this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
297 points (91.8% liked)

Greentext

4464 readers
1385 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

>Footballer Achraf Hakimi's wife filed for divorce and demanded half of his property.
>She was however informed by court that her "Millionaire' husband owns nothing as all his property is registered under his mother's names.
>Hakimi receives €1 Million from PSG monthly but 80% of this is deposited in his mother Mrs. Fatima's account.
>He has no property, cars, houses, jewelry or even clothes in his name.
Anytime, he wants anything, he asks his mother who buys it for him.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Son_of_dad 32 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

It depends on a lot actually. If a couple decides that one will be stay at home, and then later split up, since being a stay at home parent doesn't get you a tax receipt, you're fucked. So now you're out on your own with a giant resume gap and a lot of time of missed opportunities and sacrifices, while your ex spouse jets off with all the family income and advancement. Would you as the stay at home dad think that's fair? Cause I think that parent is owed a damn lot. I say this as the one who brings home all the money in my household, my stay at home spouse does more and is more valuable to this family than I ever hope to be, she's just straight up better than me, so if we ever split, damn right I'll take care of her and feel she's entitled to that, especially as the mother to my children, it's my duty to make sure she's ok even without me.

p.s: this footballer's wife divorced him after he was caught in Paris with sexually abusing an underage girl

[–] [email protected] -4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I'll concede, in specific circumstances, it may be warranted, but it is assumed to be the default currently. Far too often, the courts are used as a cudgel by a disgruntled former spouse who just wants to punch their former partner in the wallet. My father was such a disgruntled person. He was even engaged for the better part of a decade, refusing to marry until the alimony ran out. He was not a stay at home spouse, but due to his own choices, he made less than my mother. The default position should be that neither party is owed anything unless proven otherwise by specific evidence.

Edit: ihad to look these two up. A 31 year old woman courted a 19 year old up and coming footballer and married them. Guess it takes a predator to know one. Even if it left her destitute (it wouldn't), she doesn't deserve a cent.