Ex-Son In Law Could Destroy Our Entire Business | Best of 2023
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 08. 2024
- Ex-Son In Law Could Destroy Our Entire Business | Best of 2023
Start growing in business and leadership with the EntreLeadership Newsletter. Sign up to receive tactical tools, advice and resources in your inbox every week: bit.ly/3ktHxiM
Support our sponsors:
• NetSuite: bit.ly/NetSuiteEntre
• BELAY: bit.ly/351P9AE
• Payority: bit.ly/3IaA5SK
• Trainual: bit.ly/3EbBEgc
Learn more about EntreLeadership Events:
• EntreLeadership Summit: bit.ly/EntreLeadershipSummit
• EntreLeadership Master Series: bit.ly/EntreLeadershipMasterS...
Learn more about EntreLeadership Coaching:
• Elite: bit.ly/3tI2fN8
• Advisory Groups bit.ly/EntreLeadershipAdvisor...
• Executive Coaching: bit.ly/EntreLeadershipExecuti...
• Workshops: bit.ly/EntreLeadershipWorkshops
Find out what stage of business you’re in and what you can do to level up with our Stages of Business Assessment: bit.ly/45RXQaZ
Listen to all the Ramsey Network podcasts anytime, anywhere in our Ramsey Network app: apple.co/3eN8jNq
Learn more about your ad choices: www.megaphone.fm/adchoices
Ramsey Solutions Privacy Policy: www.ramseysolutions.com/compa...
Dave Ramsey is such a bad ass. Love him or hate him. He's a bad ass and tells the truth. Reminds me of my late father. Good advise.
My father burned me with cigarettes.
@@micclaySmoke up, Johnny!
@@micclaywell you had a crappy father
This is also why you never ever do 50/50 ownerships. Someone must have the power to pull rank in situations of disagreement.
Its called "being married" and its something Ramsey pushes people to do. Now, it back-fired here because princess is being divorce-graped but usually its a man and you can see that Ramsey needs a change of pants.
He could have sold it 51% to his daughter and 49% to his son in law. Then even in marriage there wouldn’t be a gridlock like this.
@@andrew8168 100%. Women have been railroading men through divorce for decades now. If the genders were reversed for this call, Dave would be advising to pay her 50% of the company plus the house and 401K and both dogs😅
What was the name of that country with two presidents? right there aren't any.
No partners
This is why the contract should have been contingent on the marriage staying in place. The clause should have read along the lines of “if the marriage dissolves the daughter becomes full owner of the company”.
Divorce is a real thing and you should always assume that a marriage could end in divorce. This asset was not the son in law’s and should have only been given to the daughter in the first place. Depending on the situation of course.
Yeah, that was real mistake, I have seen inheritances come along with similar protections.
Ramsey always goes on and on about how much he loves his daughters that we almost forget he has a son.
No need to be nicer unkle Dave, you are perfect the way you are! Excellent advice, cut off the water supply! I hate it when the “in-laws becomes outlaws”!
To this father and his daughter, love you will both bounce back better and stronger than before. Keep moving forward🙏🏾🖤❤️
Dad should have never given son in law any part of the business to begin with.
What do you think a woman would do in the son and law's position?
@@micclayABSOLUTELY .
Exactly just a dumb as move
He didn't. He gave it to the daughter and the ahole is going after the business as part of the divorce.
@@micclaytake it all! I’m not going to hate on him for doing what every woman does when they walk away.
Daughter needs to stop paying dad, go into default, let dad regain ownership because of default. Daughter starts new company (tells customers/clients the old company shutting down). Let the EX figure it out.
He still owns half .
@@SteveCanon453 Half of nothing. He won't own any of the new.
Now, just reverse the genders. Would you give the same advice?
Fraud.
That would be highly illegal and probably the worst way to play this out. The judge could easily see that the company doesn’t have the liquid assets to buy him out. He’s making a request to cash out his side of the company, and without knowing much about the company and what he’s put into it, you can’t value the company. This would have to go through a very different proceeding as the divorce and should be settled separately. This is the argument to make in court while the company starts to figure out how to buy him out.
Dave is low key a savage 🤑😀💯
The son in law is winning. It's a crappy way to win, but women do it all the time.
Low key ? Nothing low about the man savageness 😂😂😂 and I love it
I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that. The ex has 50% of the shares, he has rights. You can't just decide to not pay him because you feel like it. As a CEO you do have a fiduciary responsibility towards all the shareholders, even if they are your ex.
He can and will bring this to court and when the other attorney sees this clip and sees you guys plotting to "starve him out", he will walk away with a hell of a lot more than you think.
No company president has rights to set the shareholder payouts. And he's trying to force a liquidation which he can't do
In a partnership, each partner has a separate equity account. The company’s net income gets split into those accounts, and what’s in his account is his.
Some partnership agreements state that your share of the company changes depending on how much is still in your account, but I doubt this one does.
He might be able to get the divorce court judge to dissolve this partnership, but that would probably sink the company. Either way, it’s a nasty court battle ahead.
Unless the partnership agreement states
And she can go to jail for embezzlement. And the father can too.
And Dave can also be held responsible for telling him that.
Yeah, and why is the divorce automatically his fault?
@@MattCasters Because Dave is a SIMP.
Blood family can turn sour too. I have a couple of blood relatives that would throw me and my husband under a bus in a minute.
We still need to take a step back and remember that this is from the father's point of view. There are two sides to every story.
I still don't understand how in 2023, you can just give something to a son or daughter-in-law without even thinking about divorce and what happens after
There is her side, his side, and the truth. One of the greatest transfers of wealth in the U.S. is through divorce. Women have been doing it to men for a few generations, and it's one of the reasons fewer people are choosing marriage.
Most people are delusional enough to think marriage is a permanent protection. Ramsey pushes marriage like it will never end in divorce. My advice to people is to assume that all marriages end in divorce. Never become financially dependent on another person. Always have a separate account with a decent amount of money in it. Always be ready to come home to an empty house.
If the dad was a Simp he will think like a Simp and give away the farm with no recourse. It's just that Simp-le
Why in the world would he give 50% to a son in law?🤦🏾♀️As if marriages don't fall apart. Now he's stuck in a mess smh
this is 30 times better than the main show
Great advice!
"Somehow beat him down or beat him up" Dave going mafia style on his azz.
I appreciate the strength and caring for the caller, and for what’s right, in the first call.
"Beat him up" (Financially) LOL Ramsey haha
This guy should be consulting a lawyer!
I’m listening to these ‘clips”..the one before this Dave told an employer to show extra grace and mercy to an employee. He is not ruthless. He’s trying to help this man protect everything he’s worked his life to build from a parasite.
There is 10 million dollar in play.
If they buy him out by buying his half, they only need to buy half the equity from him, though, right? If the company is worth 10 million but they still owe the father 9 million, his half is only 500,000. Am I missing something?
Alright guys, you heard Dave. All you have to do is tell the judge you’re not selling any assets, and you’re not buying your spouse out. Problem solved. I wonder why no one ever thought of doing that before 🤣🤣🤣
If it was a women in the position of the ex husband Dave would be on her side…
There has been a war against men I this country for quite a while. Looks like Dave picked a side.
I don't think he would. The ex was cheating.
I really wish my dad had the resources you do. I’m going through a terrible divorce too and that cheating violent son of a gun is getting away with so much crap! The divorce law is not set up in the best interests of children. And it is driving me nuts.
Im glad he was able to find a way to make sure the cheating SIL gets nothing.
2:49 Dave’s assumption that the SIL is the cause of the problem?
The father isn’t exactly an unbiased source of truth.
Did you miss the part where the SIL had been having affairs?
What’s to stop son in law from taking a big salary ? If he is half owner , how can she do anything with the company’s profits without his consent ? She doesn’t have all the power , she has half of the power .
Dave Ramsey is not a legal expert.
You only get salary for working there.
A properly prepared K-1 would call this “guaranteed payments for services.”
@SonnyBubbnot if you are the owner.
Because he is not the president.
I guess it depends on the company's structure, but I'd expect the owners would decide profit sharing, not the president. I'd expect the president would make recommendations. Though it's moot since her no vote cancels his yes vote.
Also adjust the terms of the payments for the company purchase the daughter is still making, raise that interest rate on the outstanding balance through the roof!
His attorney will subpoena the books and do a valuation. If the daughter doesn't do a valuation of her own, the court will use the SIL valuation, and she will be not forced to sell but come up with 50% of the valuation in other assets of the marriage. The dad screwed up the sale to his daughter unfortunately.
So the courts can't force a buyout ? Like in real estate?
Very often happens that american companies look for my services of company registration and representation here in The Netherlands, and sometimes it's for this reason, they don't want to close the books having any kind of profit, so they transfer the profit to their subsidiary here in The Netherlands. Maybe it's an option for him?
@@DonLicuala it can be, but most of the time they want to make taxes avoidance, there are some cases that are of companies that want to make actuall business here and they have many benefits business wise and taxes wise
I love Dave but He immediately went to the guy is at fault. He could be out because of something that the Daughter did. Not enough information to go on in that summary.
Agreed, Dave just went ahead and stated the ex is some sort of a horrible person, without knowing any details about what happened in the marriage. For all we know she could've been cheating on him and mistreating the guy.
Doesn't matter. Dave is looking it as the father. He will always back up his children, over their spouses.
Why does Dave have the time to entertain every single aspect of the dissolution? He's not a mediator nor an attorney. He's answering the call and this call only and he did it masterfully. And yes, if the ex called in with his side, I'm sure he'd have a different response for him. But he didn't.
The SIL was having affairs.
Ouch ! Really decent and trusting guy to give over a business like that. I personally wouldn’t have done that and would retain the controlling part but only use it as a veto. Dave comes up with answer before and yes, you can manipulate “profit” to reduce unwanted owners
I'm sure this guy's lawyer got wind of this call and illegal advice
I love that Mr. Ramsey wants all the smoke and trouble 😂.
The shoes in the other foot. This has been happening to men since the beginning of time
No, there was a time when women couldn't own land or bank account.
He doesn't fully own the company half. He is making payments don't forget. You can't sell a business you don't fully own. In this case his half is not fully paid. The courts will make an evaluation of what they earned in the four years and the buy out will be according to those numbers. Couple hundred thousand at best. Business was not evaluated so it will be professionally evaluated and the number will come from there.
Now if the business has become more profitable from year one to year four. A new current evaluation will need to be performed and the profits will be considered in the buyout.
We have no idea why the husband is leaving this man's daughter. He said he chose money over his family but honestly we only know what his man said about his ex son in law. This man's daughter could be insane, could have cheated, could have been abusive or any other reason other than money. Calling the ex a butthole and to blame is short sighted without more information.
Dave’s going to get this guy a lawsuit.
I'm curious if a Ramsey adopts they would not be part of the inheritance... blood is not always family.
Dave has spoken about this. Despite his toeing the trad con line of “what’s yours is mine” Dave operates as a very shrewd businessman.
His family trust has “shares” in which only blood relatives have ownership stakes in the family corporation. Son in laws and daughter in laws do not have equity stakes so if they were to get divorced they would get nothing.
If someone in the Ramsey family adopts, that is different from a divorce. Surely he believes that child is just as much a Ramsey has anyone else.
How long were they married?
If it was his daughter in-law making these demands, he'd be ok with this extraction.
Can a divorce court force the sale of the company? My understanding is it can force the sale of a house, so I don't know why a company would be different, or any other valuable asset.
There's nothing to split. In the case of a home, it's owned jointly and sold when one spouse can't buy the other half. The business would only need to be sold if the couple owned everything jointly, but in this case it's already split 50/50.
I’m curious what caused them to get divorced.
If I'm in similar situation & have the money just pay him off & continue growing the business. Move on & learn from the mistakes. That ex will most likely be broke & divorced again in a few yrs.
Why assume that the ex SIL is at fault? It sounds like he wants a clean break from the marriage AND the company.
There are always three sides to every divorce case, his side, her side, and the truth.
So far, we have only heard her side.
Dave be simoing.
What a jerk! Marriage end all that time, but be classy and show decorum for gosh sakes! This is your ex wife and ex father-in-law. It didn't work, but be a gentleman. I agree blood only is better.
pretty sure divorce court is gonna force the issue. lol. you don’t get to tell a 50% owner to go fly a kite
Dave, you mean after you die, your son-in-law won't be pimpin on a yacht in a 10k square foot mansion damn
They have a prenup. He gets nothing if they divorce
But ive also told him to tell people to force a buy out when the tables are turned in situations when partners dont show up.
Also more then half of the devorces in America are initiated by the woman.
I wonder if there was a woman instead of the guy how the conversation will be .... she would have the 50% right but a man has 0 yea bs ...
Yeah you're watching Ramsey.
But if they haven't paid off the amount of the business, then they don't have a "pink slip" or proof of ownership.
I would like to see dave if he got hit with a divorce what he would do and say😊
If they stop paying payments the company reverts to him… as the president, could she stop making payments?
Wow. Absolutely disgusting. How do we know that the woman isn't at fault for the marriage failing?
There is no way that an investor with a controlling interest can be starved out like that.
Exactly. The daughter and the son and law could be playing long game to scam the dad.
Yea. Ramsey is operating under the assumption the son in law is penniless and has no resources to livie on during litigation. If there is a legit 5 million dollar payout due, there are plenty of willing creditors.
50% isn't controlling interest when someone else also owns 50%.
@@edennis8578 so if I own 50% of a company, I have zero say in who the management of the company is? How about the board of directors? Don't they have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders? In this case the members of the LLC.
So this guy married the daughter of a rich guy, bought half of his business with a loan and then divorced her so he would become a millionaire
What did I miss in this conversation? It seems Dave makes a bunch of assumptions based on almost zero information. How does getting a divorce and dividing the property turn someone into a "buthole ruining everything", or "running around sleeping with other women"? Why has Dave assumed the son in law must be morally bankrupt? All I heard was a valuation of the company was required.
Try that in the real world
Never leave a business or money to keys. If you do, it should state clear that the money goes to the kid if , the parter files divorce, cheats or they simply separate.
It ain't fair what that guy did- but women do it alot...just a bit pay back I guess
How do we know daughter and son and law aint playing long game to scam the dad?
What about Alimony? She won’t have to pay him any alimony?
In my state, it's almost impossible to get alimony because both parties have to agree to it. In the US in general, the spouse usually has to be unable to work or have no income by other means, like investments.
@@edennis8578 what state you from
Life is hard. No doubt.
A man has to do what a man has to do
gold digger
Couldn’t the son-in-law sell his half to someone else?
This is yet another example of why i'm so happy I never got married
It is nothing but risk for the male and for the vast majority of all varieties of situations.... Nothing but possible benefit for the female, at least in the united states of america for the past two and a half decades straight because of how the system caters to the va gina.
From listening to Dave a bit. He willing to scrw the men more than the women.
He sold it to them. They each owe 50/50.
The father cannot legally do anything, he is not the owner.
Hiding money from the judge is illegal.
What he is telling him to do, is also illegal. He owns half if it, she can't withhold his pay.
This guy have a contract. It legally says he owns half of it.
How do you know the daughter didn't call it quits?
3:43 It’s divorce court Dave. Every attorney representing women fits this description
I bet you can find a way where he committed some criminal act and can be forced to sell at reduced price to avoid prosecution.
Man this call woke up the Papa Bear 🐻 in Dave. ❤
Why is this not her problem??
This man was dumb and should have looked after his daughter better and trained her up to be the primary owner.
I find it interesting that when a man leaves a relationship he is assumed to be the bad guy and when a woman leaves a relationship the guy is assumed to be the bad guy.
I don’t know these people, but I have no reason to automatically believe that the son-in-law didn’t have a good reason to leave the marriage. Of course the wife’s father is gonna paint him in a bad light. He might be awful, but damn lots of assumptions.
The father should have retained the unpurchased shares. Or just kept in in a trust . What kind of lawyer did he have? A real estate attorney?
Clearly Dave has no idea how divorce court works
Or the law.
Divorce laws vary from state to state. Since the business is already split 50/50, I don't see where the court will have anything to say about it. As my divorce lawyer explained it to me, marriage is a financial contract, legally. A divorce splits the assets of the marriage. Since the business is already 50/50, there's nothing for a divorce court to do.
Sorry but dad should have been smart and put the business in the daughter's name only married or not and if the son in law decides to stay he's an employee only
If the genders were reversed , and the guys son was in the same situation , would Dave be reacting the same way ???? .
None of this Dave strategy will work legally.
So Dave is telling him how to embezzle money?
See how that works in a court?
8:22 Dave is all about nepotism "only Ramsey blood can own the company" Ramsey nepobabies
Ah, divorce. “The husband is to submit himself to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and serve and sacrifice for his wife the way the Lord did for His church (followers).”
That there would prevent 90 percent of divorces.
His daughter was stupid for getting
There's a stink a foot in this one. I don't care who did what in that marriage.
If they sit the guy down and say "look...xyz" and don't do the starve out approach.
To approach this saying it's just a contract misses a massive opportunity. If the guy treats it like a standard buyout, then perhaps dig in. I think he needs to be reminded of why the contract was there to begin with.
The in law never never goes after the family money like that. Contract or not. You ask what the amount would be to exit with respect. That's how it's handled. No matter who did what. He was offered generosity through the family's sweat and grit. The Dad (and others) built that business.
Never undermine or forget that.
That's the other part bringing out the papa bear. Disrespecting the legacy for greed.
Edit: perhaps look at the valuation before and after the contract and start there. This guy would have no "buy out" without the generosity of the family.
Talk on the street was the daughter is a gambling addict with a sex addiction. Seriously.
Dave giving legal advice again without law license.
Wonder when he will eventually get sued for this.
This is just two guys having a talk. Any fool that walks into court and says Dave told me to do this deserves to be laughed out of the room.
@@robertbell525 that’s not the standard for giving legal advice without a law license
@@steve-on3234 and still, good luck holding him or any other radio/TV/YT/IG/FB/whatever personality liable. There's probably 2 point font disclaimers buried deep on his site but in any case, I'll bet if you or I walked into a court and proclaimed Dave advised me, the judge would face palm and kick us out. If not, prove me wrong.