Ayse and Zeliha Clark #3 Beige baby number two, moving house is all they do

1
boopthatnose said:
If so I wonder if Jack told his parents he was intending on marrying her (or even doing so with no prenuptial agreement) and they removed him from the family assets to protect them from becoming a marital asset if they do wed.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that Ayse's very motivated towards his money, putting it politely. That's one thing when she's pregnant 5 minutes after meeting him, moving in and getting in as many designer purchases as she can out of his salary and the perks of his family wealth, but it's another entirely when she marries Jack and he's a director of companies and wealth that (let's face it) his parents made and created. No way would you want to risk losing huge percentages of that when the divorce happens and she goes after those marital assets (property, businesses he is named as a director of etc) and expects their kids to be kept in the lifestyle they're accustomed until they're 18 and so on. Whether they like Ayse or not is irrelevent really, you still would cover your back and protect your family money from someone you've known a couple of years who's clearly gone into this eyeing up a certain lifestyle. They probably know he's a bit of an idiot when it comes to women and want to save him from himself.

I've nothing against Jack who seems pleasant enough but there is no way she would go for him now looks-wise if he weren't well off, absolutely none.
Click to expand...

but would that mean they remove him if he married anyone?? I really don’t think Ayse is the reason they removed him she doesn’t seem that calculating to have a huge plan to spend all his wealth. I think he’s messed up somewhere and he has been taken off based on his own actions
 
szn-123 said:
but would that mean they remove him if he married anyone?? I really don’t think Ayse is the reason they removed him she doesn’t seem that calculating to have a huge plan to spend all his wealth. I think he’s messed up somewhere and he has been taken off based on his own actions
Click to expand...

Because once they marry, his percentage of the business that he's named on becomes a marital asset - therefore she can pursue a claim for that asset, it's revenue or value of his assets if they divorce. Marrying someone for money and security is hardly a new concept, I don't think you need to be particularly clever to get it across the line. If I'd gifted my kid a directorship on a company I started, that had made millions, I'm not sure I'd want to lose that to his wife when they divorced, especially if I thought she was after his money. Better to take his name off, remove him as a director and keep it safe from that. If my son were also knocking up young girls he's known 5 minutes every time he dated one I'd be even more concerned about him and how sensible he is. He's a young guy and already going to be dishing out a hefty proportion of his future earnings to 3 babies he had in quick succession if he and Ayse end up splitting. I'd be despairing if he was my son.

Who knows what she's really about, I'm not hugely invested and hope they do end up happy but I hardly think she's subtle about enjoying his money and I'm not sure many people would picture the two of them together otherwise. I doubt she looks at him and swoons, however nice he might be.
 
boopthatnose said:
Because once they marry, his percentage of the business that he's named on becomes a marital asset - therefore she can pursue a claim for that asset, it's revenue or value of his assets if they divorce. Marrying someone for money and security is hardly a new concept, I don't think you need to be particularly clever to get it across the line. If I'd gifted my kid a directorship on a company I started, that had made millions, I'm not sure I'd want to lose that to his wife when they divorced, especially if I thought she was after his money. Better to take his name off, remove him as a director and keep it safe from that. If my son were also knocking up young girls he's known 5 minutes every time he dated one I'd be even more concerned about him and how sensible he is. He's a young guy and already going to be dishing out a hefty proportion of his future earnings to 3 babies he had in quick succession if he and Ayse end up splitting. I'd be despairing if he was my son.

Who knows what she's really about, I'm not hugely invested and hope they do end up happy but I hardly think she's subtle about enjoying his money and I'm not sure many people would picture the two of them together otherwise. I doubt she looks at him and swoons, however nice he might be.
Click to expand...

This is inaccurate. A director is an employee with fiduciary duties and responsibilities, I.e general management of the company, participating in board meetings and votes etc. Directors are appointed by the shareholders. Unless he is a shareholder too, (which he may well have been, I haven’t looked on companies house myself), he won’t receive anything other than a salary, therefore his wife wouldn’t have a claim to it in the instance of divorce.
 
There's no ring on her hand when walking into the cinema so I don't think she got engaged.

However if Jack did propose, it does explain everything. Removing him from family businesses so that Ayse doesn't get a penny from them when they inevitably divorce.

I don't think Jack would be stupid enough to marry her but he might just give her a ring to keep her quiet for a bit. Would be a very very very long engagement would no sign of actually getting married.
 
trashtalker36 said:
This is inaccurate. A director is an employee with fiduciary duties and responsibilities, I.e general management of the company, participating in board meetings and votes etc. Directors are appointed by the shareholders. Unless he is a shareholder too, (which he may well have been, I haven’t looked on companies house myself), he won’t receive anything other than a salary, therefore his wife wouldn’t have a claim to it in the instance of divorce.
Click to expand...

The assumption surely is that he was very likely to be a shareholder if he is a director and their son, given his parents prop up his lifestyle, gave him a home to live in and were prepared to add him as a director. If they did divorce and he had remained an employee of that company, with a salary, any savings he put together for himself as a result of that large salary and pension contribution ( a decent one, I imagine) may be considered in a divorce in the respect of what is reasonable for him to provide as maintenance.

All of his assets and income absolutely can form part of a financial claim. I don't recall saying (or meaning to say) that she has a direct claim to ownership of his parents business - she doesn't, but absolutely a business he owns shares in, those shares will be considered a "matrimonial asset" and be valued as such during a divorce along with any other assets and businesses he owns - down to gifted savings from his parents, a car they gave him that he owns on paper, anything. Even if they removed him as a director and it has all turned sour, he could still hold shares in the business or they could have bought them back off of him - who knows, it depends on the terms he acquired them by. It isn't uncommon for there to be a clause that a director will have to sell back their shares when they exit their directorship.

In any case his attachment to his parents business made him much more wealthier on paper that he would otherwise be when it comes to assessing what will go to his dependants and what spousal maintenance is appropriate - if he is the one usually covering their living costs on his inflated salary and she can prove that, then he will likely be expected to continue to contribute to them on any ongoing basis a court decides is reasonable and certainly until the children are 18. Either way his business interests and any income they generate for him absolutely can be considered "matrimonial property". Heck, if his parents passed away and he inherited their entire estate she could also stake a claim for that, it's all perfectly legal. The only way to prevent access to certain assets during divorce is a pre-nuptial agreement.

He's quite literally never had any job that isn't 'working' for his parents anyway, and they obviously funded his lifestyle through an inflated salary as well as gave him accommodation he'd never have got off his own back. Their company accounts are very healthy. He did a degree and stepped straight into high level role at his parents company which is almost laughable really. Without that directorship role and salary what has he got at this point - whatever savings he has, whatever pension he racked up, whatever shares he might own and that's about it. All neutrals isn't worth much. If you see them living a much less luxury lifestyle then you know why and will be able to tell just how much his parents were really funding it before. If his parents objected to a potential marriage and didn't want to indirectly fund Ayse's lifestyle because they suspect she's in it for the money, then they won't be the first to cut the purse strings to make their point. Without his parents help and cash, he's not very financially or professionally impressive at all so good luck to her.
 
I’ve lurked on this thread for a while and I wonder if the whole Jack being removed as a director etc is actually to do with his ex partner? I didn’t watch the q&a Ayse did but I saw someone pop a print screen on here when questions were raised about Jacks other daughter. What if it’s got something to do with child maintenance? (Not sure if that’s been posted on here before) but potentially food for thought.
 
fluffybunny101 said:
I’ve lurked on this thread for a while and I wonder if the whole Jack being removed as a director etc is actually to do with his ex partner? I didn’t watch the q&a Ayse did but I saw someone pop a print screen on here when questions were raised about Jacks other daughter. What if it’s got something to do with child maintenance? (Not sure if that’s been posted on here before) but potentially food for thought.
Click to expand...
This makes more sense to me tbh, she’d be entitled to a very healthy maintenance if she decides to go through CMS. It seems very bitter between her and Jack based on Ayse’s comments so it seems very likely
 
Sophiadee said:
This makes more sense to me tbh, she’d be entitled to a very healthy maintenance if she decides to go through CMS. It seems very bitter between her and Jack based on Ayse’s comments so it seems very likely
Click to expand...
Child maintenance is pretty basic by all accounts. The absolute maximum he would be paying is 12% possibly less depending on the days she spends with them. You would be hard pressed to find a parent who lives with their child who spend only 12% on their needs and care.
If jack is swanning off in multiple luxury holidays a year and generally living an expensive lifestyle why shouldn’t he provide for his child??
 
boopthatnose said:
The assumption surely is that he was very likely to be a shareholder if he is a director and their son, given his parents prop up his lifestyle, gave him a home to live in and were prepared to add him as a director. If they did divorce and he had remained an employee of that company, with a salary, any savings he put together for himself as a result of that large salary and pension contribution ( a decent one, I imagine) may be considered in a divorce in the respect of what is reasonable for him to provide as maintenance.

All of his assets and income absolutely can form part of a financial claim. I don't recall saying (or meaning to say) that she has a direct claim to ownership of his parents business - she doesn't, but absolutely a business he owns shares in, those shares will be considered a "matrimonial asset" and be valued as such during a divorce along with any other assets and businesses he owns - down to gifted savings from his parents, a car they gave him that he owns on paper, anything. Even if they removed him as a director and it has all turned sour, he could still hold shares in the business or they could have bought them back off of him - who knows, it depends on the terms he acquired them by. It isn't uncommon for there to be a clause that a director will have to sell back their shares when they exit their directorship.

In any case his attachment to his parents business made him much more wealthier on paper that he would otherwise be when it comes to assessing what will go to his dependants and what spousal maintenance is appropriate - if he is the one usually covering their living costs on his inflated salary and she can prove that, then he will likely be expected to continue to contribute to them on any ongoing basis a court decides is reasonable and certainly until the children are 18. Either way his business interests and any income they generate for him absolutely can be considered "matrimonial property". Heck, if his parents passed away and he inherited their entire estate she could also stake a claim for that, it's all perfectly legal. The only way to prevent access to certain assets during divorce is a pre-nuptial agreement.

He's quite literally never had any job that isn't 'working' for his parents anyway, and they obviously funded his lifestyle through an inflated salary as well as gave him accommodation he'd never have got off his own back. Their company accounts are very healthy. He did a degree and stepped straight into high level role at his parents company which is almost laughable really. Without that directorship role and salary what has he got at this point - whatever savings he has, whatever pension he racked up, whatever shares he might own and that's about it. All neutrals isn't worth much. If you see them living a much less luxury lifestyle then you know why and will be able to tell just how much his parents were really funding it before. If his parents objected to a potential marriage and didn't want to indirectly fund Ayse's lifestyle because they suspect she's in it for the money, then they won't be the first to cut the purse strings to make their point. Without his parents help and cash, he's not very financially or professionally impressive at all so good luck to her.
Click to expand...


He isn’t and hasn’t ever been a shareholder, so she wouldn’t not be entitled to any equity within the business. Of course, any savings, pensions, benefits etc accrued would form part of the financial claim, I thought that went without saying. In some circumstances, even a pre nuptial agreement could not prevent that.
 
sasbeep said:
Child maintenance is pretty basic by all accounts. The absolute maximum he would be paying is 12% possibly less depending on the days she spends with them. You would be hard pressed to find a parent who lives with their child who spend only 12% on their needs and care.
If jack is swanning off in multiple luxury holidays a year and generally living an expensive lifestyle why shouldn’t he provide for his child??
Click to expand...

Oh I do not deny that he should absolutely be providing for his child. But I’m sure things like this have happened before where people have been ‘demoted’ or odd changes have taken place so they basically don’t need to pay more money in child maintenance (so sad!) but between that. Downsizing so his daughter doesn’t have her own room. It’s all a bit weird. I just hope that he is still making time for her. Regardless of any potential bitterness between him and his ex. I hope they’re still trying to nurture a good relationship with his first daughter!
 
So I watched ayses house tour video, very smal compared to the last place! She did say about the girls room “they can all play together where” so I’m assuming it will also be jacks daughters room too so I’m not sure why she answered questions in such a weird way about his daughter. Also she said hopefully this will be the last place they will live in before they buy a house somewhere, wonder if they will move back to where she used to live where they were meant to move back to this time (can’t remember where it was now😅)
 
Jacks parents could be worried, he’s stupid enough to have 3 kids already. They don’t know if Ayse is planning a wedding and they just go off and get married by themselves, he must be thick and she must walk all over him. He’s not a business man he relies on his parents wealth. And she is only with him for the money it’s obvious! At the end of the day Jacks parents are protecting their hard earned money and don’t want a girl they’ve known 5 minutes to be entitled to Jacks percentage of the business if they did get married . He’s probably got a lot of savings in his bank and money from investments that his parents might have set up for him.
 
How does she not realize how CRINGE 😬 this is 🤢
 

Attachments

  • 7F5BF9DC-F30E-4567-9D5E-49031C4EDAD1.jpeg
    7F5BF9DC-F30E-4567-9D5E-49031C4EDAD1.jpeg
    108.5 KB · Views: 132
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top