What's your problem? Seriously?
Guess you don't like my sense of humour then? I was only taking the piss
What's your problem? Seriously?
Or she comes into the marriage with $20,000.00 cash that she saved through years of prudent fiscal management, which was spent on your family vacations.Imagine this scenario
If you don't want someone to own something, don't give it to them.
And it all still comes back to whether it's 'worth' fighting over - if its something worth a few hundred, a thousand or many many thousands. If it makes a noticable difference in the NFP, then it should be on there, if not, then why bother?
And it all still comes back to whether it's 'worth' fighting over - if its something worth a few hundred, a thousand or many many thousands. If it makes a noticable difference in the NFP, then it should be on there, if not, then why bother?
in that a person can walk into the marriage with personal property spending it only on themselves personally and then at the end of the marriage you have to replace it for them
If you don't like what they are doing, separate from them.
You are choosing to allow a state of affairs to continue by not separating. If your partner spends $10k from their pre-marital assets every year on purchasing art for their darts club, and you do not disapprove*, then that is how you chose to have your marital funds spent.
* note - disapprove means separating.
A marriage is a joint effort. If you were in a business, what would you do if your business partner persisted in frittering away capital? Your options are:
A - Dissolve the partnership so that you are not burdened by them; or
B - Stick it out.
If you choose B, then presumably there are some rational reasons for doing so. Perhaps they bring in substantially more money, or they provide services (emotionally support, laundry, tolerate your family, etc) which compensate you for the loss.
When you have the power to mitigate negative actions (such as a business partner being financially imprudent), and elect not to do so, you are rightfully complicit in the loss.
B - Stick it out.
If you choose B, then presumably there are some rational reasons for doing so. Perhaps they bring in substantially more money, or they provide services (emotionally support, laundry, tolerate your family, etc) which compensate you for the loss.
You are missing the point, in that a person can walk into the marriage with personal property spending it only on themselves personally and then at the end of the marriage you have to replace it for them,