|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7818751.stm
This story got me thinking. The TLDR version is that an American guy donated a kidney to his wife, and now that they're getting divorced, he's demanding that she either give him back the kidney or pay him 1.5M for it. My guess is, he doesn't really matter want the kidney, he just wants the money. But, it raises a larger question; how should you split up assets after a divorce? Assume for the sake of argument that there's no prenup.
On the one hand, I feel like anything you've given your spouse is, well, a gift, and it's just bad manners to ask for a gift back. It's like in "wedding crashers" where the creepy artist asks for his nude painting back: "no, that was a gift. I'm keeping it."
On the other hand, it's not quite that simple. When you're married, you usually assume you'll be living with the other person a very long time, and you arrange your assets accordingly. It's not uncommon to give your partner access to all your money, because you basically become one person ,financially speaking. So when you split up, I guess it makes sense to undo that arrangement.
Then there's the problem of unequal wealth AKA gold-diggers. Suppose that the wife agrees to put her career on hold for a while so that she can have children. If they get divorced, and the man doesn't give her anything, then she's really up shit creek. Of course this can go the other way too, but it's more common this way, so please forgive the sexism. In a case like this, does the man have an obligation to give her a large chunk of his money, given that he can earn money more easily than she can?
I dunno, I'm just rambling at this point. But, after seeing in the "manpower" thread how many wanna-be lawyers TL has, I wanna test TL law. What do you guys think about divorce law? And, if you're not from the US, how does it work in your country?
|
lost is comming to life man
|
On January 10 2009 14:39 jimminy_kriket wrote:
lost is comming to life man
Huh? I've never seen lost.
|
hahaha, you either give him the kidney or die.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
w/o a prenup it is 1/2, with any ambiguous thingies going in favor of the "less financially potent" side, which is usually the wife. If your family is far wealthier than the wife's side then you better as hell be planning on getting a properly drafted prenup no matter what the fuck she says about "not trusting me" or w/e BS she brings up.
In the case of the United States, ownership law and whatnot depends on state. ie california is derived from what was set under spanish rule + english rule, others are english rule only, and Louisiana is French.
|
pretty sure if this goes to court it'll be pretty easy ruling in favor of the woman, and if somehow it isn't it'll surely be ruled in her favor upon appeal.
primary reasons are:
1. the kidney is 100% necessary to the woman's ability to live
2. the man knowingly and willingly gave the kidney to the woman with the full intent of her keeping it
i mean i guess you could argue that body parts are the highest form of personal property that we can own, but even then i think anyone would be able to see that the kidney is more essential to the woman than to the man, and that he's probably making this request out of simple spite or malice.
any reasonable court/jury should be able to see that this man's request is just absurd. he donated this kidney to save her life, and regardless of what happened during the marriage there's no reason to take it away (which, if they did, would be essentially taking her life away). if she really did "betray" him as the story says then fine, everyone feels sorry for you, but don't take her life away. let the bitch live with the guilt of knowing she turned her back on the man who kept her alive.
|
Aus family law insofar as marriage breakdown is concerned is summed up by the following basic 'equation', for lack of a better word.
The Court conisders what the parties brought into the marriage (eg. a home, boat, business etc, etc), looks at what the parties contributed during the marriage (eg. one party may have earned 200k p.a. the other only 60k p.a. or one may have been a stay at home parent allowing the other to be the 'bread winner'; all of the aforementioned examples are contributions) and the future needs of the parties (eg. did the person who stayed at home forgo a career and thus limit their earning capacity after the dissolution of the marriage? If so they are seen to have greater future needs. Is one party going to look after the children full time? Then they have greater needs. Etc)
After weighing up these considerations it determines what the split should be from the asset pool thereafter.
That's Aus family law in a nutshell.
Edit: There's also no legislative '50/50' rule in Australia, in fact technically the judge is not allowed to start with such an assumption. But a look through the case law tends to support a different reality in practice 
Disclaimer: I don't practice in family law at all (I'm a criminal lawyer), but have worked pretty closely with, and have many friends who are, family law practitioners.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
On January 10 2009 14:29 Luddite wrote: it raises a larger question; how should you split up assets after a divorce?
Out of all the questions the news prompted in you, that is the one you think merits a discussion? o_Oa
I would have gone for something with more flair such as A modern day Shylock demands his pound of flesh! What would Portia have done in our contemporary times?
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/pound-flesh
|
If he did get the kidney back, wouldn't she die?
|
Probably, but you could make the argument she could find another kidney. (I believe Kidneys are the more common organs)
|
Whatever the outcome of the trial will change things dramatically.
Cases like this are what lead to the capitalization and consumerization (why does firefox think this is spelled wrong?) of things that normally and morally shouldn't be thought of this way.
Take passion crimes for example. Some douche bag 100 years ago found out his wife was cheating and planned out the murder of both his wife and the man then turned himself in and got a lesser crime because he was so furious he got off on a temporary insanity plea. Now everywhere this holds up. We call them 'passion crimes'. In fact in Texas there is/was a law that if you caught your spouse in the act of sex with someone else you had the right to shoot and kill that person.
Then there is shit like biotech, where people actually patent living bio engineered organisms and there are just so many variables involved that the laws can not even fathom dealing with the shit and it gets completely out of hand. Now companies like Monsanto can go around suing people who have any random bio-engineered crop on their property regardless of how it got there (I shit you not).
It's ridiculous.
I hope he loses.
|
On January 10 2009 15:30 il0seonpurpose wrote:
If he did get the kidney back, wouldn't she die?
What would the husband do with the kidney anyways? Can you transplant it one more time?
|
There is no way in hell they would make her give the kidney back or pay for it.
|
This man is retarded.
By the way, i think now that the divorce rate is so high anywhere, the law should start enforcing prenup arrangements, for the sole purpouse of avoiding problems in the future. The couple must be aware that even though they love each other and shit, you cannot predict the future. And instead of going into court and fighting and ending bad, they should just arrange their stuff for the best.
I dont see any problem with prenup's arrangements. In fact i think they would solve this kind of stuff.
|
This is at least as retarded as the concept of alimony.
|
On January 10 2009 14:43 thedeadhaji wrote:
w/o a prenup it is 1/2, with any ambiguous thingies going in favor of the "less financially potent" side, which is usually the wife. If your family is far wealthier than the wife's side then you better as hell be planning on getting a properly drafted prenup no matter what the fuck she says about "not trusting me" or w/e BS she brings up.
In the case of the United States, ownership law and whatnot depends on state. ie california is derived from what was set under spanish rule + english rule, others are english rule only, and Louisiana is French.
On January 10 2009 15:59 Night[Mare wrote:
This man is retarded.
By the way, i think now that the divorce rate is so high anywhere, the law should start enforcing prenup arrangements, for the sole purpouse of avoiding problems in the future. The couple must be aware that even though they love each other and shit, you cannot predict the future. And instead of going into court and fighting and ending bad, they should just arrange their stuff for the best.
I dont see any problem with prenup's arrangements. In fact i think they would solve this kind of stuff.
I agree with the above.
But I do have a derailing question: when the woman talks about "trust" issues how should you respond?
|
Well first and foremost this is impossible. It's illegal for an organ to be exchanged for anything of value. Organs in the United States cannot be bought or sold. Donating an organ is legally a gift and you cannot ask for gifts back. Nor can you assign a subsequent monetary value to an organ. Whats more, no reputable surgeon would perform the transplant, no court could compel a person to undergo such an operation.
|
United States43601 Posts
On January 10 2009 16:06 Wala.Revolution wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2009 14:43 thedeadhaji wrote:
w/o a prenup it is 1/2, with any ambiguous thingies going in favor of the "less financially potent" side, which is usually the wife. If your family is far wealthier than the wife's side then you better as hell be planning on getting a properly drafted prenup no matter what the fuck she says about "not trusting me" or w/e BS she brings up.
In the case of the United States, ownership law and whatnot depends on state. ie california is derived from what was set under spanish rule + english rule, others are english rule only, and Louisiana is French. Show nested quote +On January 10 2009 15:59 Night[Mare wrote:
This man is retarded.
By the way, i think now that the divorce rate is so high anywhere, the law should start enforcing prenup arrangements, for the sole purpouse of avoiding problems in the future. The couple must be aware that even though they love each other and shit, you cannot predict the future. And instead of going into court and fighting and ending bad, they should just arrange their stuff for the best.
I dont see any problem with prenup's arrangements. In fact i think they would solve this kind of stuff. I agree with the above. But I do have a derailing question: when the woman talks about "trust" issues how should you respond?
Say "what if our baby son dies and you can't look at me without being reminded of him and you just can't deal with it?".
Extreme example but the point is you just can't know the future.
|
On January 10 2009 16:19 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2009 16:06 Wala.Revolution wrote:On January 10 2009 14:43 thedeadhaji wrote:
w/o a prenup it is 1/2, with any ambiguous thingies going in favor of the "less financially potent" side, which is usually the wife. If your family is far wealthier than the wife's side then you better as hell be planning on getting a properly drafted prenup no matter what the fuck she says about "not trusting me" or w/e BS she brings up.
In the case of the United States, ownership law and whatnot depends on state. ie california is derived from what was set under spanish rule + english rule, others are english rule only, and Louisiana is French. On January 10 2009 15:59 Night[Mare wrote:
This man is retarded.
By the way, i think now that the divorce rate is so high anywhere, the law should start enforcing prenup arrangements, for the sole purpouse of avoiding problems in the future. The couple must be aware that even though they love each other and shit, you cannot predict the future. And instead of going into court and fighting and ending bad, they should just arrange their stuff for the best.
I dont see any problem with prenup's arrangements. In fact i think they would solve this kind of stuff. I agree with the above. But I do have a derailing question: when the woman talks about "trust" issues how should you respond? Say "what if our baby son dies and you can't look at me without being reminded of him and you just can't deal with it?". Extreme example but the point is you just can't know the future.
lol Children of Men?
|
On January 10 2009 14:39 jimminy_kriket wrote:
lost is comming to life man
thats what i was thinking too lol.
Freaking the dad tricked his son to steal his kidney lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
