all 84 comments

[–]Justbrowsingstuff 104 points105 points  (6 children)

Smart papa. wish I had a dad like that, mine got made when I chose baseball and hockey over his weekend visits. Gonna do this when i have pups.

[–]esco_[S] 56 points57 points  (5 children)

My dad got burned hard which is where he probably developed this thinking.

My mum left him after nearly 20 years of marriage for an inferior man who managed to appear better (think seeing my dad in his home gear all the time etc, other guy trying to impress). She took half but he negotiated to keep his house he bought prior to their marriage - this meant him getting a lot of extra debt and my mum getting a new house.

It fucked me up actually. I was 11 and went from a strict, controlled environment (strict dad) to doing whatever i wanted, whenever the fuck i wanted. I had a fight with my dad at about 15, and didnt see him for a year. I dropped out of sports, started smoking weed every day and stealing cars. It took me close to a decade to sort my life out, and it has slowed me down (age 28 im only half way through my phd, although i will be on a solid career path with lots of jobs that pay well, it wont eventuate until my early 30s).

Looking back, i can see where things went wrong.

[–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Nothing rips off the BluePill blinders faster than getting divorced and financially raped. Whatever fantasies a man might have about women go away once you realize what they're capable of.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

At least you can now look back on those years with pride [of where you stand now], rather than regret...

[–]reasonableman1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your life would not have gone of the rails had your mom stayed loyal to him. You would have had the strict dad all the way through college.

[–]BadJokeHour 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You live and you learn. at least you're back on track now

[–]1Zanford 40 points41 points  (15 children)

Very smart. Where are you located?

But he should talk to a lawyer to make sure it really works like this and there isn't some gotcha, like:

  1. She could force the house to be sold in order to pay off her half of the debt
  2. If it's common for judges in your locality to capriciously give the girl a pussypass on the debt
  3. If your dad would have to pay income tax on the interest, in which case there may be 'cheaper' ways to protect your brother's house from hos
  4. You may want to look into a Trust as an alternative. I couldn't tell you the details. Again, best to talk to a lawyer, unless your dad really really knows what he's doing (like he's done this before and talked to a lawyer last time)

[–]esco_[S] 34 points35 points  (4 children)

New zealand. He definately would have talked to his lawyer about this and im probably simplifying it too much.

Trusts here are under attack. There are laws being passed to mean that "men cant just hide their money from their partners in trusts"

[–]makethemsayayy 21 points22 points  (1 child)

No why should men be able to hide it?

She's entitled to all that money she didn't work for!

[–]AngraMainyuu 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Because women are oppressed, duh!! /s

[–]the99percent1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

re laws being passed to mean that "men cant just hide their money from their partners in trusts"

trusts still work.. provided you don't take it upon yourself to start moving and manipulating the distributions around.. As long as you do not hold indirect control over the trust, the lawyers have no way of asking for the keys to the trust.

It is by far, the best method of protecting your assets. Piss poor method I might add.

Like it or not, if you get married, you are always going to gamble half your wealth away. There just isn't two ways about it. At the least, you have to pay up half from the point you got married, worst, pay up half from the point you were born (inheritance)

[–]mstersmith 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You guys can be sued for support just for cohabiting for a year or so correct?

[–]1wantonton 11 points12 points  (3 children)

I agree. Two more issues an attorney could explain:

  1. Usury laws. Some countries have laws that cap the amount of interest that can be collected for certain types of loans. Contracts that break such caps might be voided (treated as if it didn't exist).

  2. Treatment of the contract. Some countries also state that agreeable actions by the parties after signing the contract are what the contract was trying to establish and as such the contract should only be interpreted by the actions of the parties. In short, if your father doesn't actually enforce the contract for an extended period of time, it might become unenforceable or otherwise subject to alteration.

[–]rpscrote 0 points1 point  (0 children)

also watch out for if the bitch bounces and he forgives the debt, that is a taxable benefit and you'll have to pay as if that loan forgiveness (including interest) was income. At least thats how it is in the US, I imagine NZ is similar in that regard at least.

edit: also fraudulent transfer laws if it occurs close enough to divorce and the reason for the original sum was sketchy

[–]Sadpanda596 10 points11 points  (2 children)

U.S. lawyer here... I'd worry about this agreements enforceability. Its really starting to look sketchy with the very shitty contract terms and the fact that the loaner is your father. Several different legal theories could void this - definitely hope you got a new zealand lawyer's input.

That being said, she's kind of an idiot if she signs that. I'm guessing in the U.S. they would probably void it on a theory of undue influence. New Zealand and Australian judges are notorious within the common law systems for kind of doing crazy shit on a case by case basis whenever they feel like.

[–]DexterousRichard 0 points1 point  (1 child)

You miss the point. She isn't signing. Dad will just call in the loan when she wants part of the house and son will have to sell it to pay back dad. If she somehow managed to get a judgment for half the value of the house minus the loan, dad sues on the contract and forces them to pay up. If necessary, the court would sell the house, or order it sold...

But most likely it wouldn't come to that, so there would be no contest to the loan contract. As soon as she tells son she wants half of the house, or shit goes sour, dad just calls in the loan and son has to sell the house and pay him. At that point, she has no recourse against the father, only against the son, and dad has gotten back a lot (maybe all) of the equity as interest. He can re-gift it to son at some later date. Not great for taxes, but better than having her steal it all...

[–]Sadpanda596 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh guess I missed that. No idea how that would go down in the event of divorce. In most states gifts received during marriage are considered separate property so there's no reason to do this. That being said, for all I know the New Zealand judge might laugh at OP and his dad, call it a sham and split the assets. Conversely, this might be a very common legal maneuver over there that is generally well accepted. Given that OP said his Dad consulted a lawyer, I'd guess the latter.

Just don't start trying to do these little legal maneuvers at home.

[–]Bortasz 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Does his Father cannot take House and other belongings as payment for the debt?

[–]t21spectre 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To add for OP... Have you considered New Zealand's equivalent of a Limited liability company? If properly structured it functions in the same way as a trust. I have known wealthy people who place their major assets (homes, cars, etc.) in LLCs to protect those assets from civil liability.

Although, as Tom Leykis says "you never lose money hiring a good attorney." So, attorney, attorney, attorney...

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1 is fine. Sure, the kid loses the house and is probably going to be butthurt over it. But the dad takes all the equity, leaving nothing in the house to split. The sale proceeds all go to the bank and the dad. The two then get divorced, dad gets his original investment back and can gift the kid the equity he paid in over years, which he can then go use to buy another house. So, aside from the emotional attachment to losing the house (which is likely dwarfed by the emotional attachment to losing your wife) it's pretty financially solid. Another upside is that the dad holds all the money while the kid is a basket case having an emotional breakdown, then hands it back once he's stable and unlikely to go blow it all in Vegas.

But yeah, there may be better ways to structure it financially. I like the concept though. I may have to pull this with my kids who are approaching that age.

[–]trp-lurker 13 points14 points  (7 children)

Do you live in BC Canada? lol.

Before I bought my Condo I was thinking of putting it in my parents name just in case but didn't bother cause I wasn't really serious with anyone.

Ended up living with a girl for about 2 years before we broke up.. thankfully she didn't lay claim on anything. She also has almost 40K in debt as well.. Things could of been ugly!

[–]ioncloud9 9 points10 points  (1 child)

2 years common law marriage basically? That is nothing. It seems like its completely setup to screw men out of their assets, since in most circumstances, id imagine, men have more to lose and women to gain.

[–]rebuildingMyself 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It seems that men are getting too smart to marry so they ramped up the common law trick to extract money from men even more efficiently.

[–]esco_[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Sounds like you dodged a cannonball there...

The house in your parents name is a good idea. I imagine my dad didnt suggest that because he would be worried my brother may lose his job and then the debt would fall on him or something

[–]TattedGuyser 2 points3 points  (2 children)

The only good thing about Canadian common-law marriage laws are the fact most people don't know about them and don't talk about them. I have loads of guy friends who have gotten away scott free because the girls left and didn't realize they could lay-claim to stuff.

[–]rebuildingMyself 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Won't be long before women get a taxpayer-funded mandatory college class in such matters.

[–]qiang_shi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not sure that "got away Scott free" is the right way to put it.

[–]mstersmith 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How can she lay claim for living there but not being married for two years? Fucking Christ I thought us guys in the US were totally screwed.

[–]denmaur 7 points8 points  (4 children)

I also strongly suggest having a lawyer review the document and the intent. He might suggest ways to improve the doc based on your laws. Just because a doc is sgned by both parties doesn't necessarily mean it will hold up in court.

[–]esco_[S] 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Im sure he got his lawyer to write it up with him. It is all written in legal speak and is a multi page document

[–]Tajikistan 7 points8 points  (1 child)

But if it was written in bad faith to circumnavigate other legal provisions (the one where you give up half your stuff after 2 yrs) it might be thrown out. Especially in civil claims where you need a preponderance (51%) as opposed to criminal (99%)

[–]trptank 1 point2 points  (0 children)

New Zealand law,
Actually reasonably common for well off folks to have others 'hold' their assets, have trusts, or loan agreements that can take the specified asset.
Hell I have one with my mother (father died, so it was transferred to mother), she owns my house and I pay rent, and my house is willed to me upon death (along with the family home).
This is to prevent any person, de facto, marriage or creditor from taking my larger assets.

The only part of government that would really be interested in any of these dealings is the IRD (tax dept).

A judge is unlikely to invalidate a 'fair' loan agreement (especially mortgage loans) or order another persons assets or trusts to be cracked open, especially so on a 'de facto divorce', if the assets were not part of the relationship at the 2 year mark onwards then they are essentially untouchable.
Almost no such thing as a jury trial for civil cases in NZ (it is in law, but unused other than defamation), it is down to the judges interpretation of the law (no preponderance, just their interpretation/judgement).

If the contract is good under law and she claims half the house, and the house is security on the loan, then she claims half the debt.
The father can then call it in within a 'reasonable' period and force her to either withdraw the claim, transfer her interest in the property to him, or force sell it and get virtually nothing (because it goes to the bank/father first).
If there is still remaining debt on the house she could potentially end up bankrupt depending on the state of her finances.

Pretty much its a lawful way of saying 'go ahead, make my day'.
If his son and his partner work out in the long term, get married and have a few pups dad can rest easy (and son is likely to have paid shit off by then), if she tries to fuck him over before hand dad can loan slap her and minimise damage.

[–]rpscrote 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the other issue is that in mortgages, at least in US common law (which is derived from british common law, so likely NZ is the same), the first mortgagee gets paid first. Thus the bank has to get paid before your dad, as the dad is the second mortgagee. So if there isn't enough cash to pay the bank at a theoretical divorce, your dad's loan is a future problem and ultimately does not provide as much protection as originally estimated. Still, its a good strategy if not without limitations

[–]TytalusWarden 3 points4 points  (0 children)

A buddy of mine did something somewhat similar when he got married over 20 years ago.

He and the new wife wanted to build a house. His dad owned a dozen or so acres just outside of the town where they worked and grew up. Dad allowed his son to build on 3 acres of land, so they put a house up on that land and lived in the basement while the upper floors were framed. Winter hit so construction stopped, and during that time he found out she was cheating. She went for a quick divorce and demanded half of the "family home" that they had "built together". Judge said, "That house is built on land not owned by either of you, it's valueless" so she got nothing and he was able to keep the house.

I'm sure there are additional details that I either don't know or forgot, but that's the jist of it. Turns out family really can help in these kinds of situations!

[–]LasherDeviance 9 points10 points  (0 children)

This is genius actually. As an accountant, the way I see it is that your brother wins as long as your dad plays it cool.

I have a kid on the way and now I will do this as well.

[–][deleted]  (8 children)


    [–]Endorsed ContributorScumbagBillionaire 6 points7 points  (5 children)

    He lives in New Zealand and there can easily be different laws. There are other countries that exist outside of the US.

    Also he says his dad already had a legal professional look over it or draft it for him.

    [–][deleted]  (4 children)


      [–]Endorsed ContributorScumbagBillionaire 9 points10 points  (3 children)

      Your username contains "Hollywood" to be fair.

      Also, go fuck yourself.

      [–]Shelwyn 12 points13 points  (2 children)

      Wow he tore you a new one hahah

      [–]TheRedThrowAwayPill 2 points3 points  (3 children)

      Protect your assets?

      Easy : put it in your parent(s)' names. (Assuming you have good parents).

      In this way - it isn't a marital asset. Indeed they probably are going to be the ones to gift you the money. Your "rent" payments to them are just basically the mortgage payments.

      At the very least if you have to be on the mortgage debt with the bank and you must be on the title/deed of the house (or else they have no collateral to place a lien on), then make sure your parents are on the title/deed first and you're third. (Also make sure she's not on the debt/title/deed.)

      Also highly recommend getting a multi-family home. Aint nothing like having the grandparents 1 flight of stairs from the grandkids. She wont even think about kicking you out or taking half since it would be a whole can of a mess. She might think about staying at her mother's place before trying to kick you out. (And if your parents wont live with you then you also get rental income so if you have no job for a few months you can at least scrape by).

      Good luck.

      [–]GC0W30 0 points1 point  (2 children)

      Protect your assets?

      Easy : put it in your parent(s)' names. (Assuming you have good parents).

      Just make sure your parents' creditors can't get at it. It would be a shame if your dad died of cancer and the hospital got your damned house.

      [–]rpkarma 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      Thankfully being in NZ means going to hospital doesn't bankrupt you. Just means you do have to deal with this common law marriage shit.

      [–]Matsew 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      Living together for 2 years here means half his shit becomes hers - including debt.

      What is this infernal place you're referring to?

      [–]lemonparty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      The United States in about ten years if we keep voting in "progressives"

      [–]TheRealMouseRat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      now she just has to "wait" until your father dies, your bother inherits, and she leaves taking all his shit.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)


        [–]100 Modbsutansalt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Could you post a sanitized copy of the paperwork so we could take a look at it? I'd like to have this in my toolbox for when my boy is older.

        Also, I'm guessing there's some kind of gratis involved that lets your bother off the hook with the interest?

        [–]TheThingsIThink 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        I want to be able to buy my son a house and have him live in it. But it will be mine so if he gets married, then divorced it doesn't get split. If my marriage goes south I'm certain I can take that wealth and dedicate it to our son without my wife going for it.

        [–]pilledwillingly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        I've borrowed from my mum, she's borrowed from me.... each time we've had contracts that detail what happens in event of either of us dying or getting partners. All witnessed and signed... People change, gotta be ready for that, especially when the money is teems of thousands.

        [–]TRPingBalls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        I don't know if NZ contract law is the same as the US (probably close since we're both common law bros) but that contract probably isn't enforceable. Talk to a lawyer about it please.

        [–]DaphneDK 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        But if the father dies the loan will get passed down to somebody else who may be less favourable to your brother and would want to cash in on the loan immediately. Perhaps a clause could be inserted whereby the loan would be null and void in case of death.

        Also the girl's father may have written up a similar loan contract. In which case under a common law marriage the brother would be on the hook for paying off that.

        [–]BhiQ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        If this works ... wow! That's some mystical shit right there.

        Too bad I'll have to wait several years for an update to this story :D

        [–]TheLife_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Because of this story, some alcohol and new year's celebrations, I discovered my mum is...Not Red Pill, but knowledgeable of The Red Pill.

        I shared the gist of the story, her jaw dropped and she said "That is the best way you guys can defend yourselves." Implying myself and my brothers. She than went off talking about seeing young guys getting taken, sharing her stories about taking several guys and generally displaying how great an idea this is.

        Her only advice is to get a lawyer involved. Make sure it's airtight and that there is suitable collateral that can be "repossessed" in it's entirety. Also, make regular payments into a trust fund that cover about half the interest.

        Clearly this is just freeform conversation from a family get together with added alcohol, but basically it's confirmed.

        For the record, where I live, you only have to live together for four months before she can take you to the cleaners.

        [–]drqxx 0 points1 point  (2 children)


        Has no common law marriage. I told my LTR that I would never get married on the fourth date. She hasn't asked me since. (3+ years)

        [–]1RBuddDwyer 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        Actually a lot of states do not have common law marriage. There is sometimes the "putative spouse doctrine", but that only applies in certain situations, not generally.

        [–]drqxx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Well god bless Florida I guess? Edit: And other states.

        [–]Glenbert 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        This is fucking brilliant. I will ask my Dad to do the same if my GF moves in. While most of my down payment was money I saved from 12+ it was in a trust account seeded by federal bonds my grandparents and partents purchased. Wonder if i could make the same claim.

        [–]lemonparty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Living together for 2 years here means half his shit becomes hers - including debt.

        That's so fucked up. Pay attention US redditors, the state is on to our "just don't get married" game. They will find a way to transfer your wealth to women.

        Elections have consequences, and this is the "socially progressive" direction we're headed too.

        [–]spaceballs-1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Added bonus is that debts as well as assets are communal therefore she's then on the hook for it too.

        [–]Newdist2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Living together for 2 years here means half his shit becomes hers - including debt.

        Is this really enforced against women? If some dude with 100k in student loans moves in with a girl, will the court really force her to start paying when he breaks up 2 years +1 day later?

        [–]NakedAndBehindYou 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Awhile back someone posted a TRP financial tip in here. It was some guy telling of how he protected his house during his divorce: years earlier, before he got married, he gave his house to a company that was owned by one of his family members. Instead of paying the mortgage himself, he technically "rented" the house from his family member's company. He would send a check every month for the mortgage amount, and the company would pay the mortgage on the house.

        When the divorce happened (something like 7 years after they married IIRC), the husband got to basically tell the wife: surprise bitch, you can't take the house because we don't even own it, we've just been renting it all along.

        [–]ChopsNZ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        I don't think you understand the concept of 'fail safe'. I read somewhere up the thread you are from NZ.

        You need a lawyer. Take some hankies. Your Dad has essentially flushed 50K down the toilet.

        [–]_psylock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Or you tell him to draw up a prenup agreement before any marriage.

        [–]tenientj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        This would not fly in court. Judge would end up restructuring so that he would end up having to pay alimony, child support and service the debt to your father.

        [–]Idontlikekarmawhores 0 points1 point  (8 children)

        Your dad is awesome but how come she gets half after two years? If they aren't married.

        [–]nubfilter 1 point2 points  (5 children)

        Some places have retarded laws

        [–]puppet22 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        Australia has the same, it's fucked

        [–]rpkarma 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        And in some cases it can be in as little as six months.

        [–]Idontlikekarmawhores 0 points1 point  (2 children)

        So he gets half of what she has too?

        [–]esco_[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        yup. Two years of living together means that each person is entitled to half of what they have. Just like marriage

        [–]nubfilter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        I have no idea about the laws where OP is located, but thats what I gather from other replies.

        [–]redpillspeeddate 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        Outside of the USA there is whats called Common Law marriage that basically occurs after 2-3 year co-habiting with a sexual relationship. Which pretty much makes it marriage right down to the split and alimony. Its much worse than the no fault, common property states like california because you actually must have a piece of paper before she gets what you worked for.

        [–]rpscrote 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        a handful of US states still have it too

        [–]AlchemyPhoenix 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        Is this even legal, though? Don't you have to be a licensed financial institution to lend money with a contract to recollect with interest? Although the circumstances are different, I'm pretty sure this is legally considered loan sharking.

        [–]esco_[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        loan sharking is legal in new zealand i think.

        Without giving away too much, my dad has a history in law enforcement and is an avid believer of using lawyers for contract stuff so i imagine it is legal

        [–]grewapair 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Won't work. Has to be a fair transaction, or everyone would loan each other a penny with some horrific clause in the event of divorce. A judge will see this as an attempt to evade the divorce laws and will stick your brother alone with the onerous payments.

        And if your dad has to declare bankruptcy, his creditors will seize the loan and demand the money.

        [–]BhiQ 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        Inb4 your dad becomes a gambling addict and pulls through with debt collection to erase his debt.

        [–]Tarkusdillo -1 points0 points  (2 children)

        Brothers and friends could also do this for each other. You father is a bad ass.

        [–]esco_[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        fuck letting a friend do this!

        Friends come and go

        Family is forever (or so im told(=)

        [–]Tarkusdillo -1 points0 points  (0 children)

        My family fucks each other over more than anyone I know. I deleted those toxic assholes for what? Stealing from me. and Mother has been the worst. Even before my father died she wiped out MY savings account. Have not had her on any legal or financial deal of mine for 35 years.

        Fuck Family. Biggest group of thieves and back stabbers I have ever been aware of.