| re: .0
Hmm not being an expert .. from the context of a few publicized
cases, my guess is that "palimony" is the singles equivalent of
"Alimony" ... that is .. the financial maintenace of someone who
sacrificed some part of their life to add value to another persons
life .. and if unable to continue to be part of that persons life
they want some 'reparation' for services provided.
In the case of children (ie those that are under the age of 18),
it is the parents responsibility to pay up (ie if one persons sone
got another persons daughter impregnated), it is the responsibility
of the sons parents to pay up for the daughters expenses. Depending
on legal processes, etc, etc.
In all of this, I quess that the "legal precedent" of 'deep pockets'
is the rule of thumb. If "my" son got someone elses daughter pregnant
at a "Rock Star Concert" it would be immediatley obvious that the
situation was not well controlled, and it would be the 'fault' of
the rich and famous rock star (even though h/she miay not have been
directly involved). By filing a 'class action suit' against the
star, we would all (except for the star) be richer, and the "extreme
rightists" would have enough material to go on a rampage about the
'implied sinfulness' of Rock Music.
Details, details, details ... forget the 'Rightness' of it. Consider
the money aspect and ignore ethics. We are talking about legal
precedence and getting money from the 'rich folks', as in PaliMoney.
//RWE
|
| Since this matter is yet another risk facing the single (ie
unmarried) male today, I think that once a relationship takes
hold, a man would be wise to talk with his SO regarding the
"what ifs" when and if the time comes for splitsville.
After an agreement has been hammered out on paper, a man
would be wise to see his lawyer and get a legal contract of
sorts for his (and her) protection.
This measure of security could be updated from time to time
as circumstances (ie relationship duration, assets changes)
warrant.
Of course it would be practical for the woman to make this
exact agreement into something legal with her own lawyer.
If no children are involved, I feel that unmarrieds really
shouldn't be entitled to what another owns.
The "take what you can" trend that prevails today however
merits pre-action on the part of men.
I think that men that don't take precautions in this area are
open to (and deserve) whatever happens when the relationship
terminates.
Russ
|