She got the Ring ... I got the Finger
If anyone out there is thinking about getting married, don't do it. Read
these pages first. Marriage gives the government and lawyers the ability
to steal everything you own. It makes it profitable for greedy lawyers
to break up your family for profit. Being married is like keeping a
loaded gun on the kitchen table. It's bad for you relationship and has
nothing to do with religion, love, or the eyes of God. It has everything
to do with lawyers, judges, and property. And if you're a good husband
and treat your wife well, that counts against you.
I Marc Perkel am a 40 year old nerd with no kids. I make about $50,000 a year from a small software company, Computer Tyme. I just spent the last 2 years getting divorced and royally screwed. Here's the judgement I got against me.
|
The Court finds that the parties have been residents of Greene County,
Missouri, for more than ninety days next preceding the commencement of
this proceeding and that more than thirty days have elapsed since the
filing of the petition; and that there remains no reasonable likelihood
that the marriage can be preserved and it is irretrievably broken and
should be dissolved.
The Court finds that no children were born to the parties, and petitioner is not pregnant.
The Court finds that any remaining proceeds from the sale of her house in Little Rock, Arkansas, is non-marital property of petitioner that should be set apart to her. Respondent owns non-marital property that consists of a portion of former marital residence, and this portion should be set apart to him. All property not specifically denominated as non-marital property is marital property that should be divided and awarded to the parties as herinafter decreed.
The Court finds that the former marital residence was owned solely by respondent prior to the marriage and the title thereto was never changed, although marital funds in the amount of $17,000 (rounded) were expended during the marriage to pay the purchase money note and deed of trust. The Court computes the non-marital portion of the property as follows: ($9,000/26,000) X 36,000 = $12,461.54 The marital portion is computed as follows: ($17,000/26,000) X 36,000 = $23,538.46.
The Court Finds that the parties owe debts that should be allocated; and that to effectuate a just division of the property and allocation of the debts petitioner should have judgement against respondent in the amount hereinafter stated.
The Court finds that it should grant a limited non-modifiable maintenance order to petitioner, and if this time limitation as requested by petitioner is invalid, then no maintenance at all should be ordered.
The Court finds that respondent should be ordered to pay $12,500.00, in addition to the amount that he has already paid, as his portion of the fee for petitioner's attorneys.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the marriage of Vicki Lorraine Perkel and Marc Perkel be and it hereby dissolved.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that respondent pay maintenance to petitioner in the amount of $1,000.00 per month for only twelve months, commencing September 1, 1996; and this order with respect to maintenance is not modifiable.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that respondent pay $12,500.00 to petitioner's attorneys; judgement is entered in favor of the law firm of Wear & Sharp and against respondent in that amount; and it is ORDERED that no process be issued to collect this judgement prior to September 1,1996.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that petitioner be restored to the name of Vicki Lorraine Stringfellow.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the non-marital property consisting of any remaining proceeds from the sale of petitioner's house in Little Rock, Arkansas, is set apart to petitioner.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the following described real property in Greene County, Missouri, is awarded to petitioner subject to all liens and encumbrances thereon:
[Description of 78 acre Fair Grove Property]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the following property is awarded to petitioner subject to all debts, liens and encumbrances against this property except as noted:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the non-marital and marital portions of the following described real property are set apart and awarded to respondent:
[Marc's House on Clay Street]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the following property is awarded to respondent subject to all debts, liens and encumbrances against this property:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the court costs be assessed against respondent; that all the temporary orders and allowances are hereby terminated; and that neither party receive any further additional relief.
Entered this 31st day of July, 1996.
Paul McGhee
What's wrong with this decision ...
First of all, we were only married for 5 years and had no kids. She's
the one who decided to leave the marriage. She has a good resume and
admitted that she could work and chooses not to. She's in good health
and has no minor children. Her one daughter is not mine, is 18 years
old, and she has a job. According to the law she should at most get half
of the marital property and we would both get to keep our non-marital
property. So, a court order for me to give my wife more that 100% of
everything I own is rather steep.
I make about $50,000 to $60,000 a year according to my last 6 years of income tax records. My income was not disputed during trial. No one accused me of hiding money and no evidence was presented nor allegations made that I had any large sums of money or hidden assets to borrow against. However, the court ordered me to pay her $61,000 by the end of the month plus $12,500 in her attorneys fees. There is no way possible for me to do this. This order is not only impossible, but the judge has to know it's impossible.
In theory, I get my house, (which I owned before I got married) and my business. She gets the 78 acre farm with no house. The farm is worth $117,000 and has $80,000 owed against it. The payments are about $1000 per month. She gets the loan too, but she doesn't have a job and has no way to make the payments, unless I miraculously come up with the $60,000. But there's nothing in the order that would require her to put any of this money against the land. And knowing my wife, I think she would blow the money and still not be able to afford the payment on the loan.
So, short of a miracle, she doesn't have the income to service the debt she's been given. The reason this is important to me is because my house, which I bought 7 years before I got married is collateral on the note on the 78 acres. Even if somehow she made the land payments, with my house as collateral on the note I could neither borrow money against nor sell my house until she pays it off. So, at best, the house is tied up for the next 12 years.
To award her an extra $1000 a month for a year makes no sense. Separate maintence was intended to help women with children or who can't work to have some income until they can get back on their feet. She hasn't worked since March of 1994 and just won't work. She is a legal secretary and was the personal assistant to the Attorney General of Arkansas. She types 115 words a minute and has significant computer skills and experience. She could find a job immediately by calling any temporary agency and have a good job in less than a week. Thus, considering that there is no minor children involved, that she can work, and that she has already had 2 1/2 years to find a job, an order for more maintenance is not justified by the facts. Especially without an explanation as to why she should receive additional money on top of the $60,000 that I'm somehow supposed to pay!
I had to pay my lawyers. She ran up her own legal bills. I had to pay my lawyers up front. Considering that she has already been awarded $72,000 cash it seems to me that she would be in a much better position to pay her legal bills than I would be. They are after all, her legal bills, not mine. I had to gut my company and borrow against my truck to pay my legal bills.
I'm sure if I don't come up with $75,000 real quick she'll go after my company and I won't have that either. Without that I won't have an income to make any payments or to make a living for myself for that matter.
My company is a corporation an in theory a judge wouldn't be legally allowed to take my corporate property unless he found that there was a reason, such as fraud, to declare the corporation invalid. But the judge made no such finding.
The judge also ruled that my software company, Computer Tyme Inc. was marital property indirectly by not listing it as non-marital property. Since I owned it before I was married it would normally be non-marital and to make it marital requires an explanation.
By not mentioning my copyrights as non-marital property, the judge seemed to consider them marital. Yet there is no explanation of how he concluded this nor how he evaluated it.
In this decision the judge doesn't assign values to anything nor does he explain his decisions. It's not surprising he doesn't explain anything because I doubt that he could. There's no way in hell that a decision as irrational as this could be explained. For a judge to make a decision that so strongly favors one side and is obviously punitive in nature requires an explanation as to why he has decided to punish me so severely as to force me into bankruptcy and strip me of everything I own.
Besides that, there's nothing in this decision anywhere that requires her to give up the title, "Her Royal Highness".
Where's the Justice?
I'm sure a lot of you women out there who are reading this are saying to
yourself, "Jesus Christ! I have 3 kids and I can't get the mother
fucking father to pay his measly $400 a month! What the fuck is going on
here?" I wish I knew, but I don't. I can only Guess
as to Why this happened. But I'm sure you can agree that anyone
with two brain cells to rub together can see this is grossly unfair.
But, you know that it's actually illegal for a judge to use common
sense, at least it would seem so.
Why is it that a good husband and a good step father, with no kids of his own, who was only married for 5 years, and was not the one to walk out on the marriage have to not only lose everything, file bankruptcy, and go in debt for over a 100 grand to pay her off? I'm going to owe a lot of money for a very long time while my X gets a free ride.
As you can see the system punishes men who have jobs and have been good providers to their family. What is my crime here? I am guilty of but two things. I own property and I have an income. I didn't beat my wife, I didn't cheat, I didn't abuse children. If I had it wouldn't counted against me. No, my crime is having some money and that attracts lawyers to take advantage of my family and steal my stuff.
People before Lawyers
- The time has come to overthrow the Justice System
Property
- Missouri Law on Property Division
Separate Maintenance
- Missouri Law on Separate Maintenance
|
Case Law $7/Month 50 States + Fed
I use this service.
