More Not So Good News for Men

[haha]

Latest on Palimony -New Jersey
In the latest twist on palimony, the court said two people don't have to live together for one of them to owe the other support when the affair sours.
``It is the promise to support, expressed or implied, coupled with a marital-type relationship, that are the indispensable elements to support a valid claim for palimony,'' the justices ruled, dispelling any notion that it requires cohabitation.

Bloomberg.com: Opinion

I wonder, why does this not surprise me? The next thing will be that the unfortunate man doesn't even have to know the woman who would like a good hunk of his change.

But it does lower the bar for women who have neglected their own careers and savings, and that can't be all bad, now can it?

In this case, nobody won or lost, except both lost their legal expenses. But it does perhaps make the pursuit of the confort provided by the opposite sex more complex.

"My country tis of thee, sweet land of liberty...

Ha

[ziggy29]

I'd like to see a specific definition of "marital-type relationship."

[haha]

Originally Posted by ziggy29

I'd like to see a specific definition of "marital-type relationship."

Above all things, the law seeks to avoid explicit definitions of anything. One of the things that saved the dweeb in this case is that he never took his GF to family functions.

So I guess if you treat her like the high school girls who only got taken to the drive-in, never to the prom, you have a case. It seems that part of what you want to establish is that she was just a tart in your estimation and life, not a beloved, respected woman. Sounds like a really good attitude for society to foster.

Ha

[Moemg]

You do realize this can go both ways . We women with a few assests are also at risk so it's more bad news for us also .

[brewer12345]

Seems like the single adult would almost be better off just paying for "companionship" cash on the barrelhead.

[Jay_Gatsby]

Originally Posted by Moemg

You do realize this can go both ways . We women with a few assets are also at risk so it's more bad news for us also .

The problem is the vast majority of women don't have more assets than their significant others. To the extent that they do, most courts will look askance at a man who demands alimony or other type of support. Suffice it to say, women now have the equality they demanded more than 40 years ago, and should act/be treated as such.

[FinanceDude]

The end is amusing, where it says all the lady got was a bunch of legal bills. As far as I see, she got:

college for free
free condo
lots of spending money
plenty of sex

Of course, there is a moral issue. But how smart can you be to wait 20 years to be with a married man??

[haha]

Originally Posted by FinanceDude

Of course, there is a moral issue.

I sure agree with this. This guy is a certified schmuck for tying up a young woman in her most fertile and most marriageable time. If she has any brothers, perhaps they could beat the crap out of him.

He should have a tattoo somewhere in his groin: "Verified phony who will use you up and throw you off the train. Proceed with extreme caution."

My problem with the legal reasoning is that it is legal reasoning, which is very different from moral reasoning and has a way of going off into funny places.

I also agree that this could happen to a woman, but given present attitudes I think it would be a long shot for a man to tap into this revenue stream. Still it would be very annoying and expensive too, to be a defendant male or female.

Ha

[Moemg]

Originally Posted by haha

I also agree that this could happen to a woman, but given present attitudes I think it would be a long shot for a man to tap into this revenue stream.



Ha

There are a lot of lonely wealthy widows out there .

[Marquette]

Originally Posted by Moemg

There are a lot of lonely wealthy widows out there .

I believe we are now gaining critical mass on the E-R singles matchmaking subforum.

[mh]

One might ask themselves
Why is marriage a legal (family) issue at all anymore ?

This question was discussed on a booktv presentation on c-span
for a book titled:

Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage: Valuing All Families Under the Law
Author: Nancy Polikoff

a while back that i found very interesting. (link below)
she makes a pretty good case that marriage should
not be valued more than other forms of family and relationships.

she describes existing examples in state laws, etc..
for things like alimony, benificiaries, medical decision makers, etc...
that do a good job of handling these issues without having marriage
whatever that means this week . being an overriding/relevant factor.

Book TV - Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage: Valuing All Families Under the Law

the talk given by nancy can be watched on-line once you visit the link

[socca]

Originally Posted by Moemg

You do realize this can go both ways . We women with a few assets are also at risk so it's more bad news for us also .

I sent the article to my Mom, a wealthy widow who is shacked up with some parasite. The way their relationship is going now, I don't see a problem developing because he's the one who getting antsy now that she's placing most her assets out of his reach. He may take off someday for greener pastures.

[DallasGuy]

Originally Posted by haha

I sure agree with this. This guy is a certified schmuck for tying up a young woman in her most fertile and most marriageable time.

If the guy is a certified schmuck, the woman is a certified idiot for holding out for 20 years. Don't you think she would have gotten a clue after a couple of years?

[Moemg]

Maybe she liked the situation . He was paying for everything and she did not have to pick up his dirty clothes .

[Westernskies]

They both spent 20 years in the relationship with their eyes wide open.

[clifp]

Originally Posted by bigwonderfulwyoming

They both spent 20 years in the relationship with their eyes wide open.

I pretty much agree, I don't understand why the courts felt they should intervene. They both presumably got companionship and sex out of the relationship. The woman also got a fair amount of money, college, condo etc.

You can argue that he treated her badly by lying to her, but if courts start a precedent in adjudicating every time somebody gets lied to in a relationship, I fear for the country.

It sounds like the woman didn't collect anything which sounds right to me.