Author Topic: Could have-Should have...  (Read 5875 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Twik

  • A Pillar of the Forum
  • *****
  • Posts: 28640
Re: Could have-Should have...
« Reply #15 on: June 26, 2008, 01:34:35 PM »
theyre lucky enough  tho  that they can work for a month and then not have to work for a few years (money wise)

Oh, they CAN. The question is, if they WILL?

And of course, for Angelina, she's probably got less than, say, 7 useful "star" years left. Then she'll be relegated to "middle-aged supporting roles". Brad can go for a lot longer, of course, as even sexagenarian males can do romantic roles without Hollywood going "Ewwww!"  ::)

I do think that people in careers that demand heavy work schedules, prolonged travel, etc. should think very carefully about adopting. It does require a time investment that I believe many of them may not be ready for.
My cousin's memoir of love and loneliness while raising a child with multiple disabilities will be out on Amazon soon! Know the Night, by Maria Mutch, has been called "full of hope, light, and companionship for surviving the small hours of the night."

Redneck Gravy

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2724
Re: Could have-Should have...
« Reply #16 on: June 26, 2008, 01:51:38 PM »
Back to the original post about marriage...I have been wondering about this recent trend of living together being so much more acceptable than it used to be.  (PLEASE-I'm not saying right or wrong, I'm just saying it seems to be more accepted now than say 30 years ago). 

But my concern has been what happens when one of the parties dies?  Like Heath Ledger's daughter - he had no updated will, so is this child really being provided for?

When couples who live together and one dies - without a will,  the partner is not automatically entitled to their "share" of the estate.  Like if one buys a home in their name, but both parties pay on it for years and then the homeowner dies - there is no automatic surviving spouse inheritance, you know what I am saying?

Anyone have any thoughts on this?


Minmom3

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2434
Re: Could have-Should have...
« Reply #17 on: June 26, 2008, 02:08:42 PM »
Back to the original post about marriage...I have been wondering about this recent trend of living together being so much more acceptable than it used to be.  (PLEASE-I'm not saying right or wrong, I'm just saying it seems to be more accepted now than say 30 years ago). 

But my concern has been what happens when one of the parties dies?  Like Heath Ledger's daughter - he had no updated will, so is this child really being provided for?

When couples who live together and one dies - without a will,  the partner is not automatically entitled to their "share" of the estate.  Like if one buys a home in their name, but both parties pay on it for years and then the homeowner dies - there is no automatic surviving spouse inheritance, you know what I am saying?

Anyone have any thoughts on this?



It can be, it's all in the wording of how the property is held by the two people.  I don't remember what that wording needs to be, but there IS wording that means the surviving person inherits the other, non-spousal person's share of the real property.  It's just not as common as the standard wording.  On the other hand, if the property is in only one name, and that named person dies, the couple REALLY better have all their ducks in a row, because inheritance is, as you said, not automatic.  However, having all their ducks in a row would mean that the 2nd person was added to the deed, IMHO, protecting them in the case of the first person demise.  Like a will, specifically naming the 2nd person, specifically leaving them the real estate.  And I think, in that case, there's taxes to pay that don't normally land on a surviving spouse. 

Too bad DH isn't home, he'd know all the legal terms needed.  He's good that way.
Mother to children and fuzz butts....

goblue2539

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3343
  • Caffeine makes the world go 'round.
Re: Could have-Should have...
« Reply #18 on: June 26, 2008, 06:50:58 PM »
I can't guarantee I'm right, but the reasoning I've heard from a few people for doing overseas adoptions is because they're final when they're done.  Some friends of mine refused to adopt nationally because they heard and witnessed too many couples in their group either having the adoption revoked at some other relative's insistence or just not going through after they paid 6 months of health care for the mother.

And frankly, I think there are plenty of people all over who would take advantage of a big celebrity that way.  Overseas adoptions may just be a form of protecting from that kind of threat.

Squeaks

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5026
Re: Could have-Should have...
« Reply #19 on: June 26, 2008, 07:28:32 PM »
I am going to chime in on the line of thought that the more kids, the harder it is to be attentive.  I personally feel that it is not only important for parents to be there for the family, but I also think that it is important to have one-on-one individual time with the kids as well - that is just my opinion, but I do feel it is healthy to develop individual relationships.  The more kids you have the harder and harder it gets to find time for everyone and everything. 

As for the comment. . . well she is technically right.  Breaking up is in many ways easier than a divorce. . . . but I am not sure how much of a road block people really see a divorce as anymore - if you want out, most people get out.

As for living together.  Well you don't have to be married to have jointly owned property.  You can easily make an unmarried partner the beneficiary of your life insurance, you can put things in your will.  I have even seen a g*a*y couple that spelled out a cohabitation agreement in writing as a signed contract to take some of the uncertainty out of it.   (I mention that they were g*a*y since I think part of the motivation is that they could not get married, and that likely would have solved many of the issues in the agreement. . .  this was sorta their compromise)

And for some that is not as much a priority.  I am the only one on the mortgage and title to the condo my guy and I share.  Now if I died no he would not get it. . . it would go back to my parents, which he is fine with and deems appropriate. . .  and frankly my family would not exactally evict him the first chance they got.  They like him. 

But if you want to really have some fun,  talk about in common law states.  For instance the standard in my state for common law is that you hold yourself out as being married. . . yeah that's easy to define. 

 

artk2002

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 12983
    • The Delian's Commonwealth
Re: Could have-Should have...
« Reply #20 on: June 26, 2008, 08:49:56 PM »
It can be, it's all in the wording of how the property is held by the two people.  I don't remember what that wording needs to be, but there IS wording that means the surviving person inherits the other, non-spousal person's share of the real property.  It's just not as common as the standard wording.

"Joint Tenants with Right of Survivorship" is one of the terms used, but I believe that there is a similar one.
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bow lines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover. -Mark Twain

Redneck Gravy

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2724
Re: Could have-Should have...
« Reply #21 on: June 27, 2008, 03:01:19 PM »
Did Bradgelina adopt these children together?

Because my question here is, if Angelina died (God forbid! and I mean that) tomorrow - would Brad automatically have custody of all those children?  Would the children she/they adopted and gave birth to share equally in her estate? 

What if he died?  They are not married, so would the children they had/adopted together be assured of inheriting from his estate?  I wonder if there would have to be attorney's for each of the children or whatever to keep some/all of the children from being passed over on the parental estate?

Follow me?

goblue2539

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3343
  • Caffeine makes the world go 'round.
Re: Could have-Should have...
« Reply #22 on: June 27, 2008, 07:18:23 PM »
My understanding is that all of Angie's kids have been legally adopted by Brad, so that while there may be concern about the settling of estates between the two of them, the children are cared for regardless.

hannahmollysmom

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1301
Re: Could have-Should have...
« Reply #23 on: June 28, 2008, 03:07:44 AM »
First of all, the line "What an interesting assumption" could be used towards almost everyone that posted here. No, I'm not trying to stir the pot.

I just find that most of the information we receive about the afore mentioned couple is by the tabloids.  I say, if they have the money, (which they do) go for it. How many times have we read articles in regular magazines about people with more than 10 kids (whether adopted or natural) and we all say, oh, they are wonderful. Just because these two are celebrities, who are we to judge? Each of my grandparents had 10 brothers and sisters. They may not have had money, but they were loved.

The pictures that do seem to be published, the kids seem well rounded. Just because Shiloh isn't shown in public a lot (tabloids said kidnapping threats) doesn't mean she isn't loved.

Ok, will get off my soap box now. I guess I just have a hard time judging them as I am not privy to inside information!

NestHolder

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1139
Re: Could have-Should have...
« Reply #24 on: June 28, 2008, 04:29:02 AM »
Thank you, Hannahmollysmum, you are absolutely right.

Sharnita

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 21525
Re: Could have-Should have...
« Reply #25 on: June 28, 2008, 03:52:50 PM »
I don't care if or when they stop but I did hear that they were adopting a child from Africa "to celebrate the birth of their twins".  Now I don't know if the part in quotes came from them, anyone in their camp or somebody reporting the story but adopting a child seems an odd and self-involved thing to do as a celebration of anything.

LadyofMaine

  • Guest
Re: Could have-Should have...
« Reply #26 on: June 29, 2008, 05:45:50 PM »
You could have said it's not up to you whether or not they get married.