Divorcing for Legal Advantage

[LinkH]

I hear that many years ago, couples in the US would divorce because the tax code would give them a tax break if they'd divorce and then marry each other again.

In my wife's country, I found out that she is not allowed to own freehold land if she is married to me, unless she had a prenuptial agreement in which I gave up the rights to freehold land. Foreigners aren't allowed own it. We are restricted to certain categories of real estate. Since married couples have communal ownership under the law, the foreign spouse has to give up rights to freehold land or the other spouse cannot own that category of real estate. I don't know if that was the law or decree when we married, but it is now, and it doesn't provide for an agreement after marriage.

I was thinking if we wanted a house, it would be legally advantageous to divorce, sign the paper, and remarry. But then we both would have been legally divorced, and I don't think that's a good witness. I was considering about the idea of signing the paper and then getting married again without the divorce. I guess you could still call that a prenup. It's just the second nup.

Anyway, what do you think about the ethics of divorcing for legal advantage?

Added Later: I did not say I would divorce my wife in this post. I am talking about signing a 'prenup' and having a second wedding with her without divorcing her, just to clarify for those who thought I was saying I was thinking of divorcing my wife. I changed the line that caused confusion and added 'without the divorce' to clarify.

 

[dayhiker]

When governments make one jump thru hops to do something like that, then I say jump thru the hop. If enough people jump the government will change the law. Of course, if the country is moving more toward a modern view of the genders then they will eventually want to change the law.

 

[DZoolander]

If your concern is biblical - then I don't think there's any worry about the ethics of it.

Nor would I have any ethical dilemma with the state/statutory aspect of it.

 

[Hetta]

I think that would be a pretty dishonest thing to do and surely they have something in place to prevent people from doing that?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

To each their own in their marriages and it's matters.

 

[Hetta]

To each their own in their marriages and it's matters.

He is asking for comments.

If you believe "each to their own", why do you post here?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

He is asking for comments.

If you believe "each to their own", why do you post here?

Because that is my comment... Why do you insist on being rude about all my posts?

 

[seeingeyes]

I hear that many years ago, couples in the US would divorce because the tax code would give them a tax break if they'd divorce and then marry each other again.

In my wife's country, I found out that she is not allowed to own freehold land if she is married to me, unless she had a prenuptial agreement in which I gave up the rights to freehold land. Foreigners aren't allowed own it. We are restricted to certain categories of real estate. Since married couples have communal ownership under the law, the foreign spouse has to give up rights to freehold land or the other spouse cannot own that category of real estate. I don't know if that was the law or decree when we married, but it is now, and it doesn't provide for an agreement after marriage.

I was thinking if we wanted a house, it would be legally advantageous to divorce, sign the paper, and remarry. But then we both would have been legally divorced, and I don't think that's a good witness. I was considering the idea of signing the paper and then getting married again with the divorce. I guess you could still call that a prenup. It's just the second nup.

Anyway, what do you think about the ethics of divorcing for legal advantage?

I think that this would be against your own conscience:

I think the questions they need to ask themselves are these:

Is it pleasing to God to fornicate and not really be married?

OR

Is it pleasing to God to lie to, cheat, or defraud the people by pretending not to be married when they really are?

I understand some people don't want to register their marriages for fear of big brother. But here, the motivation seems to be to get money when they aren't legally entitled to it. Maybe the motivation for that is to be able to eat, so I understand.

I think there is something to be said for just doing the brave thing and trusting God to provide some way if they want to be married. In some states, they might be considered legally married even if they don't report it, so they could get in trouble later on.

You equate 'legal marriage' with marriage, therefore a 'legal divorce' is the same as just plain divorce.

Also, my parents had friends back in the 80's who divorced for some kind of insurance benefit. It took some time to finalize the divorce (I believe they had to live apart for one year back then). And when it was time to get remarried, she decided she was happier without him.

Caveat emptor

 

[LinkH]

You equate 'legal marriage' with marriage, therefore a 'legal divorce' is the same as just plain divorce.

If God approves a marriage that is conducted according to state law, that does not mean He will approve a divorce according to state law.

 

[LinkH]

I think that would be a pretty dishonest thing to do and surely they have something in place to prevent people from doing that?

I think the US closed the loophole.

I don't consider trying to figure out a way to be able to legally own land to be dishonest. It's just bad law on the part of the country that will only allow a foreign spouse to give up rights to land through marital common ownership if done through a pre-nup. But I still wouldn't want to get a divorce over it.

It's a shame. I hear the ROIs on converting a house to a boarding house can be pretty good. Of course, if there is no cap on the number of years one is allowed to lease, maybe I could have someone buy the land in their name, pay them, and lease the land for 20 thousand years if I ever wanted to own land.

 

[seeingeyes]

If God approves a marriage that is conducted according to state law, that does not mean He will approve a divorce according to state law.

Why not? If the government has the authority to institute marriage, then it has the authority to dissolve it, too.

You seem quite against the idea of people being 'married in God's eyes' without legal recognition for the sake of their finances...but it's ok if you do it?

 

[DZoolander]

Well, in fairness (and I often disagree with LinkH's takes on certain things), I don't think that's what he's saying at all.

What he's talking about is finding a way to shirk some point of law regarding timing (not even the law itself). He's not disagreeing with the spirit of the law, he's not disagreeing with the law itself, but rather the weird way that it's been chosen to be executed.

If he or his wife had known about the law prior to getting married - would he have signed a pre-nup excluding himself from ownership and therefore allowing his wife to own land? Yes.
If he had the option of signing a contract now acknowledging everything that the law requires for his wife to own land, would he sign it? Yes.

It's only by virtue of the fact that he's already married to her - and therefore cannot sign the contract due to the way the law is worded - that it's even an issue.

That is stupid (hey, you will give me everything I want, but only by virtue of the fact you unwittingly didn't give it to me when I want you to, you're out of luck), and I have no problems with the idea that he'd temporarily "divorce" so he could be "unmarried" and sign the requisite pre-nup to enable his wife to own land - and then get "remarried".

...and I don't really see a conflict between views he's stated before and what he's saying now...unless you're just really pedantically arguing points/wrapping yourself in minutia for the sake of arguing them.

 

[mjmcmillan]

 

[DZoolander]

lol

 

[seeingeyes]

Well, in fairness (and I often disagree with LinkH's takes on certain things), I don't think that's what he's saying at all.

What he's talking about is finding a way to shirk some point of law regarding timing (not even the law itself). He's not disagreeing with the spirit of the law, he's not disagreeing with the law itself, but rather the weird way that it's been chosen to be executed.

If he or his wife had known about the law prior to getting married - would he have signed a pre-nup excluding himself from ownership and therefore allowing his wife to own land? Yes.
If he had the option of signing a contract now acknowledging everything that the law requires for his wife to own land, would he sign it? Yes.

It's only by virtue of the fact that he's already married to her - and therefore cannot sign the contract due to the way the law is worded - that it's even an issue.

That is stupid (hey, you will give me everything I want, but only by virtue of the fact you unwittingly didn't give it to me when I want you to, you're out of luck), and I have no problems with the idea that he'd temporarily "divorce" so he could be "unmarried" and sign the requisite pre-nup to enable his wife to own land - and then get "remarried".

...and I don't really see a conflict between views he's stated before and what he's saying now...unless you're just really pedantically arguing points/wrapping yourself in minutia for the sake of arguing them.

I'm not looking for a conflict, or a 'gotcha' moment. I'm not trying to be right. But when I see a brother thinking about making a decision that goes against his own beliefs, I sure do want to give him a heads up.

I agree that the law is stupid and should be changed to reflect the realities of those living under it (both in the case in the OP, and that other thread).

And I myself don't consider my marriage to consist of (or even that it was initiated by) a legal document. So a temporary break in the state recognition of my marriage wouldn't reflect the reality of my union to my husband.

However, if I considered the legal status of marriage to be the marriage to the extent that I considered any and every couple who do not have a marriage license to be unmarried both in the eyes of the state and 'in the eyes of God', then I couldn't escape the fact that a divorce in the eyes of the state is also a divorce 'in the eyes of God'. I really couldn't have it both ways.

So I'm not trying to 'lawyer' my brother LinkH into submitting to my view (as if that were possible ), but I am challenging him so that he does not act according to the conscience of others when it is his own conscience (and his wife's) that may be convicted in the future.

The fact that he believes that a 'legal divorce' would sully his witness is evidence enough that state recognition of marriage is more than mere paperwork to him.

So I'll ask my brother the hard questions now, so that he will know in his heart the right choice later. (Whatever that choice is.)

God bless

 

[ImaginaryDay]

I hear that many years ago, couples in the US would divorce because the tax code would give them a tax break if they'd divorce and then marry each other again.

In my wife's country, I found out that she is not allowed to own freehold land if she is married to me, unless she had a prenuptial agreement in which I gave up the rights to freehold land. Foreigners aren't allowed own it. We are restricted to certain categories of real estate. Since married couples have communal ownership under the law, the foreign spouse has to give up rights to freehold land or the other spouse cannot own that category of real estate. I don't know if that was the law or decree when we married, but it is now, and it doesn't provide for an agreement after marriage.

I was thinking if we wanted a house, it would be legally advantageous to divorce, sign the paper, and remarry. But then we both would have been legally divorced, and I don't think that's a good witness. I was considering the idea of signing the paper and then getting married again with the divorce. I guess you could still call that a prenup. It's just the second nup.

Anyway, what do you think about the ethics of divorcing for legal advantage?

I can't wait until you run this by your wife. If you already have and she agrees I'll be praying for you both...

Let's see if I understand you. Divorce is never to be discussed in your home unless it's to circumvent tax law, then it's not really divorce because it's only divorce in the eyes of the State not in the eyes of God?

Let me know if I missed any of your reasoning in the thread so far.

 

[LinkH]

Why not? If the government has the authority to institute marriage, then it has the authority to dissolve it, too.

The government has the right to punish murderers, but it is not right for the government to murder people for being Christians. Marriage is an ordinance established by God. But if a believer wants to divorce his spouse because he is just tired of her so he can marry someone a bit more exciting, that goes against the teaching of Christ and the original intent of marriage as seen in Genesis. Even if the government allows it, that doesn't make it right.

You seem quite against the idea of people being 'married in God's eyes' without legal recognition for the sake of their finances...but it's ok if you do it?

I never said I would do it. I said I would not. I do wish the laws/decrees were a bit better developed in this area to make provision for those who are already married.

If it were an issue, I wouldn't mind marrying her a second time with a license and everything without getting divorced and arguing that the prenup was a prenup to the second marriage. But the problem is, I'd have to sign an affidavit that I was not married before I did that.... unless I married her the second time overseas. That might do it.

 

[seeingeyes]

I never said I would do it. I said I would not. I do wish the laws/decrees were a bit better developed in this area to make provision for those who are already married.

I agree, the laws need work.

And for the record, I wouldn't do it myself. I think I'm allergic to bureaucracy.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Is it just me or am I the only one dumbfounded by this whole thread?

 

[ValleyGal]

Here`s a novel idea, Link. Become a citizen in her country if you want to own land there. Otherwise, I think you would simply be looking for excuses to cheat the government. You think divorce is not a good witness...neither is cheating the government. Jesus said to give to Caesar that which is Caesar`s.

Divorce is divorce. I guess you could say it `belongs` to Caesar.