50/50 split of assets with SAHM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think this is fair in cases where the husband made all the money and the wife stayed home with the kids? Net worth of around 10 million, 3 kids who are grown or teens, 20 year marriage.

Wife is fighting for a 50% split plus alimony. Hasn’t worked in over 17 years.

She’s not getting alimony but I don’t think she should get 50% of the money. Maybe 10-20% so she is not destitute but even that is generous.

Wow just reading this we know why she is leaving you.

+1
OP sounds like a misogynistic a$$. I hope he doesn't teach his sons how to deal with their future wife - you know the mother of his grandchildren. Heck he thinks the mother of his own children should be just above destitute having supported him to rise in a lucrative career.

Women, STOP LETTING MEN LIKE THIS PROCREATE WITH YOU!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My guess is that you would have not had that much money as a single parent with 3 kids. Would you have had this much success if you had to leave every day at 5 pm to pick up kids, take numerous unplanned sick days, work shorter hours in summer, etc?
Your wife staying home contributed to you being able to make that much money.

As a SAHM myself it’s not so much that I think I “contributed” as much it’s just that if I have to plan that my husband could divorce me and leave me without half our assets (or some reasonable, predictable amount) we would have to make different choices. Like if I have an independent financial picture it doesn’t make any sense for me to SAH. Which is okay but you need to be up front about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely.

Half the assets, but no alimony.

I’d rather pay alimony - 5k a month or something - than give her 5 million dollars!!!!

She did nothing to earn this money.

Marriage is about sharing assets. If you didn’t plan to do that, then you shouldn’t have gotten married,

This sounds like a troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely.

Half the assets, but no alimony.

I’d rather pay alimony - 5k a month or something - than give her 5 million dollars!!!!

She did nothing to earn this money.

Your preferences really are irrelevant. I don’t know the law in NY but generally speaking the default in a no-fault is going to be a 50/50 split, community property state or equitable division state. And in a long-term marriage, you will probably pay her lifetime alimony. Which is no longer tax deductible to you (or taxable to her).

[Anonymous]

Nobody *deserves* millions of dollars, including you OP. A lot of people work much harder than you do and have zero dollars in their bank accounts. The fair thing would be for the judge to give you each 500K and donate the rest to a women’s shelter. Be glad life isn’t fair.

[Anonymous]

Read it and weep OP:

“It was stated by Justice O’Conner, in his opinion in Conner v Conner, that that equitable distribution encompasses a partnership, no matter what the proportionate share of capital advances and personal services, and that the wife's marital contributions as a homemaker are presumed equal in value to the husband's contribution as an income earner.”

Although “equitable” does not mean “equal,” the NY Courts start with the presumption that it means 50-50 then apply a set of statutory criteria. I haven’t seen a case where a homemaker with 3 kids in a long marriage gets less than 50% but I suppose it is possible. But the scenario would be something like the wife was an objectively terrible parent/spouse (like, refused to work, did no housework or childcare, abused kids, abandoned the household) and the husband is taking full custody of the minor kids. Or if there were no kids at all and wife had high earning potential but refused to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you think this is fair in cases where the husband made all the money and the wife stayed home with the kids? Net worth of around 10 million, 3 kids who are grown or teens, 20 year marriage.

Wife is fighting for a 50% split plus alimony. Hasn’t worked in over 17 years.

She’s not getting alimony but I don’t think she should get 50% of the money. Maybe 10-20% so she is not destitute but even that is generous.

Trying to weasel out of a fair settlement for your wife, eh?

[Anonymous]

If she did nothing during the marriage, that sounds like a you problem. Why didn’t you divorce her or make her get a job back then. She should be entitled to half.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is that you would have not had that much money as a single parent with 3 kids. Would you have had this much success if you had to leave every day at 5 pm to pick up kids, take numerous unplanned sick days, work shorter hours in summer, etc?
Your wife staying home contributed to you being able to make that much money.

As a SAHM myself it’s not so much that I think I “contributed” as much it’s just that if I have to plan that my husband could divorce me and leave me without half our assets (or some reasonable, predictable amount) we would have to make different choices. Like if I have an independent financial picture it doesn’t make any sense for me to SAH. Which is okay but you need to be up front about it.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Read it and weep OP:

“It was stated by Justice O’Conner, in his opinion in Conner v Conner, that that equitable distribution encompasses a partnership, no matter what the proportionate share of capital advances and personal services, and that the wife's marital contributions as a homemaker are presumed equal in value to the husband's contribution as an income earner.”

Although “equitable” does not mean “equal,” the NY Courts start with the presumption that it means 50-50 then apply a set of statutory criteria. I haven’t seen a case where a homemaker with 3 kids in a long marriage gets less than 50% but I suppose it is possible. But the scenario would be something like the wife was an objectively terrible parent/spouse (like, refused to work, did no housework or childcare, abused kids, abandoned the household) and the husband is taking full custody of the minor kids. Or if there were no kids at all and wife had high earning potential but refused to work.

You’re screwed, buddy.

[Anonymous]

OP, I hope your wife takes you to the cleaners. Twenty years with you must have been absolutely miserable and she deserves compensation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I hope your wife takes you to the cleaners. Twenty years with you must have been absolutely miserable and she deserves compensation.

+1

If I were to divorce my husband I would want terms that didn’t tie him to his big law job, and I would fully plan on earning my own income ASAP. But I hope OP’s wife is set for life and then some.

[Anonymous]

I was just in divorce mediation in MD with a longtime (retired) judge serving as the mediator. He stated that fairness has nothing to do with how assets are divided or alimony is determined. The court only cares about what is equitable. If you didn’t want your spouse to have a share of your assets, you should have gotten a prenup or not stayed married to a SAHP. You don’t get a do-over after 20 years of sharing your assets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure what state but typically she would get 50% of assets and probably alimony for 8 or 9 years (half the length of your marriage). Plus child support, if there are children.

I am sure you have a different idea of what is “fair” but what I describe is the most likely outcome, unless you are in Virginia, she had an affair and you can prove that in court. Know you are at risk to have to pay her legal costs too if you go contentious.

If you get to 20 years of marriage you are at risk to have to pay lifetime alimony.

We’re in NY which is not a community property state. I hope to keep her distribution under 30%

I hope you get destroyed in court and your ex laughs the whole way to the bank.

Same.

You’re horrible, OP.

[Anonymous]

LOL @ "taking care of kids and house" as worth $5m. No effing way.

She "supported" his career and with that net worth they probably still had cleaners and nannies.