Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Off-Topic
Reply to "Van Lifer couple camping in Utah national park - two weeks later fiancee arrives in FL alone"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Why is everyone saying it’s HER van, like it matters. They were a couple, living together, and outfitted the van together. Good chance it was in her name because insurance was cheaper. I’m sure there are plenty of people here driving a car that is in the other spouses name for some reason, does that not mean it’s not the family car? We have 5 cars, some titled joint, some titled separate, depending on who was there to sign the papers. [/quote] You go on a road trip with your husband in your blue truck. He drives back home in the blue truck and you are not with him. A week goes by, and your friends haven't seen you and he won't say when he last saw you. Another week goes by. Nothing. What do you want your friends to do at this point? It sounds like you'd be happy for them to say, no biggie, it's his truck too, since that's what you're arguing here.[/quote] No, what I’m saying is that him returning without her in THEIR cars is suspicious. The fact that it’s titled in HER name is irrelevant. People are tossing it in like it means something. If the van was titled in his name, does that make it less suspicious? No, so being in her name doesn’t make it more so. It’s their car, saying it’s hers like it’s a clue for something is dumb. [/quote] I'm a PP that has pointed out the vehicle legally belonged to Gabby and I suppose it's no surprise that it's totally discounted as not a big deal because somehow the boyfriend was probably "co-owner" simply because he was Gabby's sexual partner and it made sense financially because insurance would have cost more if an under 25 male was listed as an owner. Funny how no one questions why insurance is expensive for males under age 25. I'll say it again - it's yet another way we downplay violence against women by their intimate partners.[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics