How would you divide the money in this divorce scenario?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP started this thread as a decent person.... after listening to DCUM bitter women, OP will leave as a different person.

She started this thread as a decent person who was about to be divorced and homeless...

She could always, you know, honor her vows and not abandon her husband.

[Anonymous]

People are overcomplicating a simple issue. This is easy.

1. Marital property is split 50/50 or equitably.
2. Premarital property remains separate unless comingled but the burden of proof is in the party arguing that any property is seperate to prove it.
3. Inheritances that have been received are separate property unless commingled.
4. Inheritances that have not been received don’t exist. They are irrelevant because they have no value.

Divide the assets accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP started this thread as a decent person.... after listening to DCUM bitter women, OP will leave as a different person.

She started this thread as a decent person who was about to be divorced and homeless...

She could always, you know, honor her vows and not abandon her husband.

Back to this question: OP, why are you leaving this guy? You seem to like him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"It’s not that straightforward and I have no doubt that in a marriage this long the commingling of assets would easily unwind this argument."

In that case, the general rule that she'll get an inheritance that would be considered non marital property should be disregarded. If he comingled, which benefits her, than she needs to reciprocate by including the reality that her inheritance would have benefitted both of them in retirement, had they remained married.

Uh no. You need to stop giving bitter divorced man advice, because it’s incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"It’s not that straightforward and I have no doubt that in a marriage this long the commingling of assets would easily unwind this argument."

In that case, the general rule that she'll get an inheritance that would be considered non marital property should be disregarded. If he comingled, which benefits her, than she needs to reciprocate by including the reality that her inheritance would have benefitted both of them in retirement, had they remained married.

Uh no. You need to stop giving bitter divorced man advice, because it’s incorrect.

OP’s husband chose to marry a 30-something woman and have a child with her in his 50s. That choice came with life-altering consequences to provide for his child and split assets with his wife. Bitter, divorced men who knock up younger women as they are nearing retirement are so dumb. Now he gets to lie in the bed he made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Half his retirement fund, half the joint account, plus alimony since you're not working and child support for your child. Did he not think he was going to split retirement with you when you got married? Without a pre-nup, you should assume he intended for you to have half of any money he came in with.

OP here - a few more details:
1. We did have a prenup that stated we would each take out what we brought in, and divide whatever we earned during the marriage. It expired after 5 years.
2. I am initiating the divorce, due to his behavior, but he has never been unfaithful or dishonest, not that it necessarily matters.
3. I really do not want to leave him in the lurch, but maybe that's my guilt talking.

How much were in the accounts when you married?

DP
It doesn’t matter because of compounding interest. She entitled to half of everything including his retirement. The prenump won’t count. Don’t worry about leaving him in a lurch - he’s not worried about you not getting a fair deal. He thinks you are too stupid to ask for what is rightfully yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Half his retirement fund, half the joint account, plus alimony since you're not working and child support for your child. Did he not think he was going to split retirement with you when you got married? Without a pre-nup, you should assume he intended for you to have half of any money he came in with.

OP here - a few more details:
1. We did have a prenup that stated we would each take out what we brought in, and divide whatever we earned during the marriage. It expired after 5 years.
2. I am initiating the divorce, due to his behavior, but he has never been unfaithful or dishonest, not that it necessarily matters.
3. I really do not want to leave him in the lurch, but maybe that's my guilt talking.

How much were in the accounts when you married?

DP
It doesn’t matter because of compounding interest. She entitled to half of everything including his retirement. The prenump won’t count. Don’t worry about leaving him in a lurch - he’s not worried about you not getting a fair deal. He thinks you are too stupid to ask for what is rightfully yours.

Or too weak. OP, you're mom. Your so. To soon be ex is old and might not be around much longer. You gotta put yourself first in a divorce so you can provide for your child. Whatever he gets will be lost to the private equity fund that owns the assisted living he’ll end up in, probably even before your child gets to college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you've gotten some good math here, but I do agree that a consult with a lawyer might be good to give you a realistic idea of what the law would say.

So then you have a better idea, and you can go to him with a range of options. Here's what the law says, but what if we did X, or shifted from X to Y, or balanced things this way or that way?

I'd also think through very carefully what you expect to need. Depending on your state, college costs may be on or off the table (in terms of child suport). Given expected inheritance, are you willing to forego some of his retirement for maybe a lump sum put into college costs? Given his age, and you not working, how were those costs going to be covered?

It may be given his anxiety around retirement, that you could lay out scenarios that protect his retirement but give you other things of equal weight. Given his age, he must be concerned about being forced to work longer. His retirement is not large and there are teenage costs looming - college for one but also maybe a car, or even the travel to visit college options, higher expenses for high school, etc.

What about the house or other marital property?

Do not, under any circumstances, make any life decisions based on an "expected inheritance"! That inheritance can very quickly get eaten up in long-term care. It is just straight-up dumb to live your life based on a contingency you don't control.

This is a good point. Taking less in a divorce because of an expected inheritance is idiotic.

+1.

OP, this divorce is a financial disaster. You are both broke. How bad is the marriage?

By what standards are we broke? We're not Rockefellers but I know people who are broke, and we have a lot more than they do.

You have 2M in assets, most of which has not yet been taxed, no jobs in your 60s and 50s, and a kid who is not yet in college. Now you are about to have 2 households. Are both of you going to pay rent/mortgages? Or do you have paid off houses?

Don't count on the inheritance as a lot of things can change between now and when it materialized.

OP here. Our kid has a healthy 529 plan. I will be living with a family member, so no new living expenses for me, and I will be paid for the caregiving I provide to that relative. And I will go back to work at least part-time.

Make sure you have a solid legal caregiving contract in place with your relative. This will avoid any issues with beneficiaries (if applicable) who could claim that your arrangement was in exchange for housing. You also may want to move in with your relative and begin caregiving prior to finalizing your divorce to make certain the arrangement will work for you and your child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Don’t walk away with less than 50% as it’s very hard for a woman in her 50s to rebuild wealth."

The husband is significantly older than the wife here. She has many more working years ahead of her to build a retirement fund, whereas he has practically none. Plus, he's worked every year they've been married while she didn't.

His age is irrelevant. We can flip the same argument and say that he should have built 70% of his retirement by the time he was 50 and married OP. So OP getting 50% of what was added to it after marriage still should leave him with a good chunk of his retirement.
If he wanted to be square and equal in division of assets, he should have married a woman of exactly same financial standing, and avoided having kids that late in life (which comes with financial obligations for life)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You sound like a decent person. He is old and will probably have some health problems. He will need that retirement money to live. I would leave retirement and split the other money in half. Then just split the kid costs.

You are relatively still young and will date again. Sounds like you are from a well off family. Just divorce amicably. No drama and no fighting about money will be good for your child. S/he will likely have to care for the elderly father one day.

Yeah, because the dating market is just bustling for 50 y/os. She's not far from retirement herself and should look out for herself.

DCUM claims that older women are more attractive than younger women. They get more dates and have no problems attracting plenty of hot young men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People are overcomplicating a simple issue. This is easy.

1. Marital property is split 50/50 or equitably.
2. Premarital property remains separate unless comingled but the burden of proof is in the party arguing that any property is seperate to prove it.
3. Inheritances that have been received are separate property unless commingled.
4. Inheritances that have not been received don’t exist. They are irrelevant because they have no value.

Divide the assets accordingly.

Agreed.

Lawyers will tell you to go after what you are entitled to under the law, because that’s their job. The law, however, is not designed to preserve goodwill or promote amicability. So, if you are in the rare case where you both want to be decent people, then you will need to resist the temptation to go after what you “could” get.

Still, you should picture how you would feel if you settled like this and then he turned into an a*hole the next day. Would you feel cheated or would you still feel like you came out OK with what was fair? It is a useful thought experiment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are overcomplicating a simple issue. This is easy.

1. Marital property is split 50/50 or equitably.
2. Premarital property remains separate unless comingled but the burden of proof is in the party arguing that any property is seperate to prove it.
3. Inheritances that have been received are separate property unless commingled.
4. Inheritances that have not been received don’t exist. They are irrelevant because they have no value.

Divide the assets accordingly.

Agreed.

Lawyers will tell you to go after what you are entitled to under the law, because that’s their job. The law, however, is not designed to preserve goodwill or promote amicability. So, if you are in the rare case where you both want to be decent people, then you will need to resist the temptation to go after what you “could” get.

Still, you should picture how you would feel if you settled like this and then he turned into an a*hole the next day. Would you feel cheated or would you still feel like you came out OK with what was fair? It is a useful thought experiment.

It’s not about going after and getting something, it’s about keeping her share of what is already hers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Half his retirement fund, half the joint account, plus alimony since you're not working and child support for your child. Did he not think he was going to split retirement with you when you got married? Without a pre-nup, you should assume he intended for you to have half of any money he came in with.

She's not entitled to half his retirement when they didn't even get married until he was past 50 and had already saved most of it. Get real.

Marriage is a merging of two poeple in ot one -- that includes assets according to the laws of the relevant state. If he didn't feel that way, he shouldn't have gotten married and had a child, or should have had a differnet prenup - he wasn't a child groom after all.

That’s not how the law works.

Money is earned before the marriage is not considered marital assets.

The law does not believe you are emerging two people.

The law believes that while you’re married, whatever happens financially during the marriage is half the responsibility of one spouse and half the responsibility of the other spells, even if it’s Debt.

If you come into a marriage with student loans and get divorced, your spouse is not responsible for your student loans.

If you come into the marriage with money and get divorced, your spouse is not entitled to that money

Again, this is not accurate and OP needs to really get an attorney now who understands how her jurisdiction handles premarital assets and commingling. It is NOT black and white and these kinds of comments are going to lead OP into a situation that causes her to not exert her legal rights.

No, if she follows your opinion, which is not a fact, she’s just gonna look like a gold digger trying to go after money that isn’t legal hers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Half his retirement fund, half the joint account, plus alimony since you're not working and child support for your child. Did he not think he was going to split retirement with you when you got married? Without a pre-nup, you should assume he intended for you to have half of any money he came in with.

She's not entitled to half his retirement when they didn't even get married until he was past 50 and had already saved most of it. Get real.

Marriage is a merging of two poeple in ot one -- that includes assets according to the laws of the relevant state. If he didn't feel that way, he shouldn't have gotten married and had a child, or should have had a differnet prenup - he wasn't a child groom after all.

That’s not how the law works.

Money is earned before the marriage is not considered marital assets.

The law does not believe you are emerging two people.

The law believes that while you’re married, whatever happens financially during the marriage is half the responsibility of one spouse and half the responsibility of the other spells, even if it’s Debt.

If you come into a marriage with student loans and get divorced, your spouse is not responsible for your student loans.

If you come into the marriage with money and get divorced, your spouse is not entitled to that money

Again, this is not accurate and OP needs to really get an attorney now who understands how her jurisdiction handles premarital assets and commingling. It is NOT black and white and these kinds of comments are going to lead OP into a situation that causes her to not exert her legal rights.

No, if she follows your opinion, which is not a fact, she’s just gonna look like a gold digger trying to go after money that isn’t legal hers.

She shouldn’t care if incel internet trolls call her a gold digger; she should care about providing for her kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People are overcomplicating a simple issue. This is easy.

1. Marital property is split 50/50 or equitably.
2. Premarital property remains separate unless comingled but the burden of proof is in the party arguing that any property is seperate to prove it.
3. Inheritances that have been received are separate property unless commingled.
4. Inheritances that have not been received don’t exist. They are irrelevant because they have no value.

Divide the assets accordingly.

Thank you person with a basic understanding of the law for chiming in. This thread was making me crazy. Op, read this post!