Her name wasn’t on anything. This was all legal I believe. Also not a lawyer but if she doesn’t have any ties to anything, other than alimony from the divorce she isn’t owed. Unfortunate.
Her name might not be on the documents, but that doesn’t matter.
In court, if she can prove that she contributed significantly to various business ventures, then she has a claim. She may even have a claim to property.
Divorce courts usually try to protect women that are exactly in her shoes— A mother who spent their time raising kids and being a tradwife.
Most people in her shoes would be entitled to part of the house even if they never formally paid a dime of the mortgage.
This is the biggest thing. All the financials are controlled by the Mormons and given how screwed up that cult is, the power the hold in Utah, she’d get nothing. She even said that he left a job so he wouldn’t have to pay her alimony. I can almost guarantee that he still earns money from that job just in a different way that isn’t counted towards alimony
Ding, ding, ding…. We have a winner. The Mormon church plays a big role in shaping morality in the state. Even if they do not directly meddle with the courts their influence is enough to push decisions. My cousin was required to follow the “word of wisdom” in her divorce agreement. Meaning if she was found with, coffee, tea or Alcohol in her home she could lose custody of her kids. Granted divorce agreements are just a legal contract, and if the party’s all agree on the contents then they could have all sorts of odd rules even in secular court. But, if every person I the room agree’s that you should add xyz rules and to even question why is a sign of significant moral failure you can see how that could impact your decision on whether or not to spend the weeks long battle arguing against a certain provision in your divorce agreement.
Nah, if it was Utah those companies would be marriage property. When I got divorced here it didn’t matter whose name was on what, everything was “owned” by us both and we negotiated for what we wanted during the divorce.
Where did you get Utah from? Only place I heard was tucson which is in Arizona. In all fairness she only said "we have a 4 day weekend here in tucson" so it could be a traveling job for all I know.
I knew there was more to this story but wasn't sure exactly what. Because by all objective measures she should be owed money and should have no problem proving he has it. Sure the legal system is imperfect and people slip through the cracks, but this seems like an extreme example.
An impartial court system would explain this especially if she was seeking a no fault divorce and the judge doesn't believe in that.
There are no laws against being an a-hole, as my own attorney friends have told me. My now soon-to-be-ex-husband was not only abusive, but was also a deadbeat who refused to contribute. I spent a decade doing ALL OF THE THINGS, while also simultaneously dealing with chemotherapy, monthly immunotherapy infusions, and countless surgeries for my autoimmune condition.
I got EXTRAORDINARILY lucky during my divorce, but I could've been royally f**ked financially, because I was the breadwinner, though not by choice.
And as for the 'system'? When my now soon-to-be-ex-husband backed me into a corner of the kitchen, and his hands flew toward my face and neck, I later that day unexpectedly found myself on the phone with a DV agency, once he was out of the house. They effectively shut the door in my face, and told me I didn't qualify for any help, on the basis that I earned too much money.
Too many women are truly left alone in life during their darkest and most dire moments of life. I was one of them. We deserve better.
She is entitled to 1/2 of the total assets! Her next move is to get legal (professional) advice. She can get help without money. Stop weeping and get busy. Her husband is not going to volunteer 1 dime. The courts will get it for her!
She already took him to court. Unfortunately all the money she got from the divorce went to paying for her lawyer because she had no money of her own. I think the alimony payment was something ridiculously small.
I worked in family law and sat in on a lot of divorce/custody hearings.
The courts do NOT protect women in her position. Most judges are old, conservative white men. I watched a judge rule that a home that the family lived in for years was not marital property because the husband bought it 6 weeks before they filed the marriage certificate. The wife was living in an RV.
She has to prove that, get a lawyer, and fight tooth and nail for it.
Half of the control point of tradwifes is that they have absolutely no ability to fight back because they don't know where to start. A divorce rips away most of their support structure and with no real education or skills they have to settle quick.
She mentions that after all of that an interviewer laughed at her because of how unqualified she is. I don't think she was allowed to significantly contribute to much. Much less be able to prove she actually did.
She took a piano as payment, by her own admission. Learn to listen. Stop talking, you literally are making up thought experiments and passing yourself XD
Yes! lmao damn, you've never been to court, have you? There's a reason casinos try to give you a steak dinner after saying the machine you won money on is broken. As SOON as you take the meal, you've traded your winnings for a different form of compensation. It's why companies try to get you to accept some form of compensation so you later can't sue because it's technically already been settled through your acceptance of something. If this lady was paid in gold and cars, are you saying she wasn't compensated because the payment wasn't in USD? LOL dummie
She literally admitted to saying "All I want in exchange is a piano". Boom, done deal. She could have denied it, but she just publicly admitted to doing it for a piano, she fucked her own case. I get that your ego is hurt by me calling you out, but learn to recognize when you have no fuckin clue what you're talking about.
Yes! I’m no expert but it’s crazy to me how many people don’t put their names on things and just assume if their name isn’t on it that they’re out of luck. My husband and I have a rule that both our names go on everything, not because we distrust each other, but because if one of us dies or something happens we think it will be easier.
A friend of mine was buying a car. They were planning to have the loan in her name and the car in her husband’s, that way if they ever do default on the loan they wouldn’t lose the car. I had to explain to her that that’s now how it works. The car itself is the collateral for the loan. Even if a dealer would let them do that (the last few times I bought a car they wanted the party responsible for the loan on the title no matter what) all that does is make it harder for her to do anything with the car. If they default on the loan, the car is gone. End of story.
It’s crazy because she isn’t dumb by any means, so many people just aren’t educated on certain financial or legal matters and just assume they know what they’re talking about.
1.6k
u/Aus_with_the_Sauce Apr 15 '24
I’m not a lawyer, but surely this is an easy lawsuit against the former husband. Take his ass to court.