Cheating wife

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In MD the wife will be required to move out.

Only if you can prove adultery

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people cannot agree about who gets to stay in the house, the way that it usually works is that they put the house up for sale and split the selling price. Everyone moves somewhere else. If they can agree, the person who stays often buys the person who leaves out of the house.

This. It always amazes me how there's this belief that somehow the person who cheated or just wanted the divorce (for any reason) is supposed to be punished or threatened with a huge financial loss - mostly I suspect as a way of keeping them from leaving an unwilling dumpee. Sure, the courts will make sure nobody gets left destitute and that children are properly supported (which may include getting the house), but that's done for the children - not as a consolation prize for the person being left.

The way it works is: the marriage is over, the joint assets get divvied up and you go on your way. It is extraordinarily rare anymore for anyone to be awarded a consolation prize of all the joint assets. That's a Victorian fantasy.

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I feel that if she wants to leave the marriage, she should leave the marriage, but I can understand why she doesn't want to do that. It's a pretty sweet set up, getting everything you want and none of the inconvenience.

Re-read the original posting..she does want to leave the marriage.

The woman having the affair should insist on a divorce and get a PSA drawn up with a lawyer. She can force things along by filing while she is still living with him. If she's got a lick of sense, she will stop seeing the AP lest her hubby decide to hire a PI and photograph them in Flagrante Delicto.

Similarly, why should the person who didn't cheat get screwed over financially. Just because you share time together shouldn't mean you get 50% of assets.

[Anonymous]

She should move out.
She's found this new love? Great she should go be with him.

No way the kids should be forced out of the only home they have known because mommy is a slut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people cannot agree about who gets to stay in the house, the way that it usually works is that they put the house up for sale and split the selling price. Everyone moves somewhere else. If they can agree, the person who stays often buys the person who leaves out of the house.

This. It always amazes me how there's this belief that somehow the person who cheated or just wanted the divorce (for any reason) is supposed to be punished or threatened with a huge financial loss - mostly I suspect as a way of keeping them from leaving an unwilling dumpee. Sure, the courts will make sure nobody gets left destitute and that children are properly supported (which may include getting the house), but that's done for the children - not as a consolation prize for the person being left.

The way it works is: the marriage is over, the joint assets get divvied up and you go on your way. It is extraordinarily rare anymore for anyone to be awarded a consolation prize of all the joint assets. That's a Victorian fantasy.

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I feel that if she wants to leave the marriage, she should leave the marriage, but I can understand why she doesn't want to do that. It's a pretty sweet set up, getting everything you want and none of the inconvenience.

Re-read the original posting..she does want to leave the marriage.

The woman having the affair should insist on a divorce and get a PSA drawn up with a lawyer. She can force things along by filing while she is still living with him. If she's got a lick of sense, she will stop seeing the AP lest her hubby decide to hire a PI and photograph them in Flagrante Delicto.

Similarly, why should the person who didn't cheat get screwed over financially. Just because you share time together shouldn't mean you get 50% of assets.

Assuming both people contributed more or less equally to the shared assets, why is anything other than a 50/50 split in order? Who is getting screwed over financially in a 50/50 split. BTW - I think SAH with kids or not is definitely a form of contributing that counts every bit as much as financial contributions. The courts recognize that your entitled to the life you've reasonably become accustomed to, but you are not entitled to punitive damages, unless it's a for-cause divorce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people cannot agree about who gets to stay in the house, the way that it usually works is that they put the house up for sale and split the selling price. Everyone moves somewhere else. If they can agree, the person who stays often buys the person who leaves out of the house.

This. It always amazes me how there's this belief that somehow the person who cheated or just wanted the divorce (for any reason) is supposed to be punished or threatened with a huge financial loss - mostly I suspect as a way of keeping them from leaving an unwilling dumpee. Sure, the courts will make sure nobody gets left destitute and that children are properly supported (which may include getting the house), but that's done for the children - not as a consolation prize for the person being left.

The way it works is: the marriage is over, the joint assets get divvied up and you go on your way. It is extraordinarily rare anymore for anyone to be awarded a consolation prize of all the joint assets. That's a Victorian fantasy.

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I feel that if she wants to leave the marriage, she should leave the marriage, but I can understand why she doesn't want to do that. It's a pretty sweet set up, getting everything you want and none of the inconvenience.

Re-read the original posting..she does want to leave the marriage.

The woman having the affair should insist on a divorce and get a PSA drawn up with a lawyer. She can force things along by filing while she is still living with him. If she's got a lick of sense, she will stop seeing the AP lest her hubby decide to hire a PI and photograph them in Flagrante Delicto.

Similarly, why should the person who didn't cheat get screwed over financially. Just because you share time together shouldn't mean you get 50% of assets.

Yeah, but if it's a joint asset, it's held jointly. Obviously it varies state by state, but the division of assets is something that protects everyone in the divorce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to get into a lot of details here, but a friend of mine has cheated on her husband for over a year and they are headed to a divorce. Should she be the one to move out of the house?
In this case, the husband is still willing to work on the marriage, but the wife refuses to and is insistent on the divorce. He doesn't want her to leave, or for him to leave.
She is still seeing her lover when her husband is at work, it seems like she wants to pursue this relationship instead of save her family.
The husband is also way more involved in their kid's lives and I think this would suffer is he is forced out.

Thoughts?

It should be about what's best for the kids, not about who cheated (is cheating) on whom.

That ship has sailed. What's best for the kids are parents who don't cheat on each other. I mean, there could be factors that tip the balance back in favor of them remaining with the cheating spouse, but the default assumption should be that the kids are better off staying in their own homes with the parent who honors his or her commitments.

[Anonymous]

Haha "friend"

[Anonymous]

"friend" should talk to her divorce attorney about what make sense for pursuing the divorce. current situation is not going to last and is going to make her look bad in the battles to come. and you make it sound like dad needs to cut his losses here and figure out how to make divorce work.

if he is more of a caregiver anyway, it probably makes the most sense for the kids for mom to move out for now. i suppose a lawyer might advise her not to do so, to fight for her custody and house-share. but it doesn't sound like that is what's best for the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: If people cannot agree about who gets to stay in the house, the way that it usually works is that they put the house up for sale and split the selling price. Everyone moves somewhere else. If they can agree, the person who stays often buys the person who leaves out of the house.

This. It always amazes me how there's this belief that somehow the person who cheated or just wanted the divorce (for any reason) is supposed to be punished or threatened with a huge financial loss - mostly I suspect as a way of keeping them from leaving an unwilling dumpee. Sure, the courts will make sure nobody gets left destitute and that children are properly supported (which may include getting the house), but that's done for the children - not as a consolation prize for the person being left.

The way it works is: the marriage is over, the joint assets get divvied up and you go on your way. It is extraordinarily rare anymore for anyone to be awarded a consolation prize of all the joint assets. That's a Victorian fantasy.

A fantasy sure, but hardly a Victorian one. Most divorces were granted for incurable insanity or a wife's adultery. Women couldn't really file for divorce and had no expectation of either alimony or even getting their dowries returned if there was no pre-nuptial contract. In contrast, fathers almost always got full custody but they didn't get CS either.

Maybe it's a 1960s fantasy.

[Anonymous]

Can cheaters be the better parent? Sure, but it depends on the criteria. My dad (cheater) was more affectionate and more encouraging of my interests and dreams. But he spent his income on other women and eventually on a secret second family. My mother was distant and discouraging, but she almost worked herself into an early grave trying to make ends meet for her kids and rarely spent anything on herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are you posting about someone else's business on this forum?

Hahaaaa. I gues if it is in the third party it isn't you.

[Anonymous]

Considering there are kids living in the home and that their father is more actively engaged in their lives, ideally the mother should leave.

That is what she probably wants so she can go off and canoodle with her lover boy.

[Anonymous]

Cheating spouse who wants end to marriage leaves. It's how it's done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cheating spouse who wants end to marriage leaves. It's how it's done.

+1. Not that fairness is a quality that a cheating spouse values at all, but it seems only fair that the person who cheats is the one that moves out. THe cheater has already screwed the spouse over emotionally, why continue screwing jim/her over by trying to force the victim spouse out of the home?

I know there's no honor among thieves, but really..,

[Anonymous]

The husband is being a fool and should come to his senses. Marriage is hard and divorce is easy. Divorce will give him freedom from morally bankrupt spouse that can't be trusted again. He will also get at least 50% of his time to do whatever he wants unencumbered by ex DW and kids. He should embrace his future! He might get the chance to be with someone much better than exDW.