More and more states conclude that cohabitation on a certain time length is effectively marriage with legal consequences, so even the deed itself is becoming increasingly irrelevant.
There's no reason to cohabitate with a woman. The idea that it'll save you money is false. The idea that you'll get more sex is false. The idea she'll cook+clean for you such that she can alleviate some chores from you to free up some time is false. Better to date a woman and never live with her, IMO.
Not living with a woman can legally be considered cohabitation in some jurisdictions. This is from Canada.
However, the three-judge appeal panel found that a lack of shared residence is not determinative of cohabitation, affirming the trial judge’s perspective that common law cohabitation can be construed from a number of factors, of which physically living together is only one.
This is nothing else but the state trying to save their own time and money by enslaving men and stealing their assets than deal with an epidemic of foster kids because it stresses the budget (yes, the same budget that you pay 40% of your earnings to and receive nothing in exchange)
Then he's an absolute FOOL for keeping all those assets in his name.
"Oh, see those houses? They're in my name. I'm the boss. Ain't I cool?"
Jackass had all those assets but never thought to ask a lawyer how to protect them. Foolish. Look up "The Client 2177 Living Trust" and look up who owns it. Study how it's structured. Learn from the best.
Not only should you NOT keep assets in your personal name, you should file liens against your own property for 200% the value of that property. If anyone somehow does get awarded the property by a court, they'll still have to pay off the lien. That alone will make the property unappealing to anyone, even an ex-wife, even if they could steal it from you. There's nothing cool about flashing a property deed with your name on it.
I'm skeptical that a divorce court would ever let little things like laws stop them from packing the dude's shit in, but you've piqued my curiosity. I'd never marry but would it protect against say a malicious lawsuit? I'm in the market for a condo so this is quite timely.
If you don't own it, it's not yours. Nobody can come after you and demand you give them things that aren't yours. Trusts, like corporations, are independent legal entities. You may have access to those assets as a Trustee, but that's all you have. Access is not possession.
Look up "The Client 2177 Living Trust" and look up who owns it. I know you won't believe me, but a family friend did work for him. Nicole had to settle for whatever Tom was willing to share because, on paper, he's broke.
He doesn't own anything; his Trusts hold all his property, and all those properties have first priority liens payable to other Trusts meant to hold and claim those liens. Even if you somehow took his property, it's "booby trapped" to where he could still come back and demand 200% of the value. Keeping property in your name puts a HUGE target on your back.
Even if you are dealing with the most malicious/evil court in the world (which you will be often in divorce court), the assets are simply not yours. So when you are asked "what assets do you own" you can simply omit naming those houses/etc and it won't be a lie.
There are other ways around it (you could for instance just lie, but detectives might find it) but this is the "legit" way to do it.
Don't remember who it was, but some athlete or celebrity put all of his assets under his mom's name, so the gold digger he was with couldn't go after his house.
It started with the soccer player, then they all started doing it when it prevailed in court.
Reports from early 2026 suggest a trend of NBA players potentially using a "mother's name" strategy to protect assets, similar to footballer Achraf Hakimi. Allegations arose that Luka Dončić placed properties and income under his mother's name amid a split, while other cases like Dwight Howard’s highlight intense legal fights over marital assets.
And then he recently signed a new contract making 3x more than he was before, and his gold digging whore ex-wife had the audacity to go to the media to beg him to take her back.
Not everyone is as red pilled as we are. Most aren't I think. The thought to do something like that never occurs to most people. Take the conclusion of Yellowstone, when Kevin Costner's character dies. The Ranch was in his name, and inheritance taxes forced selling it to the indian tribe, taxes that would not be due if the ranch was in a durable trust.
And don't get "deemed married" either. Which can be trickier if someone is out to fuck you over. Don't need a certificate to be deemed married. Don't even need to be fucking. But ideally, it doesn't happen, right?
I'm as anti-divorce-courts as anyone in here, but this guy was an easy millionaire who needed to protect himself better. Once you reach the level of wealth he had, you need to take it upon yourself to protect it however you can. I'm happily married with a fraction of the assets this guy had, and I still have protections set up in case things go south. It's just not feasible to trust the system/women these days when catastrophic failure is one female judge's verdict away.
I firmly defend the institution of marriage and the need to find the best women out there, but that's no excuse to ignore the fact we live in a satanic hellscape. Prof Chaos here is completely correct.
Quick RunDown, ie, can you tell the story? I find it surprising he'd associate with trannies but I guess every face is a milquetoast conservative these days.
Indeed. I'm sure if you do a search on his page you'll find where he interviewed gays and trannies who were ' good gun loving Americans ' and good people... Had to bail after those started showing up on his channel.
He didn't lose those things. They didn't move. He knows exactly where they all are. It's just that some judge determined that some bailiff or zogbot can enter some of that property and wave a piece of paper, determining that he has to behave differently with respect to that property. Goes without saying, the zogbot has the backing of zog.
If he does what they tell him and acts in defiance of natural law, but in accordance with joke law, he loses it all, for sure. But if he rolls the dice with non-compliance, he gets a bunch of '??????' outcomes that very few people ever test, but which are certainly loaded against his continued life and existence. Rolling for those outcomes also changes the percentages for others quite quickly I believe.
Anyway this guy seems to be suggesting he hasn't lost 'everything' and he's 'very happy now' (x10) (...because of another woman lol), so I'm not calling him out for leaving those dice alone. But it's interesting to me. I do recall some judge got removed from the game when someone else rolled those dice.
That rambling video isn't keeping my attention. But, I read drama. I'm going to tell you the drama around prenups.
In some states a prenup means absolutely nothing. Because technically you can't sign away rights you don't have yet. The correct way to do it today in 2026 ( which may change, because that's how law works) is to sign a prenup stating that the parties have agreed to the postnup. And, if the parties don't sign the postnup the relationship has to be over. After the marriage is legal is when to sign the postnup.
Tyrese Gibson just had all of legaltube fight his ex-wife because the judge threw of their prenup. Go look up the details. There are attorneys explaining that case, and how it sent a ripple effect through family law.
Everytime a judge makes a decision that's precedent setting, the people who had the legal protection of the previous method need to redo their paperwork. But, most people aren't paying attention. The not paying attention to the current events is legally a them problem. That means if your spouse is paying attention, and you aren't. You get fucked over.
Tyrese's ex wife made herself undateable when she sued that the prenup wasn't valid. She tried to sue him over being undateable, but lost. She did it. It was her actions.
Before anyone gets bent out of shape the drama around this is because of destination weddings. People weren't filing the legal paperwork in the US. Meaning they weren't legally married. And, there were multiple casess of men intentionally not filing the paperwork so the judges were hatsh on the fraud.
It's good drama. But, I'm tired of typing.
Edit: the comments of that video say debt, and attorneys fees is the reason he loat everything for anyone who was wondering.
Everytime a judge makes a decision that's precedent setting, the people who had the legal protection of the previous method need to redo their paperwork. But, most people aren't paying attention. The not paying attention to the current events is legally a them problem. That means if your spouse is paying attention, and you aren't. You get fucked over.
So protecting yourself against family courts is an ever shifting effort that's logistically impossible to sustain? Fantastic. I swear the entire judicial system is just fake and gay and very much out to rape you in the ass.
Yes. The new trend of coparenting currently nesting is in direct conflict with multiple states' separation requirements before divorce. People have been surprised to find that the coparenting classes that were ordered by the judge were twisted into being called reconciliation, or family therapy.
That's why Will Smith had to hide from Jada. Jada kept tracking him down, and restarting the timer on the legally required separation.
Jada kept tracking him down, and restarting the timer on the legally required separation.
A horror game about divorcing your wife, and it functions like the movie "It Follows" Your wife will try to track you down and initiate a stupid conversation about irrelevant junk while recording the interaction so she can show the divorce court judge that you're "still together."
Guaranteed 1 million dollars when released during Halloween time, and another 20% from the media bump once all the trannies and feminists find it and give it some buzz for being so problematic.
This community has no idea they're pro no fault divorce. It's very tiresome to hold everyone's hand through the details while they just say stupid flippant comments.
at this point I dont really feel any pity. MGTOW is pretty popular and easy to find. YOU KNOW youll lose half your shit (at best) sooner or later. So why bother?
More and more states conclude that cohabitation on a certain time length is effectively marriage with legal consequences, so even the deed itself is becoming increasingly irrelevant.
There's no reason to cohabitate with a woman. The idea that it'll save you money is false. The idea that you'll get more sex is false. The idea she'll cook+clean for you such that she can alleviate some chores from you to free up some time is false. Better to date a woman and never live with her, IMO.
Not living with a woman can legally be considered cohabitation in some jurisdictions. This is from Canada.
Lmao. Ofc Canada.
Nuke all of Canada. Twice.
Or just not bother with that BS at all
This is nothing else but the state trying to save their own time and money by enslaving men and stealing their assets than deal with an epidemic of foster kids because it stresses the budget (yes, the same budget that you pay 40% of your earnings to and receive nothing in exchange)
Divorce court is literally criminal.
Iraq Vet 1488
Hard to give a fuck that he's homeless now, ngl.
Deserves to be homeless lmfao
Then he's an absolute FOOL for keeping all those assets in his name.
"Oh, see those houses? They're in my name. I'm the boss. Ain't I cool?"
Jackass had all those assets but never thought to ask a lawyer how to protect them. Foolish. Look up "The Client 2177 Living Trust" and look up who owns it. Study how it's structured. Learn from the best.
Not only should you NOT keep assets in your personal name, you should file liens against your own property for 200% the value of that property. If anyone somehow does get awarded the property by a court, they'll still have to pay off the lien. That alone will make the property unappealing to anyone, even an ex-wife, even if they could steal it from you. There's nothing cool about flashing a property deed with your name on it.
Conceal assets, thwart threats and isolate risks.
I'm skeptical that a divorce court would ever let little things like laws stop them from packing the dude's shit in, but you've piqued my curiosity. I'd never marry but would it protect against say a malicious lawsuit? I'm in the market for a condo so this is quite timely.
If you don't own it, it's not yours. Nobody can come after you and demand you give them things that aren't yours. Trusts, like corporations, are independent legal entities. You may have access to those assets as a Trustee, but that's all you have. Access is not possession.
Look up "The Client 2177 Living Trust" and look up who owns it. I know you won't believe me, but a family friend did work for him. Nicole had to settle for whatever Tom was willing to share because, on paper, he's broke.
He doesn't own anything; his Trusts hold all his property, and all those properties have first priority liens payable to other Trusts meant to hold and claim those liens. Even if you somehow took his property, it's "booby trapped" to where he could still come back and demand 200% of the value. Keeping property in your name puts a HUGE target on your back.
Prof chaos is correct.
Even if you are dealing with the most malicious/evil court in the world (which you will be often in divorce court), the assets are simply not yours. So when you are asked "what assets do you own" you can simply omit naming those houses/etc and it won't be a lie.
There are other ways around it (you could for instance just lie, but detectives might find it) but this is the "legit" way to do it.
But who's managing them if you only have access
In the eyes of the law, the Trust is a legal entity, that is as eternal as the Trust desires itself to be. So, the Trust manages assets that it owns.
You
Don't remember who it was, but some athlete or celebrity put all of his assets under his mom's name, so the gold digger he was with couldn't go after his house.
That was at least two different soccer players last year. Very smart move.
Only issue is that when the mother die, you might get REKT by taxes.
Trust. make a trust if you are rich, put your assets in it. Make the trust in Monaco or some shit like that
They must be telling all the athletes this because when I heard about it it was a nba player
It started with the soccer player, then they all started doing it when it prevailed in court.
And then he recently signed a new contract making 3x more than he was before, and his gold digging whore ex-wife had the audacity to go to the media to beg him to take her back.
Not everyone is as red pilled as we are. Most aren't I think. The thought to do something like that never occurs to most people. Take the conclusion of Yellowstone, when Kevin Costner's character dies. The Ranch was in his name, and inheritance taxes forced selling it to the indian tribe, taxes that would not be due if the ranch was in a durable trust.
We didn't watch the ending of Yellowstone. We left with Kevin. Marshalls is more CBS DEI BS.
But yeah, most people have no clue about asset protection. But if you own that much stuff, it's irresponsible not to.
So don't get married in the first place.
And don't get "deemed married" either. Which can be trickier if someone is out to fuck you over. Don't need a certificate to be deemed married. Don't even need to be fucking. But ideally, it doesn't happen, right?
I'm as anti-divorce-courts as anyone in here, but this guy was an easy millionaire who needed to protect himself better. Once you reach the level of wealth he had, you need to take it upon yourself to protect it however you can. I'm happily married with a fraction of the assets this guy had, and I still have protections set up in case things go south. It's just not feasible to trust the system/women these days when catastrophic failure is one female judge's verdict away.
I firmly defend the institution of marriage and the need to find the best women out there, but that's no excuse to ignore the fact we live in a satanic hellscape. Prof Chaos here is completely correct.
I stopped giving a shit to be honest.
Anyway, he lost me when he started hanging out with troons. So...
QRD? I used to watch him and thought he was pretty well /ourguy/
Sorry, I don't know what QRD stands for. But yeah, I used to get that sense as well until he started doing shows with trannys.
Quick RunDown, ie, can you tell the story? I find it surprising he'd associate with trannies but I guess every face is a milquetoast conservative these days.
Indeed. I'm sure if you do a search on his page you'll find where he interviewed gays and trannies who were ' good gun loving Americans ' and good people... Had to bail after those started showing up on his channel.
Raises some interesting philosophical questions.
He didn't lose those things. They didn't move. He knows exactly where they all are. It's just that some judge determined that some bailiff or zogbot can enter some of that property and wave a piece of paper, determining that he has to behave differently with respect to that property. Goes without saying, the zogbot has the backing of zog.
If he does what they tell him and acts in defiance of natural law, but in accordance with joke law, he loses it all, for sure. But if he rolls the dice with non-compliance, he gets a bunch of '??????' outcomes that very few people ever test, but which are certainly loaded against his continued life and existence. Rolling for those outcomes also changes the percentages for others quite quickly I believe.
Anyway this guy seems to be suggesting he hasn't lost 'everything' and he's 'very happy now' (x10) (...because of another woman lol), so I'm not calling him out for leaving those dice alone. But it's interesting to me. I do recall some judge got removed from the game when someone else rolled those dice.
That rambling video isn't keeping my attention. But, I read drama. I'm going to tell you the drama around prenups.
In some states a prenup means absolutely nothing. Because technically you can't sign away rights you don't have yet. The correct way to do it today in 2026 ( which may change, because that's how law works) is to sign a prenup stating that the parties have agreed to the postnup. And, if the parties don't sign the postnup the relationship has to be over. After the marriage is legal is when to sign the postnup.
Tyrese Gibson just had all of legaltube fight his ex-wife because the judge threw of their prenup. Go look up the details. There are attorneys explaining that case, and how it sent a ripple effect through family law.
Everytime a judge makes a decision that's precedent setting, the people who had the legal protection of the previous method need to redo their paperwork. But, most people aren't paying attention. The not paying attention to the current events is legally a them problem. That means if your spouse is paying attention, and you aren't. You get fucked over.
Tyrese's ex wife made herself undateable when she sued that the prenup wasn't valid. She tried to sue him over being undateable, but lost. She did it. It was her actions.
Before anyone gets bent out of shape the drama around this is because of destination weddings. People weren't filing the legal paperwork in the US. Meaning they weren't legally married. And, there were multiple casess of men intentionally not filing the paperwork so the judges were hatsh on the fraud.
It's good drama. But, I'm tired of typing.
Edit: the comments of that video say debt, and attorneys fees is the reason he loat everything for anyone who was wondering.
So protecting yourself against family courts is an ever shifting effort that's logistically impossible to sustain? Fantastic. I swear the entire judicial system is just fake and gay and very much out to rape you in the ass.
Yes. The new trend of coparenting currently nesting is in direct conflict with multiple states' separation requirements before divorce. People have been surprised to find that the coparenting classes that were ordered by the judge were twisted into being called reconciliation, or family therapy.
That's why Will Smith had to hide from Jada. Jada kept tracking him down, and restarting the timer on the legally required separation.
A horror game about divorcing your wife, and it functions like the movie "It Follows" Your wife will try to track you down and initiate a stupid conversation about irrelevant junk while recording the interaction so she can show the divorce court judge that you're "still together."
Guaranteed 1 million dollars when released during Halloween time, and another 20% from the media bump once all the trannies and feminists find it and give it some buzz for being so problematic.
This community has no idea they're pro no fault divorce. It's very tiresome to hold everyone's hand through the details while they just say stupid flippant comments.
If he was really based he'd magdump his cunt wife and become "An hero" after doing some spring cleaning in the nearby ghetto
like if you're already fucked, might as well make the best of a bad situation...
Word
at this point I dont really feel any pity. MGTOW is pretty popular and easy to find. YOU KNOW youll lose half your shit (at best) sooner or later. So why bother?
He looks way too happy 'n humble for someone who lost so much hopefully he doesn't pull a Ronnie McNutt..