The Residential Real Estate Crash Index Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: David Jones who wrote (18197)	3/5/2004 8:54:39 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) of 306849

OT You know, for only $12,000 per year (relatively speaking of course), that's definitely one expense item she probably would have been better off leaving out! Another thing is, the next guy she dates - he's going to do a google search (who doesn't) and think twice before taking the jump after he reads her divorce papers (as he should). Personally think the judge should rule she's responsible for being financially inept by spending above their means so was an absolute hazard to their marital health. Even in no-fault California, the judge should rule with common sense and cut the figure by a substantial factor. He's in his fifties, so you'd think he could argue he was about to retire. No way should she get 100% of money she over spent that was obviously more than what even his wealthy portfolio could handle. Regards, Amy J

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next