If money is the concern I don't see how divorcing will make anyone better off financially in the long run. |
How so? If you divorce you split everything. Now spouse will support his family with 100% his money, while honoring his family commitments (alimony/child support). And OP doesnt have to spend a single $ on inlaws poor decisions. The courts will make sure he pays his child support, so at least OP knows he can't f# over his kids while supporting these greedy inlaws. |
OPs husband can move into one of the 3 bedrooms in the inlaws house. Sounds like a great idea! Mommas-boy who cant cut the apron strings is welcome to be at their beck and call with his checkbook ready. The rest of the family can move on and start achieving their own goals. |
Divorce typically makes everyone worse off, but I can envision where the higher-earning spouse sends a lot of money to his parents during the marriage, and divorce is actually a financial gain for the low-earning spouse. After the divorce, the high-earning spouse loses half of all assets, pays child support, maybe alimony, splits the costs of kids' expenses, and has to help out with parents with whatever money is left over after covering their living costs and court-ordered support payments. It is telling that, under the law, one has a financial responsibility to one's children but not to one's parents. There are a couple of states with filial responsibility laws, but I wonder if they are enforced. |
But, higher earning spouse can continue to make more money. The lower earning spouse, more often than not the woman, won't be better off. Better to come to a compromise on how much financial assistance to offer than to cut off your nose to spite your face. |
If you divorce you split everything up to that point, afterwards you don't. So, unless OP is the higher earning spouse this is bad math and a risky gamble. |
Absolutely, it is better to come to a compromise on how much financial assistance to offer rather than get a divorce. As an aside, I don't agree that the lower-earning spouse won't be better off in some cases, though. For example, if the high-earning spouse wants 50/50 custody, the lower-earning spouse may have time to re-energize her career. Maybe she was previously mommy-tracked because her DH didn't do much at home or with the kids, and now she's got 50% or so more time for work. And maybe she can live well enough of her income and save all the child support and alimony for the kids' college, which was previously not getting any funding because DH was directing that money toward his parents. And likely, if he's now got 50/50 custody, his load at home is going up significantly, and that will effect his ability to make more money. |
Or OP could be working and make similar to her husband. Or be the breadwinner and not want to squander whatever measly savings they do have on irresponsible adults. It's not better to be tied to a sinking anchor. Lose 50% or lose 100%. |
I recommend talking to an attorney. I’d want to know how much principal is left, and perhaps look into a life estate for them, where you own home but they can live there. That’s just off the top of my head. I’d post in the money and finances forum for more thoughtful responses, and also consult with a trusts and estates lawyer. |
Why dont they get a reverse mortgage? Their children and grandchildren should not be paying the price of their own incompetence. |
If they are renting and can’t afford a down payment neither is doing that great. |
I agree. It just doesnt sound like ops husband is a "high earner" either. |
I don’t think OP is the one who mentioned divorce. Other posters said they would rather divorce than give money to their in laws. |
Yup. Sometimes cutting the cancer out is the healthiest option for all involved. |
If you're both broke as a joke then it won't matter, married or divorced. Except for the kids, but nobody really cares about them much anyway. |