What is Just Compensation for a "Life Lost"?

[Anonymous]

I am not sure of the legalities of your state divorce laws, but since you have been married to your husband for I am assuming more than a decade, then you should be entitled to more than 3 yrs of alimony payments. I think it is up to a judge in divorce court rather than your husband who gets what + how much + for how long. Ultimately, the final say is done in a court of law.

If your divorce attorney disagrees, I would try to find another one who seems to be more pro-active for YOU.

[Anonymous]

To me, a trailing spouse decided that was the life they were willing to live. I suggest everyone sign prenups that explicitly lay out what is agreeably fair in such situations. My cousin is a military wife. They move often. Her career is not going to develop at that rate. His compensation is that he bought a piece of land in her home state. Its in her name, fully paid off, and its her insurance policy in case the marriage fails.

[Anonymous]

It sounds ok on the surface IMO. If you aren't comfortable with it get another legal opinion. What about financial disclosure...any chance your STBX is hiding millions or something, and that's why he is making this seemingly good offer to you? Unless that's the case, you are off base and it's a good offer, and "loss of life" is a very poor choice of words. Good luck to you.

[Anonymous]

He is being more than reasonable and I would accept.

[Anonymous]

In Fairfax county, which has a standard formula (according to my lawyer), you would get nothing.

[Anonymous]

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

As for the trailing spouse bit, I played that part for a few years before we decided to settle down and I certainly took a career hit while DH advanced far beyond what we expected. But whenever an opportunity arose, we had extensive talks and weighed out the pros and cons of moving. I could never claim DH forced me to do it or DH caused my career hit because I was just as big of a player in accepting it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

As for the trailing spouse bit, I played that part for a few years before we decided to settle down and I certainly took a career hit while DH advanced far beyond what we expected. But whenever an opportunity arose, we had extensive talks and weighed out the pros and cons of moving. I could never claim DH forced me to do it or DH caused my career hit because I was just as big of a player in accepting it.

I think the OP needs to take a lesson from this PP. She married her DH, she agreed to be the trailing spouse when she got on that plane and she needs to live with and accept the consequences of her decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. Do you trust your lawyer?

This is the crux of the question. How about a second opinion from another lawyer, if you don't trust the one you have?

Does he get the second property free and clear after three years, whereas you get half of the primary property? And you might want to take a second look at that retirement.

But really what you need is a lawyer you have confidence in.

[Anonymous]

I never understand when educated women want the former man in their life to pay for the rest of their lives because things didn't work out.
What he is offering is half. Why do you need more? Spite?
Most careers are not so location based that moving should affect your income by half. Because you earn 3/5 of what you STBX does may not be due to your "trailing" and everything due to your career choice and skill set. When we relocated for DH's job, I was actually offered more money to work remotely - from my previous employer's competition. Good people are always in demand.
3 years payout is more than reasonable to allow you to get on your feet, gain some "time equity" at your company and get your own credit established.

I guess I would rather be on. My own feet, rather than feeding into bitterness over money for a relationship that just didn't work out.

[Anonymous]

-No court in Fairfax will award you long-term support.

[Anonymous]

To play devil's advocate: OP detrimentally relied on DH's promise of lifetime commitment. To give her the benefit of the bargain, so to speak, she is entitled to:

(1) the present value of half her husband's future earnings until retirement plus his retirement until his actuarial life expectancy

less:

(2) half of the present value of her projected income until retirement plus her retirement until his actuarial life expectancy (assuming he has a lower life expectancy).

plus:

(3) half of their current net assets less half of their current net debts.

It sounds like the current offer is (3) plus 1/3 of the mortgage for three years and whatever she's legally entitled to from his retirement. From a contract perspective that sounds like not enough. I don't know what she's "legally entitled to" from his retirement, but that seems like the biggest hole. The present value of a retirement account is the value projected to retirement age and then discounted to present value. She's entitled to half of that.

Below I've pasted some info I found on the internet:

[Anonymous]

Here's the Fairfax Co. formula, which the internet says is the standard for nova:

Where child support is not involved:

30% of gross income of spouse with greater income (in calculating gross income; "reasonable business expenses," are deducted, for the self-employed; military spouses should note that their present non-taxable benefits are included in gross income calculations -- i.e., "BAQ, "VHA," "subsistence" allowances, etc.)

minus

50% of gross income of spouse with lesser income.

Where child support is involved:

28% of payor's gross income

less

58% of payee's gross income.

[Anonymous]

Shouldn't you total up retirement and split it down the middle? Same with the houses? Find a good lawyer you trust and demand what is legally yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To play devil's advocate: OP detrimentally relied on DH's promise of lifetime commitment. To give her the benefit of the bargain, so to speak, she is entitled to:

(1) the present value of half her husband's future earnings until retirement plus his retirement until his actuarial life expectancy

less:

(2) half of the present value of her projected income until retirement plus her retirement until his actuarial life expectancy (assuming he has a lower life expectancy).

plus:

(3) half of their current net assets less half of their current net debts.

It sounds like the current offer is (3) plus 1/3 of the mortgage for three years and whatever she's legally entitled to from his retirement. From a contract perspective that sounds like not enough. I don't know what she's "legally entitled to" from his retirement, but that seems like the biggest hole. The present value of a retirement account is the value projected to retirement age and then discounted to present value. She's entitled to half of that.

Below I've pasted some info I found on the internet:

And if she remarres? As to the half the present value of his retirement AS OF THE DATE OF SEPARATION - no value of future earnings. If she remarries, she doesn't need any long term support and should not get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To play devil's advocate: OP detrimentally relied on DH's promise of lifetime commitment. To give her the benefit of the bargain, so to speak, she is entitled to:

(1) the present value of half her husband's future earnings until retirement plus his retirement until his actuarial life expectancy

less:

(2) half of the present value of her projected income until retirement plus her retirement until his actuarial life expectancy (assuming he has a lower life expectancy).

plus:

(3) half of their current net assets less half of their current net debts.

It sounds like the current offer is (3) plus 1/3 of the mortgage for three years and whatever she's legally entitled to from his retirement. From a contract perspective that sounds like not enough. I don't know what she's "legally entitled to" from his retirement, but that seems like the biggest hole. The present value of a retirement account is the value projected to retirement age and then discounted to present value. She's entitled to half of that.

Below I've pasted some info I found on the internet:

I agree with this analysis and with the OP's sense that she should get alimony for more than three years based on having put her career second to support her husband's career. Yes, she chose to do that. However, she chose to do that in reliance on her reasonable expectation that marriage is a lifelong commitment. Conceptually, the professional opportunities that DH was able to exploit as a result of her willingness to move around and presumably do more at home (to enable him to do what he needed to do to fast track at work) should be considered a joint investment in his future earnings. She subsidized his career growth, so she should share in the long-term rewards.