Psychos on dating sites

or if going the elder gentleman route they should be pumping this out of the eight track in the ute

I think myself that while its good to be compatible financially with a long term partner it doesnt have to be 100%.
Pre nups and separate bank accounts can isolate those differences and allow good times to be had and one person gets richer and the other stays the same (or gets poorer) . Probably pays to have a working knowledge of the relevant legislation too so that the one progressing doesnt get dragged down into the mire if bad shit happens. see Property Relationships Act previously called the Matrimonial Property Act

Relationships arent for ever so why should that stop good times along the way.

No offence... but can't imagine the kind of relationship you are looking for if money is your primary concern. (well I can imagine it but I just don't want to )

What kind of idiot has only one concern in a partner? Money is the topic at hand but not exclusively.

im not sure I believe that 25% over valued is accurate - NZ has a lot less land than the other countries and a whole lot more expats and immigrants proportionally.

And a different mindset that will take more than a GFC to alter.

Still overvalued though.

Gosh Im so different to all this money stuff...I just want a partner who makes me laugh and likes to go out to clubs and have loads of fun... Money is like well I have my own and expect them to have their own but not a stupid amount...Ive been out with guys who own their own home etc didnt excuse the fact they were boring...Each to their own I think but I like that I like guys for who they are not their bank acct deets... maybe Im naive.

You don't have to be materialistic to see the importance of money and more importantly your partners inability to hold on to any (and thereby sucking you down a fucking dark hole where EVERYTHING in life becomes a lot harder than it has to be).

Money is all good, it's just peoples addiction to it thats fucked.

don't just look at the law...looking at the law won't protect you. see a lawyer!!!

How to have a boring relationship based on money 1O1 yawntastic.

yes give your money to a lawyer then you wont have any to have a problem with :p

Trusts are a good way to reduce the potential influence of money on a relationship, especially in the beginning.

Pretty sure you mean trust

hahaha PD!

Nevr trust in trust or trusts

not necessarily. trusts are not the panacea most people think they are. there is potential to go for assets held by trusts. also there is potential for courts to find that 'trust property' is relationship property based on the 'bundle of rights' doctrine.

only way to be 100% (well close to) sure is to have a contracting out agreement, and even then those can be set aside on the grounds of serious injustice - had 2 cases recently where the contracting out agreement has been discarded based on the particular circumstances.

a good read - take it on trust

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10732747

you could also go here

http://my.lawsociety.org.nz/in_practice/the_changing_law/legal_publications/nevills_law_of_trusts,_wills_and_administration

codpiece - read what i said again. For a lawyer you seem to fail on reading details.

How on earth would you have a contracting out agreement at the beginning of the relationship?

I think you got that wrong bob

look at section 21 of the act again

Night Rider are you on my facebook? If not you should add me .. I want to see your face!

cyber_princess was it the first or second date that the conversation started to take on the dimensions these idiots have taken on protecting their shit from those to whom they may love?

shared goals, one law suit at a time... now thats love

STALKER ALERT!!!!!!!

totes stalker ..

Oh God QT, he'd seriously be the last person you'd want on your Facebook

thus spake psycho spike-o

No I haven't.

explain

"Trusts are a good way to reduce the potential influence of money on a relationship, especially in the beginning. "

No where did I say this was about a foolproof way to keep assets away from partners. My post was on the influence of assets on a newly forming relationship.

Its about the perception to the other party. if they know it is in a trust they can see it is indicated that its not for them. Trusts dont require the other persons signed consent and they apply to everyone other than the beneficiary. No they are not fool proof but in the context of pre existing the relationship and if not muddied in with relationship finances they are pretty solid. They could possibly get muddied if the other partner puts work into improving it but the courts look at the intention of the parties so unless youre stupid or completely naive about it they work well enough for long enough for you to make firm decisions together.

So who you gonna have as beneficiaries of your trust, say, in the scenario that you don't have any obvious beneficiaries? A contracting out arrangement in this instance would be of benefit. Also you will find that courts are increasingly looking closely at trusts to see if in fact there is any intermingling of the finances. It is all very well to say my assets are in trust but if the income is being used for communal benefit then you have established a relationship property arrangement of benefit to both parties and therefore this could be part of the settlement of a relationship breakdown.

You specifically asked:

"How on earth would you have a contracting out agreement at the beginning of the relationship?"

I think that this has been adequately answered.

Please note: I am assuming that the settlor of hypothetical trust is 'you', 'yourself' and not a third party.

if two rational (sic) men can't agree in these points how the fuck are those courting meant to deal with this shit?

what with all them hormones and half price drinks cluttering their minds and groins

please note: previous poster's comment is egregiously opportunistic in its flagrant pimping of the points system

I always get psycho and physio mixed up when reading or typing so yeah... Makes online dating fun...

The second date. I mentioned I had a house on the first date and midway through the second date I asked him if he had any goals.

There's a lot of stuff to research.. I'm going to have to book time with either a property accountant or a lawyer (which one is it?) to sit down and go through my options. I have been thinking about a trust and will definitely find out about getting an agreement signed near the beginning of the relationship (it's 2 years before people can try and makes claims right?), but if you move a house into a trust you have to pay back the depreciation.. which I just added up and it's nearly $35K! But I didn't get all that money back dollar for dollar so maybe you only have to pay back some of it.

I wasn't envisioning in the relationship that we'd keep completely separate finances, I was thinking we'd keep what we already had when beginning the relationship as our own, then anything we embarked on together we'd invest 50/50 in and in the case of a meltdown, we'd split those down the middle but still keeping what we originally had before the relationship started.

No of course the relationship wouldn't only be based on money! It'd hopefully be based on love. God that sounds so sappy.

filter suggestion for future reference - must have own house of similar value

then you would be on an even wicket...maybe

Thats pushin it a bit from what I know, you sure about that?

At present income can certainly be factored in but read that Herald article and see that since October and annulment of gift duty it raises spectre in future of capital being divvied up for fair distribution of relationshop assets.

So don't bet your house on a trust.

Cummings is adamant that the integrity of genuine trusts must be maintained: "Relationship property law should and does reflect the reality and the right to own separate property. A trust containing separate property should always be inviolable."

I reckon it will stay that way too...Trusts are very long standing mechanisms (note well they are not a legal entity)with solid case law backing them up all the way from the 12th C.
I would again suggest that the weaknesses you identify are set-up issues. Courts have always had powers to void a 'sham trust'

funny how a thread on psychos on dating sites turns into a debate about the technical details of trusts.

i'm not a great fan of trusts actually. ethically and practically. but they are powerful asset management tools for those with sufficient assets to justify the admin overhead.

You are correct. That article in Herald was highlighting the issues you outline re sham vs genuine trusts and the difficulty in busting bad trusts. The scandals of finance companies ' collapse and family trusts and legal aid, Petricevic, Hotchin et al, hasve brought the issue forward as has the relationship property law.

Lol re psychos....just the very thing that family trusts are usually there for.

However a wife, say, after a long marriage ending, having sacrificed career path and therefore earning potenial as newly single woman, being divorced from further income stream of hubby's earnings, might legitimately feel unfairly excluded from her rightful entitlement if he has set up a trust that swallows his assets, especially now that gifting duty is abolished, since October this year.

Remember tyat family house may not be much of an asset especially if debt is owed as this is shared by both parties.

See, marriage is a business, a partnership, a commercial activity, governed by contracts, that one can opt out of maybe, but judges have set aside such arrangements before, especiallyy where the opting out party was unequally represented or resourced.

Equity equity equity....

And then I go and read this in the news about that family tragedy in W.A:

The West Australian said her legal problems, involving disputed claims for hundreds of thousands of dollars resulting from her exclusion from a Cuzens family enterprise, had reached the WA Supreme Court. Family Court matters were also under way.

Who me? heh

It all depends when the trust was formed. If it was prior to the marriage then fine, but if it was during the marriage (or even in the 4th year of their relationship) then that trust can be looked through. Thats all law as of now.

but if you apply income derived from that pre-relationship trust to the joint finances during the relationship and this can be proved?

gotta love it when non lawyers try to tell me the law. hahahaha.

give you a sugar rush does it?

It certainly goes a way to explaining the erm, ultra niche nature of the forums these days. *yawn*

Nothing new about that but relevant to discussion in any case as it applies to asset protection and money.

night rider..i was referring to bob trying to tell me what's what. if people want legal advice on these things they should go see a lawyer. don't rely on a message board or something you read online as advice on these things is nearly always very fact specific.

Yeah I realised that cod



Just another thing to moan about eh bwoy?

I studied a bit of law at uni - enough to know my way around a trust and common pitfalls. However, I'm no expert so I have had advice from some very good lawyers and accountants as I am in a relationship where trusts play a part in both our joint assets and family assets - not for any other reason than to provide clarity about our intentions.

Only a knob lawyer would pull out a contracting out document at the beginning of a relationship, which is perhaps why they seem to date other lawyers so for everyone else a trust is worth considering (though there are some drawbacks).

If you want trust advice go see codpiece or perhaps a decent lawyer who doesnt have a gavel up his arse. If you want advice on how to negotiate your way around a potentially very tricky relationship subject, dont. Trusts are a very good way to help remove disparate 'value' from the forefront of a relationship and are not going to be 'busted' until a long way down the track by which time you should have sorted out some sort of equitable joining of assets anyway.

If you are too stupid to work out that general statements on a message board are not applicable to every situation then you shouldn't be on the internet, or out of child care.

But do they though? And will they continue to do so over time? Are your intentions written down in some kind of deed of family arrangement?

Yes and yes.

The trust deed spells out the mechanics; the memorandum, the intent or 'wishes' for the trustees to consider (non binding).

Highest Auckland prices ever - NEWS

And this story

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10771753

.

Now assuming those people could create new business here which generated money, think how much more tax we would be making without much in the way of other effects on the economy.

smart enough to know NZ itself is too fail.

wages not quite keeping track however

thought this thread was about psychos on dating sites?

no davil, and stop moaning.

Well, you turned up.

huh? so did you, what's your point?

Hey so I went out on a date with a complete sociopath a few days ago. He was a smoking hot photography student (well mature student I guess). In the space of two hours this is what I had to go on:

- Him showing me the list he keeps in his phone of all 32 women he has slept with- first name and last name in chronological order.
- Telling me that him and a woman he 'sleeps with occasionally' were thinking of making money by fucking on camera on the internet.
- Detailing the plethora of mood stabilizers and antidepressants he is on.
- Telling me how much he hates his parents and how he hopes they rot in hell.
- Running off to take photos of lights in a tree.
- He currently lives on a friend's couch, I suspect he is banging said friend.
- I got to hear about his love of the colour purple. He was wearing a purple jacket and shoes.


Would it be wrong of me to have sex with him then run for my fucking life? He's really really really hot.

Do you own a bunny rabbit?

God I miss London. Only there can someone be living on a friend's couch and still not automatically ruled out of sexy time with the opposite sex (or same sex if that's your thing).

"Do you want to come back to my couch? We'll have to wait til Roger finishes his MySkyed episode of Eastenders, but after that we should be okay."

Crazy people are the best at sex.

http://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/n1bqg/an_investment_bankers_cover_letter_for_a_second/

So_much_LOL at this delusional dude (and his appalling grammar). :>

Agreed

Just they are usually not the best at post-coitus emotional resolve.

that's awesome.

Hot damn, what a fucking whack job!

As for your question...you're the one who has to live with yourself afterwards...and the guy sounds like he's ripe to becomes some obsessed creepy stalker type

I reckon shag him if he's hot. But don't do it at your house or give him your number, so if he turns stalker he can't contact you.

I was talking to my friend today about dating sites, and her boyfriend's mum was seeing this S&M guy for several months that she met online.. and when they met he always had a suitcase of sex paraphernalia.. including a strap-on nose penis. Apparently it straps on to your head like a headtorch and the penis part goes over your nose. WTF. Freak.

this story contains a simple yet universal truth:

if you are smoking hot, you can get away with anything

I thought that only really held true for women justhanging?

Not wrong. Do it. Just don't do it at your house, you don't want him to know where you live.

Also seems to be another one here:

For girls, it’s OK to state you think someone is fucking crazy, yet because they’re so hot, it’s OK to fuck them.

Imagine the stink of the flying shit after it hit the fan if a guy posted much the same about a chick

Man crazy is totally different to woman crazy though.

It's ok for guys to state that too.

In fact, it's true - it is ok to have sex with a crazy girl.. if she's hot.

Of course it's okay, is she hot is about 95% of the decision making process for guys.

Yeah???

Yeah of course thats ok.. hell if guys didn't sleep with crazy girls we'd never get laid.

I'm wondering what the other 5% of our motivation is?

Cleanliness of feet/toes imo :>

money?

we're not all fetishists... you are not the 99%

I chickened out guys. What can I say, I'm a shameful pussy. I suppose I will continue dating the moderately attractive and very nice sane man that I have been seeing.

Welp.

Dating site is useless! Should you be buying dinner 4 real men like kittenslayer!

Newayz, relationship longevity is more vital fo women than men! So be careful sistahsss!!!!