Marriages for convenience?

[JenT 0]

Rather than hijack the 'divorce for convenience' thread, I thought I'd reverse the theory, post here, and pop some more popcorn.

I'll go first:

A colleague of mine was married 5 times and has been in a disastrous relationship for 4 years. A week after ending it with her for the 16th time, he met someone online (6 weeks ago) through some outdoor website (they're both conservationists) and decided to propose. He quit his job a week ago and was married last Friday. He's moving from MI to WA, but isn't selling his house, just in case. He's counting on her to accept that they DO have enough money to live without either of them working (she's been divorced twice, is a workaholic with no debt, even though she's been a single mother for a long time)... so they can move to a wooded are and live happily ever after.

The only reason he's marrying her is because his pension (and mine as well) requires a beneficiary to be named before retirement, or the pension is lost. (He has no kids, hates them, yet she has two, one of them is living with them and has an infant child...). Never ONCE have I heard him use the word 'love' where she is concerned.

Anyone want to place bets as to how long this lasts???

Jen

[danae 0]

I know of an immigration fraud marriage- well I knew them back when I was in florida. They had been married a long time. Didnt live together- just a marriage so he could get his greencard. Didnt know them well or anything, and didnt really think anything of it at the time- but now Im going through the AOS myself and feel the anguish of waiting, I get mad to think of it AND I wonder how the heck they got away with it?!! It seems so obviously fraudulent. He is living with another woman (not the one he married) twice his age, who is wealthy and supports him entirely, just so she can have him around, and to 'service' her. Also, he is bisexual.

[dalegg 143]

Marriages of convenience don't only happen with foreign brides. My last marriage occurred because without my health insurance and paycheck every month, my ex-wife wouldn't have been able to afford to take care of baby and probably would have had an abortion, which there is no way I could allow.

I stayed with her the last 10 years because it enabled me to be with my kids for more than 4 days a month.

[GaryC 7]

Rather than hijack the 'divorce for convenience' thread, I thought I'd reverse the theory, post here, and pop some more popcorn.

I'll go first:

A colleague of mine was married 5 times and has been in a disastrous relationship for 4 years. A week after ending it with her for the 16th time, he met someone online (6 weeks ago) through some outdoor website (they're both conservationists) and decided to propose. He quit his job a week ago and was married last Friday. He's moving from MI to WA, but isn't selling his house, just in case. He's counting on her to accept that they DO have enough money to live without either of them working (she's been divorced twice, is a workaholic with no debt, even though she's been a single mother for a long time)... so they can move to a wooded are and live happily ever after.

The only reason he's marrying her is because his pension (and mine as well) requires a beneficiary to be named before retirement, or the pension is lost. (He has no kids, hates them, yet she has two, one of them is living with them and has an infant child...). Never ONCE have I heard him use the word 'love' where she is concerned.

Anyone want to place bets as to how long this lasts???

Jen

Are you telling me that if you don't have a spouse when you retire you loose your pention? I never hear of such a thing!! Could you just name your child or friend as a beneficiary?

[rebeccajo 14]

Gary, Jen said 'beneficiary'. I take that to mean you could name Santa Claus if you wanted.

[GaryC 7]

Gary, Jen said 'beneficiary'. I take that to mean you could name Santa Claus if you wanted.

Ok, still makes no sense to me. Right now I am single and have no beneficiary. If I were retirement age I would still get my pension. Or maybe I am just not comprehending something here.

[rebeccajo 14]

Gary, Jen said 'beneficiary'. I take that to mean you could name Santa Claus if you wanted.

Ok, still makes no sense to me. Right now I am single and have no beneficiary. If I were retirement age I would still get my pension. Or maybe I am just not comprehending something here.

You'd think they'd prefer no beneficiary wouldn't you? I mean, if you drop over - no more payments.