SAHM friend divorcing against her will

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on the state but a prenup he sprung on her three days before? That could get thrown out. That's seen as duress by some states.

But that does not mean she will get alimony. Not for more than a year or two. Most women don't get alimony for long these days. She SHOULD get child support tho.

Not entirely true - depends on the state. Here in Va, the standard is alimony for half of the length of the marriage and anything over 20 years your looking at potential lifetime alimony (assuming there’s a discrepancy in incomes - which there is in OPs friends case).

Even so, most women still don't get alimony. Often men don't make enough to support two households. Married 10 years, fed attorney husband, I worked and no alimony.

I know lots of people that are getting alimony bc of a discrepancy in pay. A teacher married to an attorney, for example, will be granted alimony. The length of time is based on the length of the marriage as a Pp pointed out.

Friend served his cheating wife after youngest turned 18. She never worked, 50. She gets no child support, obviously. She gets very limited alimony with a time limit. Did not get the McMansion - is in a rental apartment and struggling to find real work. Trying to get more of his retirement but he changed jobs a lot.

Let this be a lesson to young women out there - not to not be a SAHM, that's fine if that's your choice, but to protect yourself. If you're not going to work for 18 years, you better make sure you have your own money and assets.

You all seem to forget: if you're a SAHM of a very high earner, half of those earnings are yours. Half that house is hers. They can sell and she walks with half the equity--even if it was funded entirely by him. Even if--since he sounds so awful--he put only his name on the deed. None of that matters. Marital assets are half hers. Hopefully he was at least a high earner. If your husband is not a super high earner, I agree, do not be a SAHM.

Does that apply if he had the house prior to marriage? It may not be considered a marital asset.

So true! This isnt some helpless woman who was "sucked dry" as a pp said. Sounds like she had a pretty f***ing cozy life for the last 18 yrs sitting at home. There is no reason a 47 y/o can't get a job. It's really disgusting that people are treating a fully grown adult woman like a child here.

Of course she can get a job. Just not a job that will actually support her and her kid.

You are so blinded by your hatred of this woman you don’t know for choosing a different path than you did that you are essentially agreeing that society should subsidize this woman (via welfare, tax breaks, etc.) for the rest of her life so that her husband (who agreed to support her but then left her high and dry) can keep most of their assets for himself.

This is no different than the people raging against minimum wage increases while failing to realize that we’re ALL supporting these underpaid workers to allow the wealthiest members of society to become even wealthier.

Huh? I don't hate anyone. Why do you think she can't get a job that would support her and her child? You do realize that outside of this forum/city, most people aren't making $500k/yr. People support themselves and their family on regular jobs. I don't support him keeping more of his assets - she should get half, whatever she is entitled to. I just don't agree with never ending alimony and people saying this adult can't possibly support herself. It's bizarrely infantilizing and makes women look very lazy and entitled.

I think you well know that she cannot support herself in the same way that someone who had worked for all those years can. When you give up working, you give up working experience that contributes to your future job opportunities and income potential. When you go back to work, it is at a far, far lower salary than you would have had if you'd stayed in the workforce, and that is the differential which alimony was created to address.

Alimony was actually created to support a woman who COULDN'T work or own property, until a time she re-married and had another man to support her. This isn't relevant at all in 2025. Of course she can support herself.

No, my husband’s ex got lifetime and got remarried and still gets it. They were only married 10 years. Divorced before 30.

Then he had the worst lawyer on the planet

+1
I know women who have chosen to live together rather than remarry precisely so they won’t lose alimony, but even that ends after a finite period.

[Anonymous]

Aren't most men divorced against their will or am I missing something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on the state but a prenup he sprung on her three days before? That could get thrown out. That's seen as duress by some states.

But that does not mean she will get alimony. Not for more than a year or two. Most women don't get alimony for long these days. She SHOULD get child support tho.

Not entirely true - depends on the state. Here in Va, the standard is alimony for half of the length of the marriage and anything over 20 years your looking at potential lifetime alimony (assuming there’s a discrepancy in incomes - which there is in OPs friends case).

Even so, most women still don't get alimony. Often men don't make enough to support two households. Married 10 years, fed attorney husband, I worked and no alimony.

I know lots of people that are getting alimony bc of a discrepancy in pay. A teacher married to an attorney, for example, will be granted alimony. The length of time is based on the length of the marriage as a Pp pointed out.

Friend served his cheating wife after youngest turned 18. She never worked, 50. She gets no child support, obviously. She gets very limited alimony with a time limit. Did not get the McMansion - is in a rental apartment and struggling to find real work. Trying to get more of his retirement but he changed jobs a lot.

Let this be a lesson to young women out there - not to not be a SAHM, that's fine if that's your choice, but to protect yourself. If you're not going to work for 18 years, you better make sure you have your own money and assets.

You all seem to forget: if you're a SAHM of a very high earner, half of those earnings are yours. Half that house is hers. They can sell and she walks with half the equity--even if it was funded entirely by him. Even if--since he sounds so awful--he put only his name on the deed. None of that matters. Marital assets are half hers. Hopefully he was at least a high earner. If your husband is not a super high earner, I agree, do not be a SAHM.

Does that apply if he had the house prior to marriage? It may not be considered a marital asset.

So true! This isnt some helpless woman who was "sucked dry" as a pp said. Sounds like she had a pretty f***ing cozy life for the last 18 yrs sitting at home. There is no reason a 47 y/o can't get a job. It's really disgusting that people are treating a fully grown adult woman like a child here.

Of course she can get a job. Just not a job that will actually support her and her kid.

You are so blinded by your hatred of this woman you don’t know for choosing a different path than you did that you are essentially agreeing that society should subsidize this woman (via welfare, tax breaks, etc.) for the rest of her life so that her husband (who agreed to support her but then left her high and dry) can keep most of their assets for himself.

This is no different than the people raging against minimum wage increases while failing to realize that we’re ALL supporting these underpaid workers to allow the wealthiest members of society to become even wealthier.

Huh? I don't hate anyone. Why do you think she can't get a job that would support her and her child? You do realize that outside of this forum/city, most people aren't making $500k/yr. People support themselves and their family on regular jobs. I don't support him keeping more of his assets - she should get half, whatever she is entitled to. I just don't agree with never ending alimony and people saying this adult can't possibly support herself. It's bizarrely infantilizing and makes women look very lazy and entitled.

I think you well know that she cannot support herself in the same way that someone who had worked for all those years can. When you give up working, you give up working experience that contributes to your future job opportunities and income potential. When you go back to work, it is at a far, far lower salary than you would have had if you'd stayed in the workforce, and that is the differential which alimony was created to address.

Alimony was actually created to support a woman who COULDN'T work or own property, until a time she re-married and had another man to support her. This isn't relevant at all in 2025. Of course she can support herself.

No, my husband’s ex got lifetime and got remarried and still gets it. They were only married 10 years. Divorced before 30.

Then he had the worst lawyer on the planet

Or her husband is a liar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Aren't most men divorced against their will or am I missing something?

I mean one person usually wants the divorce and one doesn’t. There is almost always a loser and a winner. Maybe if you are both in the exact same attractive position and financially healthy and just drifted apart, you could have an amicable divorce. Most divorces seem not amicable. One side is unhappy with the outcome or didn’t want the divorce. Usually it is because of infidelity or wanting to date others. So one person is leaving bc other cheated or want to leave to for someone else or the idea of someone else. One person wants to stay married for kids or status or whatever.

[Anonymous]

One person is always "divorcing against their will"--you don't need a spouse to give you permission to get a divorce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Idk where she is but here in nyc the judge will impute income and anyway alimony tops out at $200k a year and you would not get cs on top of that (both would top out there) but will be less bc of the imputed income. Cs only if you have majority custody.
Idk about the pre nup but here she would be entitled to half the assets they accumulated during the marriage. So they may need to sell the house and then she will have to live off the proceeds.
I do not get these people who don’t work and then this happens. So nuts

There is a high profile Pritzker divorce happening right now with of course both sides paying a fortune for high-priced lawyers.

One of the big issues is the wife signed a pre-nup which specifically provided a lump sum payout, but no division of marital assets. It's like a $10MM payout...which is nothing compared to the marital assets and the XH is worth like $7BN. She claims she signed it under duress, but this happened 30 years ago so that argument doesn't really hold up. She was an investment banker prior to marriage, but stopped working immediately.

Long story short...most people think she will lose this case. She also is 99% certain to not get any proceeds to the marital house because ownership was transferred into a trust which is another common tactic.

The $$$s aren't the same in the scenario presented by OP...but it could be quite similar on a relative basis.

I don't know why anyone is so certain as to why Person A will definitely receive X or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on the state but a prenup he sprung on her three days before? That could get thrown out. That's seen as duress by some states.

But that does not mean she will get alimony. Not for more than a year or two. Most women don't get alimony for long these days. She SHOULD get child support tho.

Not entirely true - depends on the state. Here in Va, the standard is alimony for half of the length of the marriage and anything over 20 years your looking at potential lifetime alimony (assuming there’s a discrepancy in incomes - which there is in OPs friends case).

Even so, most women still don't get alimony. Often men don't make enough to support two households. Married 10 years, fed attorney husband, I worked and no alimony.

I know lots of people that are getting alimony bc of a discrepancy in pay. A teacher married to an attorney, for example, will be granted alimony. The length of time is based on the length of the marriage as a Pp pointed out.

Friend served his cheating wife after youngest turned 18. She never worked, 50. She gets no child support, obviously. She gets very limited alimony with a time limit. Did not get the McMansion - is in a rental apartment and struggling to find real work. Trying to get more of his retirement but he changed jobs a lot.

Let this be a lesson to young women out there - not to not be a SAHM, that's fine if that's your choice, but to protect yourself. If you're not going to work for 18 years, you better make sure you have your own money and assets.

You all seem to forget: if you're a SAHM of a very high earner, half of those earnings are yours. Half that house is hers. They can sell and she walks with half the equity--even if it was funded entirely by him. Even if--since he sounds so awful--he put only his name on the deed. None of that matters. Marital assets are half hers. Hopefully he was at least a high earner. If your husband is not a super high earner, I agree, do not be a SAHM.

Does that apply if he had the house prior to marriage? It may not be considered a marital asset.

So true! This isnt some helpless woman who was "sucked dry" as a pp said. Sounds like she had a pretty f***ing cozy life for the last 18 yrs sitting at home. There is no reason a 47 y/o can't get a job. It's really disgusting that people are treating a fully grown adult woman like a child here.

Of course she can get a job. Just not a job that will actually support her and her kid.

You are so blinded by your hatred of this woman you don’t know for choosing a different path than you did that you are essentially agreeing that society should subsidize this woman (via welfare, tax breaks, etc.) for the rest of her life so that her husband (who agreed to support her but then left her high and dry) can keep most of their assets for himself.

This is no different than the people raging against minimum wage increases while failing to realize that we’re ALL supporting these underpaid workers to allow the wealthiest members of society to become even wealthier.

This is so true. I think Walmart should pay their workers a living wage rather than advise them to get food stamps.

And so, I think that a spouse who divorces a spouse was was the primary homemaker and didn't work should pay half their wages and equity. And that person should be afforded a long runway for alimony.

Or we could support walmart paying a living wage, and OPs friend can get a job there and support herself.

You cannot be this bad at Math!

Even if she made 50k at Walmart from the age of 47 to 67, she will not save enough money to see her through 88 or whatever the current life expectancy for women is.

Some people work into their 70s or 80s if they can't afford to retire. Literally tens (hundreds?) of millions people a year support themselves on jobs like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is one of the main reasons I would never be a SAHM.

Please. This has everything to do with the prenup and the jerk she married.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Idk where she is but here in nyc the judge will impute income and anyway alimony tops out at $200k a year and you would not get cs on top of that (both would top out there) but will be less bc of the imputed income. Cs only if you have majority custody.
Idk about the pre nup but here she would be entitled to half the assets they accumulated during the marriage. So they may need to sell the house and then she will have to live off the proceeds.
I do not get these people who don’t work and then this happens. So nuts

There is a high profile Pritzker divorce happening right now with of course both sides paying a fortune for high-priced lawyers.

One of the big issues is the wife signed a pre-nup which specifically provided a lump sum payout, but no division of marital assets. It's like a $10MM payout...which is nothing compared to the marital assets and the XH is worth like $7BN. She claims she signed it under duress, but this happened 30 years ago so that argument doesn't really hold up. She was an investment banker prior to marriage, but stopped working immediately.

Long story short...most people think she will lose this case. She also is 99% certain to not get any proceeds to the marital house because ownership was transferred into a trust which is another common tactic.

The $$$s aren't the same in the scenario presented by OP...but it could be quite similar on a relative basis.

I don't know why anyone is so certain as to why Person A will definitely receive X or not.

What does the prenup being 30 years old have to do with duress not holding up? Duress happens at the time of signing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Idk where she is but here in nyc the judge will impute income and anyway alimony tops out at $200k a year and you would not get cs on top of that (both would top out there) but will be less bc of the imputed income. Cs only if you have majority custody.
Idk about the pre nup but here she would be entitled to half the assets they accumulated during the marriage. So they may need to sell the house and then she will have to live off the proceeds.
I do not get these people who don’t work and then this happens. So nuts

There is a high profile Pritzker divorce happening right now with of course both sides paying a fortune for high-priced lawyers.

One of the big issues is the wife signed a pre-nup which specifically provided a lump sum payout, but no division of marital assets. It's like a $10MM payout...which is nothing compared to the marital assets and the XH is worth like $7BN. She claims she signed it under duress, but this happened 30 years ago so that argument doesn't really hold up. She was an investment banker prior to marriage, but stopped working immediately.

Long story short...most people think she will lose this case. She also is 99% certain to not get any proceeds to the marital house because ownership was transferred into a trust which is another common tactic.

The $$$s aren't the same in the scenario presented by OP...but it could be quite similar on a relative basis.

I don't know why anyone is so certain as to why Person A will definitely receive X or not.

What does the prenup being 30 years old have to do with duress not holding up? Duress happens at the time of signing.

Because she had 30 years to contest it. She was clearly fine with it for 30 years and didn't claim it was duress. Why now? Oh, because it's biting her in the a$$. Why don't people review contracts they are signing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Idk where she is but here in nyc the judge will impute income and anyway alimony tops out at $200k a year and you would not get cs on top of that (both would top out there) but will be less bc of the imputed income. Cs only if you have majority custody.
Idk about the pre nup but here she would be entitled to half the assets they accumulated during the marriage. So they may need to sell the house and then she will have to live off the proceeds.
I do not get these people who don’t work and then this happens. So nuts

There is a high profile Pritzker divorce happening right now with of course both sides paying a fortune for high-priced lawyers.

One of the big issues is the wife signed a pre-nup which specifically provided a lump sum payout, but no division of marital assets. It's like a $10MM payout...which is nothing compared to the marital assets and the XH is worth like $7BN. She claims she signed it under duress, but this happened 30 years ago so that argument doesn't really hold up. She was an investment banker prior to marriage, but stopped working immediately.

Long story short...most people think she will lose this case. She also is 99% certain to not get any proceeds to the marital house because ownership was transferred into a trust which is another common tactic.

The $$$s aren't the same in the scenario presented by OP...but it could be quite similar on a relative basis.

I don't know why anyone is so certain as to why Person A will definitely receive X or not.

What does the prenup being 30 years old have to do with duress not holding up? Duress happens at the time of signing.

Because she had 30 years to contest it. She was clearly fine with it for 30 years and didn't claim it was duress. Why now? Oh, because it's biting her in the a$$. Why don't people review contracts they are signing?

She had 18 years not 30.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Idk where she is but here in nyc the judge will impute income and anyway alimony tops out at $200k a year and you would not get cs on top of that (both would top out there) but will be less bc of the imputed income. Cs only if you have majority custody.
Idk about the pre nup but here she would be entitled to half the assets they accumulated during the marriage. So they may need to sell the house and then she will have to live off the proceeds.
I do not get these people who don’t work and then this happens. So nuts

There is a high profile Pritzker divorce happening right now with of course both sides paying a fortune for high-priced lawyers.

One of the big issues is the wife signed a pre-nup which specifically provided a lump sum payout, but no division of marital assets. It's like a $10MM payout...which is nothing compared to the marital assets and the XH is worth like $7BN. She claims she signed it under duress, but this happened 30 years ago so that argument doesn't really hold up. She was an investment banker prior to marriage, but stopped working immediately.

Long story short...most people think she will lose this case. She also is 99% certain to not get any proceeds to the marital house because ownership was transferred into a trust which is another common tactic.

The $$$s aren't the same in the scenario presented by OP...but it could be quite similar on a relative basis.

I don't know why anyone is so certain as to why Person A will definitely receive X or not.

What does the prenup being 30 years old have to do with duress not holding up? Duress happens at the time of signing.

Because she had 30 years to contest it. She was clearly fine with it for 30 years and didn't claim it was duress. Why now? Oh, because it's biting her in the a$$. Why don't people review contracts they are signing?

Also, it's he said / she said. The XH said that 30 years ago she was of perfectly sound mind and signed it with no problems.

There is no video or other evidence and the judge seems to think anything that occurred 30 years ago is pointless unless there was some kind of hard evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Idk where she is but here in nyc the judge will impute income and anyway alimony tops out at $200k a year and you would not get cs on top of that (both would top out there) but will be less bc of the imputed income. Cs only if you have majority custody.
Idk about the pre nup but here she would be entitled to half the assets they accumulated during the marriage. So they may need to sell the house and then she will have to live off the proceeds.
I do not get these people who don’t work and then this happens. So nuts

There is a high profile Pritzker divorce happening right now with of course both sides paying a fortune for high-priced lawyers.

One of the big issues is the wife signed a pre-nup which specifically provided a lump sum payout, but no division of marital assets. It's like a $10MM payout...which is nothing compared to the marital assets and the XH is worth like $7BN. She claims she signed it under duress, but this happened 30 years ago so that argument doesn't really hold up. She was an investment banker prior to marriage, but stopped working immediately.

Long story short...most people think she will lose this case. She also is 99% certain to not get any proceeds to the marital house because ownership was transferred into a trust which is another common tactic.

The $$$s aren't the same in the scenario presented by OP...but it could be quite similar on a relative basis.

I don't know why anyone is so certain as to why Person A will definitely receive X or not.

What does the prenup being 30 years old have to do with duress not holding up? Duress happens at the time of signing.

Because she had 30 years to contest it. She was clearly fine with it for 30 years and didn't claim it was duress. Why now? Oh, because it's biting her in the a$$. Why don't people review contracts they are signing?

She had 18 years not 30.

Please follow the thread. PP was discussing another case.

[Anonymous]

I haven't read all the posts, but want OP to know this:

In Virginia, courts will usually make the husband with a good income (around $100K) pay for the wife's attorney if she has no income. And if there are kids and she has zero income, she's almost certainly going to get alimony for at least as long as the kids are under 18, and probably for life. I know several people in this situation over the past 5-10 years. In one case, this even happened when it was the working spouse (husband) who got cancer! He had to take on a second job post-surgery to cover all the extra expenses (apartment, lawyer, etc...) when she locked him out of their house. And one friend had to pay for his ex wife's attorney (she didn't work despite no kids) even though the ex wife had just received a half million $$$ inheritance that she refused to mingle and make marital property.

VA courts are super harsh to men with wives who don't or won't work, and I say this as a feminist who cares about SAHM not getting screwed over. I'm shocked at their whole "at fault" and "equitable" BS with no logical rules for handling divorce settlements in VA. It's really just up to the judge what you get, but I've never seen the non-worker spouse get screwed.

Also, be aware that she'll be able to automatically get Social Security as his former wife (using his quarters of work to qualify) once she's at retirement age, so long as she doesn't remarry. If he's a fed employee/military, she'll automatically get a share of his retirement pension.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Idk where she is but here in nyc the judge will impute income and anyway alimony tops out at $200k a year and you would not get cs on top of that (both would top out there) but will be less bc of the imputed income. Cs only if you have majority custody.
Idk about the pre nup but here she would be entitled to half the assets they accumulated during the marriage. So they may need to sell the house and then she will have to live off the proceeds.
I do not get these people who don’t work and then this happens. So nuts

There is a high profile Pritzker divorce happening right now with of course both sides paying a fortune for high-priced lawyers.

One of the big issues is the wife signed a pre-nup which specifically provided a lump sum payout, but no division of marital assets. It's like a $10MM payout...which is nothing compared to the marital assets and the XH is worth like $7BN. She claims she signed it under duress, but this happened 30 years ago so that argument doesn't really hold up. She was an investment banker prior to marriage, but stopped working immediately.

Long story short...most people think she will lose this case. She also is 99% certain to not get any proceeds to the marital house because ownership was transferred into a trust which is another common tactic.

The $$$s aren't the same in the scenario presented by OP...but it could be quite similar on a relative basis.

I don't know why anyone is so certain as to why Person A will definitely receive X or not.

What does the prenup being 30 years old have to do with duress not holding up? Duress happens at the time of signing.

Because she had 30 years to contest it. She was clearly fine with it for 30 years and didn't claim it was duress. Why now? Oh, because it's biting her in the a$$. Why don't people review contracts they are signing?

She had 18 years not 30.

Please follow the thread. PP was discussing another case.

Well that case has nothing to do with a prenup it has to do with divorce fraud where you drop assets into LLC's and trusts so it is not considered marital assets.

Of course she is not getting 1/2 the earnings of the Hyatt fortune.