Holy shit. I realize that what I am about to say is like saying "water's wet," or "the sun's bright," but property one brings into a marriage going to the other spouse in a divorce case might be the single dumbest thing I've ever heard. Who the hell would ever champion such a cause, or make it "the law" or whatnot? How stupid would a lawmaker have to be to, effectively, shoot themselves in the kneecaps like that? That is shockingly horrible.Eric wrote: Actually I got to keep the house, which is unusual, but only because it had just been purchased, had already started losing value even though none of the principal had been paid -- city of Rochester see -- and so was no use to the ex who couldn't have paid the mortgage since she didn't work and didn't intend to. Everything else though, forget it. My lawyer actually tried to explain to the judge that this record and book collection had some value and ought at least to be figured as an asset she was getting in dividing up the property. Ever try to convince a judge that books and record albums have value?
I understand why couples would have to sell off items they got while together -- I guess. But man... It really sucks. I console myself against the thought of theft by the realization that most of what I own is either worthless crap with only sentimental value, or so big that it would take a team of burglars working together to remove it. This is a rather wide-awakening bit that the thing most likely to take my sealed copy of "Tass Times" from me is some chick and an idiot judge.
(Also, CD burners have come down in price a fair bit. www.mwave.com sells a Ricoh burner which is really great. I have yet to make a coaster with it -- unlike my first one, which was an Acer, which made enough coasters on me to supply a Bar Mitzvah.)