Financial Implications of Divorce

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this isn't helpful but man, why did you marry him?

+1. Is there "lessons learned" advice you can share with us about things you would have done differently? All women could benefit.

Love makes us do stupid things. One of my friends is married to a guy with no job. He had no job when they were engaged either though he claimed to be 'looking'. He moved into her house - again didn't help with the bills. 3 years later she's trying to divorce him.

OP here. Brace yourselves, this is probably going to sound pretty stupid. Of course I was in love and couldn't imagine ever not being in love with this guy. Having said that, I am also a pretty practical and analytical person and I actually felt that we were a good match in terms of work and finances. When we met and married, I was in a pretty demanding job that required me to move around a lot. Having a spouse who said that he wanted to stay home and raise kids seemed perfect. I knew that I would make enough money to support us, he wouldn't be tied to a job that made it difficult for him to move, so it seemed like the perfectly workable scenario. This of course kind of blew up once his views on taking care of the kids changed. I ended up taking a fed job so that he could have more stability for his own career, though he has struggled to find success. I actually still really don't care that he doesn't make much money; I care that when he does make money he doesn't really contribute to our joint finances. And it is just hard to swallow that while I have sacrificed and tried to be very financially responsible, there is the potential that he will 'throw away' his half and that it could impact our kids. I don't really know what I could have done differently, other than leave him much earlier, I guess, though I can't in my heart imagine that I would ever allow him to fall on hard times.

[Anonymous]

OP, you sound very practical and that is a good thing. Don’t let emotions rule your settlement. You also seem to be a very good money manager. Better to split now and give yourself time to recovery financially, then to keep waiting until you are both older.

Your proposition in the larger pension piece is interesting. Do you have a financial adviser? If not I would recommend talking to one, especially one that has dealt with couples divorcing. I think they will give you a better idea on dividing significant assets than an attorney.

[Anonymous]

OP, if he is not working or makes little, the biggest issue to me is you may have to pay alimony and child support to him even with shared custody.

[Anonymous]

A lot of people who are bad with money want a larger payment upfront. There are also good reasons (legally, for him) to want the money upfront. What if you die many years before he does and he doesn’t get the payout he’s entitled to on the backend? His lawyer will plant all these questions in his mind, even if he’s not bright enough to think it through on his own.

If giving him more of the pension is really important to you, be ready to compromise on something else.

[Anonymous]

Everything will be split down the middle. He will probably be entitled to alimony for a year or so to get on his feet and at that time he will be cut off. Since he seemsnto be a lousy parent, he probably wont want much custody which will limit your child support.

STOP CONTRIBUTING TO RETIREMENT. pick it back up as soon as you have settled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this isn't helpful but man, why did you marry him?

+1. Is there "lessons learned" advice you can share with us about things you would have done differently? All women could benefit.

Love makes us do stupid things. One of my friends is married to a guy with no job. He had no job when they were engaged either though he claimed to be 'looking'. He moved into her house - again didn't help with the bills. 3 years later she's trying to divorce him.

OP here. Brace yourselves, this is probably going to sound pretty stupid. Of course I was in love and couldn't imagine ever not being in love with this guy. Having said that, I am also a pretty practical and analytical person and I actually felt that we were a good match in terms of work and finances. When we met and married, I was in a pretty demanding job that required me to move around a lot. Having a spouse who said that he wanted to stay home and raise kids seemed perfect. I knew that I would make enough money to support us, he wouldn't be tied to a job that made it difficult for him to move, so it seemed like the perfectly workable scenario. This of course kind of blew up once his views on taking care of the kids changed. I ended up taking a fed job so that he could have more stability for his own career, though he has struggled to find success. I actually still really don't care that he doesn't make much money; I care that when he does make money he doesn't really contribute to our joint finances. And it is just hard to swallow that while I have sacrificed and tried to be very financially responsible, there is the potential that he will 'throw away' his half and that it could impact our kids. I don't really know what I could have done differently, other than leave him much earlier, I guess, though I can't in my heart imagine that I would ever allow him to fall on hard times.

You sound like a very patient and fair person, OP. Too bad this guy didn't rise to the occasion. If you're like me, I could not respect a husband if he doesn't work hard at something (whether working for pay, taking care of kids, volunteering, renovating the house, etc).

I hope you can find a nice second husband who works hard at something.

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry OP. As a female breadwinner, I feel so bad for you.
He doesn't sound like he will improve (he's had years to try).

So, I would initiate the divorce asap, with a mediator, and just get it done with.

The sooner you do, the sooner you can restart working and saving for your own future. He may end up un or underemployed in a crappy apartment but that's on him.

You are still young, give yourself the chance to work towards happiness and financial independence without him

[Anonymous]

I'm going to play devil's advocate and just say that it might be better to stay married and stop contributing to his retirement! Yes, I know he sucks as a partner and father but guess what? Chances are you'll live longer than he would given the gender gap in life expectancy and you wouldn't end up poorer after a divorce. Just stay married in name and do whatever the hell you want cos it's your $$$. But divorce, based on what the PPs here have stated, sounds like it would bring you down, rather than up.

Also, have you considered signing a post-nuptial agreement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to play devil's advocate and just say that it might be better to stay married and stop contributing to his retirement! Yes, I know he sucks as a partner and father but guess what? Chances are you'll live longer than he would given the gender gap in life expectancy and you wouldn't end up poorer after a divorce. Just stay married in name and do whatever the hell you want cos it's your $$$. But divorce, based on what the PPs here have stated, sounds like it would bring you down, rather than up.

Also, have you considered signing a post-nuptial agreement?

Just keep in mind that the longer she stays married, the larger the share of her retirement he will be entitled to. It never gets cheaper to wait before pulling the plug.

My advice is: avoid going to court. You are going to wind up giving him a lot anyway (and yes, it will suck, and you will bitterly think he doesn't deserve a penny of it) and it is best not to give the lawyers a ton of money as well.

[Anonymous]

If your kids are getting ready to leave the nest in the next 5 years, I would tough it out. I'm in a similar financial situation but my husband is genuinely helpful around the house and the kids, and does not wan to divorce. It's cheaper for me to stay married than to give him half of everything plus pay for babysitters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who gets what can get negotiated but he is entitled to half.

+1

My best girlfriend learned this lesson the hard way. She was completely delusional (despite everything that we plus her attorneys told her) and felt that her being the breadwinner entitled him to less than half of the "marital pot of money."

Take your increase in net worth over the course of the past 15 years of marriage, divide it in half. That's what he will get.

You will also possibly pay him child support plus alimony, even though he's a deadbeat.

Also, he will also likely be entitled to a large portion of your pension when you retire. Don't want that? Fine, then you'll have to pay him significantly more than half of the assets when you divorce. That is what they mean by "equitable".

My Aunt divorced a total and complete deadbeat. As in, she had a job at a hedge fund making about $400,000/year, while he refused to work. He was a lousy SAHD, and he smoked pot all day in their backyard while she worked. He was abusive and hit her, there were hospital records from when he broke her rib. She still had to pay more than half of their assets so that she could avoid paying him ongoing alimony. It did not matter that he hit her, cheated on her, and did drugs.

The absolute most miserable divorcees I've ever met were female breadwinners. They spend most of their marriages unhappy to be providing for an man, and the final insult comes when they have to pay half of what they view as completely theirs on the way out the door.

Men have been dealing with this since the beginning of family law...sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry OP. As a female breadwinner, I feel so bad for you.
He doesn't sound like he will improve (he's had years to try).

So, I would initiate the divorce asap, with a mediator, and just get it done with.

The sooner you do, the sooner you can restart working and saving for your own future. He may end up un or underemployed in a crappy apartment but that's on him.

You are still young, give yourself the chance to work towards happiness and financial independence without him

Another female breadwinner here. The advice to work with a mediator is great advice. I wish we had done this, but my deadbeat DH immediately hired the most expensive lawyer he could find to try to get as much of my money as he could, so I had to get my own (medium-priced) lawyer. Together we ended up running through 10s of thousands of dollars.

In the end, as others here have said, the rules are pretty rigid and everything gets divided down the middle unless you both agree on something different. Not even XDH's expensive shark lawyer could get him more than half of my pensions and 401(k)s, or a penny of my inherited money. XDH is now living in a crappy basement apartment to pay off all the debt he ran up, while I ran through maybe $30K of my assets.

Don't be us. Unless you have a really complicated situation or allegations of child abuse, work with a mediator. Maybe consult with a pensions expert to figure out your pensions strategy, but most lawyers wouldn't have helped you with that anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who gets what can get negotiated but he is entitled to half.

+1

My best girlfriend learned this lesson the hard way. She was completely delusional (despite everything that we plus her attorneys told her) and felt that her being the breadwinner entitled him to less than half of the "marital pot of money."

Take your increase in net worth over the course of the past 15 years of marriage, divide it in half. That's what he will get.

You will also possibly pay him child support plus alimony, even though he's a deadbeat.

Also, he will also likely be entitled to a large portion of your pension when you retire. Don't want that? Fine, then you'll have to pay him significantly more than half of the assets when you divorce. That is what they mean by "equitable".

My Aunt divorced a total and complete deadbeat. As in, she had a job at a hedge fund making about $400,000/year, while he refused to work. He was a lousy SAHD, and he smoked pot all day in their backyard while she worked. He was abusive and hit her, there were hospital records from when he broke her rib. She still had to pay more than half of their assets so that she could avoid paying him ongoing alimony. It did not matter that he hit her, cheated on her, and did drugs.

The absolute most miserable divorcees I've ever met were female breadwinners. They spend most of their marriages unhappy to be providing for an man, and the final insult comes when they have to pay half of what they view as completely theirs on the way out the door.

Men have been dealing with this since the beginning of family law...sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it?

As I'm sure you know, it's only been in the last few decades that women have had the opportunity to become breadwinners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If your kids are getting ready to leave the nest in the next 5 years, I would tough it out. I'm in a similar financial situation but my husband is genuinely helpful around the house and the kids, and does not wan to divorce. It's cheaper for me to stay married than to give him half of everything plus pay for babysitters.

That doesn’t sound like the same situation at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who gets what can get negotiated but he is entitled to half.

+1

My best girlfriend learned this lesson the hard way. She was completely delusional (despite everything that we plus her attorneys told her) and felt that her being the breadwinner entitled him to less than half of the "marital pot of money."

Take your increase in net worth over the course of the past 15 years of marriage, divide it in half. That's what he will get.

You will also possibly pay him child support plus alimony, even though he's a deadbeat.

Also, he will also likely be entitled to a large portion of your pension when you retire. Don't want that? Fine, then you'll have to pay him significantly more than half of the assets when you divorce. That is what they mean by "equitable".

My Aunt divorced a total and complete deadbeat. As in, she had a job at a hedge fund making about $400,000/year, while he refused to work. He was a lousy SAHD, and he smoked pot all day in their backyard while she worked. He was abusive and hit her, there were hospital records from when he broke her rib. She still had to pay more than half of their assets so that she could avoid paying him ongoing alimony. It did not matter that he hit her, cheated on her, and did drugs.

The absolute most miserable divorcees I've ever met were female breadwinners. They spend most of their marriages unhappy to be providing for an man, and the final insult comes when they have to pay half of what they view as completely theirs on the way out the door.

Men have been dealing with this since the beginning of family law...sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it?

Men have been dealing with non-money-making women who refused to take care of the children?