Ex-Son In Law Could Destroy Our Entire Business | Best of 2023

[@billyboy8772]

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.

[@micclay]

My father burned me with cigarettes.

[@floresnashvilledrummer]

​@@micclaySmoke up, Johnny!

[@timlamb1156]

@@micclaywell you had a crappy father

[@WISHBONEL7]

His show often encourages *SIMPING* .

[@erikrohr4396]

He lies about debt and debt-related topics, but calls about other topics are usually good.

[@brucevann7129]

This is also why you never ever do 50/50 ownerships. Someone must have the power to pull rank in situations of disagreement.

[@andrew8168]

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.

[@brucevann7129]

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.

[@montezuma6962]

@@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😅

[@Ja50nkAt]

What was the name of that country with two presidents? right there aren't any.

[@elpatron7916]

No partners

[@Rence38]

Dave is low key a savage 🤑😀💯

[@micclay]

The son in law is winning. It's a crappy way to win, but women do it all the time.

[@plentystuffs]

Low key ? Nothing low about the man savageness 😂😂😂 and I love it

[@frix8773]

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.

[@jamieevans115]

No company president has rights to set the shareholder payouts. And he's trying to force a liquidation which he can't do

[@SonnyBubba]

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

[@saulgoodman2018]

And she can go to jail for embezzlement. And the father can too. And Dave can also be held responsible for telling him that.

[@MattCasters]

Yeah, and why is the divorce automatically his fault?

[@saulgoodman2018]

@@MattCasters Because Dave is a SIMP.

[@barnabusdoyle4930]

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.

[@timlamb1156]

Yeah, that was real mistake, I have seen inheritances come along with similar protections.

[@FA-pw1yg]

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🙏🏾🖤❤️

[@carllennen3520]

Youre making an awful lot of assumptions, with barely any information to do so. All anyone knows, is what this man is saying, and hes not even a first hand. He only knows what his daughter is telling him, and who knows if shes telling him the truth. For all anyone knows, the daughter is insane, and the ex husband is saving his own life getting out of this marriage, or he could be the a$$hole. The point is, you dont, and cant, know. Obviously, this man has been a part of growing this company, or the father wouldnt have been comfortable selling the entire company to them, knowing he would be 50% owner. To try and "choke him out", is morally and ethically, disgusting. Whether hes the Ahole or not, hes helped the company become what it is, and is 50% owner, and is entitled to get his half. Buying him out, is not only the ethical thing to do in this situation, it would be beneficial for them in the long run. The wife gains 100%, or the 49/51 split with the father, and they make the buyout money back within 3 years, and keep the whole thing within 5. Ramseys advise is short sighted, and not based in facts. Only this mans opinion, and that opinion might be skewed by the man himself. You shouldnt be so quick to cheer Ramsey on, when hes making some serious mistakes in giving advise publicly, regarding the split of assets in a marriage that isnt dissolved yet. That shows some basic failures in decision making on Ramseys part. He should have kept this one off YT, or at the very least, chosen his words, and his advise, much more carefully, considering the subject matter.

[@S.Whinnley]

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.

[@ThomasTomiczek]

And statistically she cheated.

[@guillermo3564]

Keep in mind this is all coming out of the mouth of a man who claims to be a Christian. It's laughable.

[@derekstanyer]

@@ThomasTomiczek statistically you have too

[@ThomasTomiczek]

@@derekstanyer Nope.

[@derekstanyer]

@@ThomasTomiczek I’m just speaking statistically of course.

[@Amishland_Chateau]

I appreciate the strength and caring for the caller, and for what’s right, in the first call.

[@DigDeeperNetwork]

this is 30 times better than the main show

[@mandysimmons2769]

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.

[@marty906]

Family deals can ruin family relationships. I'd say stay away.

[@andrew8168]

Ramsey always goes on and on about how much he loves his daughters that we almost forget he has a son.

[@WISHBONEL7]

His show constantly encourages *SIMPING* .

[@fkillah]

Dad should have never given son in law any part of the business to begin with.

[@micclay]

What do you think a woman would do in the son and law's position?

[@SteveCanon453]

@@micclayABSOLUTELY .

[@ebo7310]

Exactly just a dumb as move

[@waterbottle4782]

He didn't. He gave it to the daughter and the ahole is going after the business as part of the divorce.

[@peteratos660]

@@micclaytake it all! I’m not going to hate on him for doing what every woman does when they walk away.

[@kathrynm.6383]

You and I don't always agree on matters of marriage, relationships, and politics, but thank you for giving this advice. There are a lot of women who don't have any men, let alone fathers, who will fight for them when they have been wronged by other men and, in cultures like this one, the battlefield is often skewed in their favor no matter what they've done and they know it. Sometimes they are so used to us not having fathers, brothers, and other men who will fight for us, it can be a heck of a lot of fun to remind them that isn't always the case.

[@ebo7310]

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

[@USMC6976]

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.

[@SteveCanon453]

He still owns half .

[@USMC6976]

@@SteveCanon453 Half of nothing. He won't own any of the new.

[@montezuma6962]

Now, just reverse the genders. Would you give the same advice?

[@steve-on3234]

Fraud.

[@barnabusdoyle4930]

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.

[@glenf3437]

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 🤣🤣🤣

[@randylester8274]

I have a daughter LOVE YOUR LAST STATEMENT!!!!! Thank you!!!!!!

[@Ka_Gg]

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

[@montezuma6962]

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.

[@barnabusdoyle4930]

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.

[@rickyrick9501]

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

[@allaboutstress]

Nice Dave.

[@Big_Ego]

wow. incredible advice.

[@andreac.3636]

Great advice!

[@shellygee137]

Man, this was a sad situation, but boy, Dave was hilarious talking about the ex son-in-law, lawyers, etc. The father sounded relieved by the end of the call.

[@csefesi]

"Beat him up" (Financially) LOL Ramsey haha

[@martinneumann9345]

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.

[@rickyrick9501]

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.

[@rickyrick9501]

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.

[@ThomasTomiczek]

"You can't sell a business you don't fully own." - you absolutely can. What the stupid argument - all you have to do is clear the debt as part of the sale. I.e. he gets 5 million into escrow and part of those repay the loan.

[@ReadingGodsWord365]

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.

[@pearlbubbles6885]

There is 10 million dollar in play.

[@jmiyagi12345]

Why was it split 50/50? I know someone who owns several companies, and he lists his wife as 51% owner on all of them because of favorable conditions when getting government contracts. And even he admits that if she wanted to, he would be screwed out of a lot of money. Should have been 100% to the daughter and let her decide if she wants to bring him in.

[@edennis8578]

This guy should be consulting a lawyer!

[@sebastiaanvandoorn3223]

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!

[@NowWeWorldwide]

pretty sure divorce court is gonna force the issue. lol. you don’t get to tell a 50% owner to go fly a kite

[@btechbismarckquinteroizqui2684]

I dont think divorce court can decide how the inc should run, they could split shares ... but thats about it

[@jwollen78]

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.

[@Aki_Lesbrinco]

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.

[@azteca6695]

Doesn't matter. Dave is looking it as the father. He will always back up his children, over their spouses.

[@floresnashvilledrummer]

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.

[@davinasquirrel7672]

The SIL was having affairs.

[@tomw485]

In Dave’s defense he’s advising this man who called in. He’s not talking to the SIL. He’s not a judge trying to figure out fair payout he’s trying to advise this guy to get the most advantageous position for him and his daughter. On the flip side there are 2 sides to every story. It’s possible the ex SIL was a good guy and driven to divorce because his wife was awful to him. Maybe she mistreated him driving him to divorce and then as president she immediately fired him. Maybe this guy calling in was a total a-hole and mistreated his SIL. That’s all possible… seems rather unlikely though. My impression is that the SIL was cheating, is now with the other woman, still lazy and unemployed and just trying to get his gravy train out of his ex’s family business. If I were a betting man I bet that is what happened. But I’ll concede that it’s totally possible that’s not how it played out. I don’t particularly like Dave though. He’s an evangelical control freak who gets way overly involved in his employee’s lives. He also has very dogmatic ideas and biases that I disagree with. That all being said I think he does have a good program for people struggling with debt. I do think he helps people that need it. But there’s a lot about him I’m not particularly fond of

[@AnaCristinalolinsanches]

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?

[@AnaCristinalolinsanches]

@@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

[@Ja50nkAt]

"Somehow beat him down or beat him up" Dave going mafia style on his azz.

[@joeblack8478]

Ha ha lol

[@juanitachandler8331]

I think you were nice enough based on the circumstances. The ex-son in law should have been nicer. He was simply looking for a pay day. I love the trust idea. Working on mine.

[@janicewolk6492]

I represented a guy who was very wealthy. My husband was a well known business valuation expert. I was a well known tax attorney. Because this was some years ago it was OK to treat women attorneys with disrespect a la Fuentes and Trump (gee...).I had exactly this situation. But businessmen think they know much better than professionals. So smart they screwed themselves. 😊 Have fun men!

[@cristianmota3811]

If it was a women in the position of the ex husband Dave would be on her side…

[@montezuma6962]

There has been a war against men I this country for quite a while. Looks like Dave picked a side.

[@frommyownbackyard3209]

I don't think he would. The ex was cheating.

[@hunterwoodring9783]

Couldn’t be more wrong

[@coderider3022]

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

[@SteveCanon453]

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 .

[@tankthepitbull520]

Dave Ramsey is not a legal expert.

[@SonnyBubba]

You only get salary for working there. A properly prepared K-1 would call this “guaranteed payments for services.”

[@saulgoodman2018]

​@SonnyBubbnot if you are the owner.

[@frommyownbackyard3209]

Because he is not the president.

[@MikeIsCannonFodder]

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.

[@ThomasTomiczek]

Nope. That is the moment you bring in an external party at company cost to come up with a reasonable number of the shareholders do not agree. And have a fiduciary responsibility against other shareholders.

[@ThemommaBear195]

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.

[@pt31601]

I’ve never heard of one state that doesn’t favor the woman and children in divorce law. It is heavily stacked in your favor.

[@kyleanuar9090]

Best interest of the judges and lawyers retirement fund, literally their fund is from percentage of the money they ordered to go here and there maximum amount so they get a big cut. It's really a scam legitimised by the government.

[@paulhathaway5907]

So the courts can't force a buyout ? Like in real estate?

[@shes_infinity6943]

People will listen to anyone with a platform and assume he’s an expert…Unfortunately this advice Ramsey is offering doesn’t work for may reasons. 1.The SIL still has equal say about reinvesting earnings and the daughter paying herself more can be considered self dealing/shareholder oppression/violation of fiduciary duty. 2. Reinvesting earnings may lower CF and valuations in the ST but in the LR it actually increase valuation so this doesn’t lower her buy out cost. He can just choose to sell after 1-2 years still

[@TheOffGridHunter]

Problem is the father in law sold. This guy legit owns 50%. He will be able to force liquidation

[@igo0di]

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

[@Mary.Shannon]

Yup

[@MattD-y2f]

Essentially that’s what the fathers saying. Who know what his side of the story is but most likely he’s a scummy guy

[@jonathangamble]

I'm curious if a Ramsey adopts they would not be part of the inheritance... blood is not always family.

[@zoraster3749]

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.

[@jonathangamble]

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.

[@billwashinski4961]

2:49 Dave’s assumption that the SIL is the cause of the problem? The father isn’t exactly an unbiased source of truth.

[@davinasquirrel7672]

Did you miss the part where the SIL had been having affairs?

[@ThomasTomiczek]

Actually, the father likely is no source of truth at all - but works on hearsay from what his daughter told him. And we all know - believe all women... not.

[@chefjamesmacinnis]

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.

[@MikeIsCannonFodder]

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.

[@edennis8578]

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.

[@ThomasTomiczek]

It cannot. Divorce courts never force even the sale of a house - they force a payout of the value, and as this can be executed, the party that wants to keep the house has to sell (or somehow get the money).

[@rogerhoward1900]

I would like to see dave if he got hit with a divorce what he would do and say😊

[@areynolds1990]

Dave’s going to get this guy a lawsuit.

[@bigcatdaddy7573]

I don’t agree with the son in law’s leaving like this, but I would like to hear his side of the story.

[@Chessdude4]

If they stop paying payments the company reverts to him… as the president, could she stop making payments?

[@jeanlaubenthal698]

How long were they married?

[@Coppolious]

I mean, there's a lot of naughty things we don't know about yet, so we all need to relax and stop judging because the son in law coul potentially have a strong reason why he decided to divorce and second he might have helped the company to be more profitable or innovative, plus we don't need to like him but legally he has the right to ask for his part. The father is just telling his side of the story, despite him been an outsider from their marriage as well as the company because he had inherited them.

[@rachelharrison7961]

Why assume that the ex SIL is at fault? It sounds like he wants a clean break from the marriage AND the company.

[@SonnyBubba]

There are always three sides to every divorce case, his side, her side, and the truth. So far, we have only heard her side.

[@jimmymcgill6778]

Dave be simoing.

[@Mr.Boring_Man]

If it was his daughter in-law making these demands, he'd be ok with this extraction.

[@DominickSpano]

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.

[@LorenzoYoung-sp4rc]

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.

[@ronmexico5908]

The shoes in the other foot. This has been happening to men since the beginning of time

[@pearlbubbles6885]

No, there was a time when women couldn't own land or bank account.

[@TheOffGridHunter]

Problem is Dave if the ex holds on eventually you will have to pay the pied piper and he will potentially get even more

[@ann-mariemeurs952]

Im glad he was able to find a way to make sure the cheating SIL gets nothing.

[@Flare6]

4:46 courts forced husbands to liquidate businesses where the soon to be ex wife never worked in during divorce all the time. Not sure what Dave is acting like that can’t happen. 😂

[@Flare6]

6:36 Dave said it. He is NOT a divorce attorney. He son in-law has a good divorce attorney. This ain’t gonna fly because he is 50% owner.

[@Flare6]

9:57 Dave told his kids not to get a prenup 🤦🏾‍♂️ Even if the in law can’t get the company via the trust in the event of the divorce, they CAN get spousal support, which a prenup could have avoided. 🤦🏾‍♂️ Caller needs to hire a good attorney.

[@Flare6]

12:17 Ex son in law paid for the company as a 50% owner. The daughter fired him from the company. So he’s looking at buyout and spousal support

[@rlkinnard]

It i hard to srew a 50% partner.

[@PantzShidded]

I'm confused at how he would even own $1 million worth of the company if it's in the process of being purchased from her dad doesn't his half get based off of 50% of what they've paid for up to that point?

[@dawnr6381]

I’m curious what caused them to get divorced.

[@pentrubarbati]

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 ...

[@andrew8168]

Yeah you're watching Ramsey.

[@e.goldstein1972]

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.

[@micclay]

Exactly. The daughter and the son and law could be playing long game to scam the dad.

[@micclay]

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.

[@edennis8578]

50% isn't controlling interest when someone else also owns 50%.

[@e.goldstein1972]

@@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.

[@zachwarren280]

Tell the caller to secure his goddamn dentures or put down the jar of peanut butter or both.

[@billwashinski4961]

3:43 It’s divorce court Dave. Every attorney representing women fits this description

[@growwiththeflow.]

But if they haven't paid off the amount of the business, then they don't have a "pink slip" or proof of ownership.

[@PN-ve9lf]

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.

[@cesargonzalez3247]

What about Alimony? She won’t have to pay him any alimony?

[@edennis8578]

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.

[@cesargonzalez3247]

@@edennis8578 what state you from

[@albertomarin2199]

Life is hard. No doubt. A man has to do what a man has to do

[@IzabellaRequiem]

gold digger

[@teselectric7662]

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

[@cutehumor]

Dave, you mean after you die, your son-in-law won't be pimpin on a yacht in a 10k square foot mansion damn

[@OopThereItIs77777]

They have a prenup. He gets nothing if they divorce

[@yu-sl7vb]

I'm sure this guy's lawyer got wind of this call and illegal advice

[@mck2021]

Isn't the issue that the business is not the caller's anymore, it is his daughter and the son-in-law's? The son-in-law is a piece of work though.

[@Ryan-zv6xw]

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?

[@motoryzen]

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.

[@JoeMattitas]

Dave is ignoring the future potential litigation and jumping to the conclusion that the SIL has no money. Sounds like he has access to 50% of $2.5 million in profits annually

[@angiewalker3881]

This man was dumb and should have looked after his daughter better and trained her up to be the primary owner.

[@hominem3731]

I love that Mr. Ramsey wants all the smoke and trouble 😂.

[@rogerhoward1900]

Try that in the real world

[@israelrivers8280]

Man this call woke up the Papa Bear 🐻 in Dave. ❤

[@MrBeats44]

Let’s not pretend that the Wife is 100% innocent in the failed Marriage

[@JoeJoe-tg3ed]

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?

[@joemallette4729]

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.

[@butchthurman4685]

From listening to Dave a bit. He willing to scrw the men more than the women.

[@micclay]

How do we know daughter and son and law aint playing long game to scam the dad?

[@swannyriver75]

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

[@cutehumor]

8:22 Dave is all about nepotism "only Ramsey blood can own the company" Ramsey nepobabies

[@ThomasTomiczek]

Bad advice left and right. First, he has RIGHT to be on board decisions, with 50% of the votes. Second, as President she has a fiducary duty towards ALL shareholders. In many jurisdictions what Gordon here suggests allows him to make a case she is acting in bad faith - and then vote to liquidate her shares at book value WITHOUT HER VOTING (as the accused party). Then, if not that, he can put the half of the company on the market. She may have a right of first purchase, but that now triggers the buying. And finally, he has no right to force her to sell - he DOES NOT HAVE TO. Divorce courts can be tricky on that.

[@d.b.4910]

Couldn’t the son-in-law sell his half to someone else?

[@thatsmrblundell]

Is she still single?

[@tell_em1522]

Lol right, cause you want a cut too!!! I don't blame you... screw love, ALWAYS protect your money! I don't know how her father even went for that nonsense.

[@filleeepehtehhehduh4050]

What did the daughter do? That’s the question

[@matthewfournier6478]

Why is this not her problem??

[@brandymeidl7126]

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.

[@jimmymcgill6778]

So Dave is telling him how to embezzle money? See how that works in a court?

[@zookini]

Clearly Dave has no idea how divorce court works

[@saulgoodman2018]

Or the law.

[@edennis8578]

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.

[@steve-on3234]

None of this Dave strategy will work legally.

[@WISHBONEL7]

If the genders were reversed , and the guys son was in the same situation , would Dave be reacting the same way ???? .