SAHM friend divorcing against her will

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
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.

If shes contesting the settlement because of a pre-nup signed under "duress" then it sounds very similar. Maybe the $ amts are different, but the principle is the same.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:This is OP. Wow, this became a long thread. Thank you to those who provided thoughtful comments.

My friend ended up retaining the first attorney, (which, after reading these responses, seems like a reasonable choice).

Regarding choices discussion, I tend to agree that my friend made some sub-optimal choices, and she knows that. She definitely did bury her head in the sand regarding his noticeable unhappiness in the marriage for many years; I think she told herself that he just became a grumpy person. It was a 2nd marriage for him, and he did not particularly want another child, and he wanted a more carefree life. I am actually proud of her that she acknowledges that she steamrolled him somewhat with what she wanted and he eventually lost it, but it seems too late to fix it now.

He is a high earner, but he is actually 61... not sure how this is going to go. I think he was very stressed financially with the building of the expensive house, and that was a contributor to his wanting a divorce. I think he has assets, but when they are split, they are obviously not going to go as far...

Fortunately my friend is sharp, and I know she will manage to eventually work her way towards reasonable employment. My concern for her is that she won't down ratchet her lifestyle as fast as she really should given that whatever alimony/child support she receives won't last forever.

Whose idea was it to build the expensive house?


Bingo!!!

Ex-SAHM friend convinced husband to go all out in dream home McMansion when kids were MS age and within one year she was bringing guys she met online to bang when he was at work. Had an entire guest suite to entertain them—big mirror by the bed. Thankfully, after a few years he found out. House sold. She got very little and lives in a crappy apartment now. FAFO


I think I banged her. Fairfax County?
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.


She might have to get a second job. Many of my male friends had to get second jobs after divorce.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
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.


Can you explain how creating LLC and trusts hide assets? If marital funds were dropped in its traceable I would think.
post reply Forum Index » Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)
Message Quick Reply
Go to: