than does a home today.
Today, however, these arguments for Community Property are all obsolete, with far less than 1% of married persons working together in a family business. Both parties in a marriage are now truly equal and the woman is every bit as free as the man to work and create her own wealth. Modern conveniences make it highly likely that even a stay-at-home-mom will receive full compensation for her work in the form of the care and enjoyment of life she receives,-not to mention avoidance of the stress of having to worry about being fired.
The above explains why this area of law is no longer necessary and serves no valid purpose (except perhaps the enrichment of gold diggers, some attorneys and a few demogogic politicians). The real problem though with these laws is the often outrageous injustice that results to the parties involved. One of many bad things (but certainly not the worst) they do today is simply to provide for the retroactive conversion of gifts--of assets or of helpful or generous behavior--to another person, into a contrived, imaginary contribution to a specious "financial partnership".
This "partnership" in reality is always established by these laws not at the time of the marriage but--arguments to the contrary aside--at some future time. In the situation I am discussing this "partnership" is implemented when a married person no longer likes the other party (their spouse), permitting them to obtain the full or partial recovery of these gifts, and perhaps even much more, by dissolution of this alleged partnership through divorce. When I was growing up this kind of behavior would have been called (with appropriate apologies) "Indian giving".
Is the forcible "taking back" of a gift already given really any different than theft? If it is done by the operation of law, what does that make it? If there was [I]no[/I[ gift in the first place, what can such a taking be? The answer to these questions can only be legalized theft! I would like to know if anyone agrees with me and also to hear any rational arguments in favor of this arbitrary, presumptuous and expensive (to defend against) law. Remember you can also send me a PM.
Why not treat everyone equally under the law, then, at least in a financial sense? If anyone then wants any other arrangements they can make their own valid, honest contracts to provide for them, and employ skilled attorneys to draft them.
Why not get the law and lawyers out of personal relationships altogether and let grown adults handle their business themselves?
More to your point, community property is, quite frankly, robbery. Just like you said: legalized theft. I'm not even quite sure why it was invented in the first place. Just because I lived with you for X amount of years (but never co-owned anything) you are still entitled to half my stuff? Thank goodness not all 50 states are community property.
Why not get the law and lawyers out of personal relationships altogether and let grown adults handle their business themselves?
More to your point, community property is, quite frankly, robbery. Just like you said: legalized theft. I'm not even quite sure why it was invented in the first place. Just because I lived with you for X amount of years (but never co-owned anything) you are still entitled to half my stuff? Thank goodness not all 50 states are community property.
Have you ever been to a family court? It's obvious why... the adults act more like children than the children do... mean spirited, ugly children.
It's the fault of the people who are acting like ugly children. Whose fault do you think it is?
I really have no idea. Generations of divorce? I get the legalities of marriage and divorce, but in the context of community property for non-married persons...it's just kind of childish in and of itself. Don't throw a tiff in the courts. The lawyers love your money.
Community Property can be a good thing when one spouse tries to claim everything, it protects that stay at home mom or dad, the spouse who decided to go back to school with the other spouses blessing, the part time working spouse, the spouse who maybe sold everything when the households were combined. It can also be a bad thing for someone who got hitched to a gold digger, but if you go into a marriage and you have more wealth than your spouse, it is your decision to not have a pre-nup. If you get that wealth status after you're married, well then it should be split equally, you may feel you worked the hardest to get that wealth post marriage, but your spouse had something to do with your success and if he/she didn't than you have bigger problems in your marriage than money.
My H came into our marriage with nothing but a plastic tote full of probation paperwork and a few clothes, I am not kidding. He appeared to have his crap together when we met/married, but he got locked up on a violation about 4 months after we married. They carted him off to jail and 7 months later he's out and has nothing. Fast forward two years and we're going through a divorce and he can get HALF of my stuff. But you know what? I made the choice to marry him, so I can only blame myself, not the courts, not the laws, etc... Although I do think when you apply for a marriage license, that law should be in bold and maybe bright red just before you sign on the line
Community Property can be a good thing when one spouse tries to claim everything, it protects that stay at home mom or dad, the spouse who decided to go back to school with the other spouses blessing, the part time working spouse, the spouse who maybe sold everything when the households were combined.
The fact that it authorizes Legalized Theft, in cases where one party contributed nothing---or almost nothing---to the creation of the other’s assets, clearly outweighs any “good” it might do in cases such as you mentioned. In such cases as you mentioned, a similar good outcome would probably have been achieved---in the vast majority of instances--by applying the principle of “No one is liable to anyone else until proven so”. This is the same principle used in Criminal Law, and for good reason. If actually justified, proof of the circumstances resulting in such good outcomes as you mentioned, could be made under existing "Implied Partnership" law without the necessity to make reference to any question of "marriage".
Applying this principle, instead of the present one of “All persons are liable, for one-half of their assets, to their spouse unless proven otherwise,” also prevents the even greater injustice of the productive party being robbed of said assets when his spouse, in reality, even made the creation of these assets---and the retention of them--- more difficult than they would otherwise have been had he not been married to her! This sends exactly the wrong message to the productive people in society, by punishing hard work and thrift, and rewarding greed and chicanery.
In my own case this kind of law has destroyed my desire to continue to do anything which may produce more wealth, as doing so--under Community Property law--may simply produce more for my wife to get in a divorce, as well as making the filing of such a divorce more tempting to her (BTW, she has no idea of how I make my money and has never contributed to the creation of even a penny of our Community Property!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherry
…Although I do think when you apply for a marriage license, that law should be in bold and maybe bright red just before you sign on the line .
Agreed. I would like to see the following at the top of all marriage license applications:
WARNING TO APPLICANTS
UNDER (Name of State) LAW ALL OF A MARRIED PARTY'S ASSETS ARE REQUIRED TO BE DIVIDED, AT THE RATE OF 50%, IN THE EVENT OF ANY FUTURE DIVORCE. THIS INCLUDES ANY RETIREMENT INCOME AND THE VALUE OF ANY OTHER PRESENT OR FUTURE BENEFITS NOT YET REALIZED.
UNDER (Name of State) “NO FAULT” DIVORCE LAW, A DIVORCE MAY BE FILED AT ANY TIME AND, UNLESS THE PLAINTIFF CHANGES HER MIND, THE COURT MUST GRANT IT. SAID PLAINTIFF IS NOT REQUIRED TO STATE ANY PARTICULAR REASON OR JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS FILING.
UNDER (Name of State) LAW OTHER LIABILITIES MAY BE IMPOSED ON THE DEFENDENT, INCLUDING ALIMONY, CHILD SUPPORT, AND EVEN PAYMENT OF THE PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S FEES AND EXPENSES.
I think it's good... Now if our states would jump on board =There certainly should be a time frame for that to take effect though... Say maybe 2 years into a marriage, prior to the 2 year mark, property remains the property of the party that actually brought it into the marriage, or used their individual credit to acquire the asset.. There were so many injustices in my divorce case, that I lost all faith in the court system. It actually got to the point where we pulled our case entirely because of the courts. Ours wasn't amicable though and my H appeared to be the gold digger in our situation.
I don't know your situation fully, but from what you wrote, it appears you may be on the outs with your W. You can protect yourself for any future wealth by filing for divorce or legal separation now though. I know in my marriage now, whatever either of us do to make money or acquire assets, it is a joint effort, same with debt. So in our situation it is a fair thing now.
If you walk into a serious relationship with the mindset that, whats mine is mine, yours is yours your not really into the spirit of what relationships are all about: Unity of people and their stuff
If you walk into a serious relationship with the mindset that, whats mine is mine, yours is yours your not really into the spirit of what relationships are all about: Unity of people and their stuff.
What a crock of s..t.
If you believe such naïve, romantic nonsense, then tell me this: How can the one person, which obviously resulted from the “unification” of two people by marriage, then sue himself for divorce??
Are you smoking that good Canadian weed which I hear is coming unto the U.S. now from your region? It is not only your post which makes me suspect this, but your signature as well!
The bit that all assets are divided 50% is wrong. There are non-community assets and debt. These are assets that a person brings into a marriage. They are assets that are inheretence and gifts.
I think it's good... Now if our states would jump on board =There certainly should be a time frame for that to take effect though... Say maybe 2 years into a marriage, prior to the 2 year mark, property remains the property of the party that actually brought it into the marriage, or used their individual credit to acquire the asset.. There were so many injustices in my divorce case, that I lost all faith in the court system. It actually got to the point where we pulled our case entirely because of the courts. Ours wasn't amicable though and my H appeared to be the gold digger in our situation.
I don't know your situation fully, but from what you wrote, it appears you may be on the outs with your W. You can protect yourself for any future wealth by filing for divorce or legal separation now though. I know in my marriage now, whatever either of us do to make money or acquire assets, it is a joint effort, same with debt. So in our situation it is a fair thing now.
During my marriage, it was also my ex-husband who was the gold digger.
During the marriage I had supported him through most of it and covered most of his costs for going to medical school, residency, etc.
I tried to get everything and leave me with nothing. It did not work. In my case the court system helped. He had a costly team of 4 attorneys. I had one. I insisted that everything that was community property be divided 50/50. He tried to hide assets and get everything that was not hidden as well.
Without community property laws, what woman (Or man) would agree to stay home and raise the children? (I’m using the female pronouns below for ease of writing. But it’s the same for a SAHH as well)
A start SAHM would demand in a pre-nuptial that she receive a salary from her husband to cover her carrying the child, keeping house and caring for the children, etc.
She would also expect payment for every time she accompanies him to a dinner party or other event to help make him look good for jobs, to customers, etc.
She would also as for a retirement fund. And severance pays as well if the husband decides to divorce her.”
And a smart SAHM would negotiate that this either be a percentage or her husband’s income or that it was a fixed rate that he has to pay no matter what happens, like a lost job etc. After all, if things are not joint, his finial hardships should not be hers nor the children’s.
2Likes
Community Property: An Anachronism Today? 
