50/50 split of assets with SAHM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys keep suggesting the SAHP needs to justify the value of their work, but they don’t. It’s more like having 50% equity in a company that’s being liquidated. It doesn’t matter if you did anything to contribute to the increase in value.

It’s totally fine to reject that and structure something different but you have to do that BEFORE you get married.

Lol you think the secretary gets the same as the CEO when liquidating a company.

Yes dumbass, if they each own 50% of the stock, she does.

They don’t own = stock, they own equitable stock.

[Anonymous]

If he’s been married 20 years, then this guy is in his late forties or early fifties. His income right now is probably the highest it will ever be. If alimony based on his income is not as important as half of the assets that they saved together, then they probably saved pretty aggressively and made some good investment decisions.
Yeah. She gets half of the money they saved together during their marriage.

[Anonymous]

I’m not sure the wife being a SAHM has much to do with it, in terms of splitting assets. Presumably the OP has a very high paying career. Even if the wife had a lower paying career (teacher, for example) and worked FT throughout the marriage- realistically, OP earned the bulk of the family income and the situation wouldn’t be much different. Spouses are rarely going to earn the same amount- it isn’t unusual for there to be a large gap in salaries.

But yes- marital assets are almost split 50/50. Pretty common knowledge.

If alimony is on the table, it likely would’ve been if the wife was in a lower paying field as well. Also this certainly isn’t gender based - my friend had to pay alimony to her lower earning ex DH for quite some time after divorcing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of crazy lazy women posting.

Of course a SAHM did not contribute to the success of OP and should not get 1/2, that’s insane.

It is true that raising kids does not entitle someone to 5 million dollars but you don’t think SAHMs who take care of their husbands’ children contribute to their success? At all? Do you think that if an especially lazy SAHM did nothing and the working spouse still had to do all the diapers, cooking, housekeeping, getting kids off to school, etc, in addition to working, his career wouldn’t be impacted at all?

Not that it matters because a marriage is a contract like any other and has financial implications, but its so weird to me that someone can say with their whole chest that a the work of a SAHM contributes nothing to the career of h

Yes I think his career would not be impacted.

SAHMs act like their agreement is a sacrifice when it was a gift.

Bfd, the SAHM coordinated the cleaners and tutors.

I suspect that by the time my oldest is 17, DH and I will have a joint net worth of 10M. When we were looking at our options when thinking about kids, we looked at two options: we both get low-key, lower-paying jobs, or I become a SAHM. Had we not gone the SAHM route our assets would be significantly lower. This is a pretty common turn of events. It doesn’t mean that men whose wives SAHM are incapable of earning what they do if they had to take care of all the things a SAHM takes care of (although for some that definitely is true). It does mean that in cases like ours, the couple’s net worth is as high as it is only because one party stayed at home, since that is the choice they made.

also it sounds like you are getting your information about SAHMs married to successful men from TV. Or maybe you just know a lot of losers. DH is a big law partner and the spouses of his colleagues who SAH are all extremely hardworking.

Cool story bro.

No I know lots of very successful people and the fact you think every SAHM has the same value is insane.

Also you were given a gift of not working. It’s not a sacrifice. Working hard is a sacrifice.

I’m sad your H missed precious hours with his children so you could have your way. I think those lost hours are worth money and you should pay him for time lost, health impact of long hours and you generally using him for money.

See there are many sides to a coin.

Are you having fun over there spinning yourself into knots to avoid the prospect that you might be wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys keep suggesting the SAHP needs to justify the value of their work, but they don’t. It’s more like having 50% equity in a company that’s being liquidated. It doesn’t matter if you did anything to contribute to the increase in value.

It’s totally fine to reject that and structure something different but you have to do that BEFORE you get married.

Lol you think the secretary gets the same as the CEO when liquidating a company.

Oof. You think a SAHM is to her husband as a secretary is to a CEO? Is this the 1950s?

They could be, they could be like an intern, they could be like the cleaning lady, they could be like the office manager, or the accountant …, but they are not the CEO.

Physician here. Being the person who actually brings in money does not make you the CEO.

What do you do for a living, pp?

[Anonymous]

I am guy and think that’s fair. When spouse decided to stay home I wanted her to have some sense of security and gave her an 80/20 (80 her) post nup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of crazy lazy women posting.

Of course a SAHM did not contribute to the success of OP and should not get 1/2, that’s insane.

It is true that raising kids does not entitle someone to 5 million dollars but you don’t think SAHMs who take care of their husbands’ children contribute to their success? At all? Do you think that if an especially lazy SAHM did nothing and the working spouse still had to do all the diapers, cooking, housekeeping, getting kids off to school, etc, in addition to working, his career wouldn’t be impacted at all?

Not that it matters because a marriage is a contract like any other and has financial implications, but its so weird to me that someone can say with their whole chest that a the work of a SAHM contributes nothing to the career of h

Yes I think his career would not be impacted.

SAHMs act like their agreement is a sacrifice when it was a gift.

Bfd, the SAHM coordinated the cleaners and tutors.

I suspect that by the time my oldest is 17, DH and I will have a joint net worth of 10M. When we were looking at our options when thinking about kids, we looked at two options: we both get low-key, lower-paying jobs, or I become a SAHM. Had we not gone the SAHM route our assets would be significantly lower. This is a pretty common turn of events. It doesn’t mean that men whose wives SAHM are incapable of earning what they do if they had to take care of all the things a SAHM takes care of (although for some that definitely is true). It does mean that in cases like ours, the couple’s net worth is as high as it is only because one party stayed at home, since that is the choice they made.

also it sounds like you are getting your information about SAHMs married to successful men from TV. Or maybe you just know a lot of losers. DH is a big law partner and the spouses of his colleagues who SAH are all extremely hardworking.

Cool story bro.

No I know lots of very successful people and the fact you think every SAHM has the same value is insane.

Also you were given a gift of not working. It’s not a sacrifice. Working hard is a sacrifice.

I’m sad your H missed precious hours with his children so you could have your way. I think those lost hours are worth money and you should pay him for time lost, health impact of long hours and you generally using him for money.

See there are many sides to a coin.

Are you having fun over there spinning yourself into knots to avoid the prospect that you might be wrong?

The reality is as more loser husbands start getting denied 50-50, so the same will happen with women who don’t contribute equally.

[Anonymous]

It just continues not to matter what is “fair” or how much being a SAHP is worth or any of that. The terms are the terms when you sign the contract. If you don’t like it, don’t sign up.

[Anonymous]

I’d be curious what OP and his wife’s careers and income levels were before the marriage. My guess is he married a lower earning woman in the first place (while being high earning himself)- which is fine but surely this income split was pretty predictable.

Also, if they have be been married for 17yrs surely OP bought into (in day to day practice, if not in theory) having his wife SAH or they would’ve divorced long ago. Having a spouse at home for so many years is a fairly big deal and something both partners need to be on board with.

[Anonymous]

Her unpaid labor enabled you to make that income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys keep suggesting the SAHP needs to justify the value of their work, but they don’t. It’s more like having 50% equity in a company that’s being liquidated. It doesn’t matter if you did anything to contribute to the increase in value.

It’s totally fine to reject that and structure something different but you have to do that BEFORE you get married.

This is a great way to think about it. It boggles the mind how so many men can earn such high salaries and yet act like it’s a total surprise to learn that marriage is first and foremost a legal/financial arrangement.

And SAHM or not, women take the bulk of the “risk” in this partnership at the front end (bearing the man’s children and potentially giving, for lack of a better word, all of their childbearing years to this person).

[Anonymous]

Of course it is fair, and this is pretty much always how divorce works (and that was largely true at the time of your marriage as well- this is not a change).

[Anonymous]

I’m the husband in this scenario (not quite $10mm). Without a doubt, my wife wanting to SAH was a monster positive to my career and we don’t get anywhere to this close without her doing what she’s done.

The guys that I’m close to in a similar position would say the same.

Yes, she gets half.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you’re not in a community property state, it’s very unlikely she’ll get 50% anyway. Those states do take into account who made the money and they don’t reward layabouts.

She might not get anything.

You’re awful for calling someone who bothered to raise her own children a “layabout”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you think this is fair in cases where the husband made all the money and the wife stayed home with the kids? Net worth of around 10 million, 3 kids who are grown or teens, 20 year marriage.

Wife is fighting for a 50% split plus alimony. Hasn’t worked in over 17 years.

She’s not getting alimony but I don’t think she should get 50% of the money. Maybe 10-20% so she is not destitute but even that is generous.

Let's play "Spot the contradiction."