What is fair in this divorce?

[Anonymous]

How is your HHI nearly $500,000/year but you have so little? Where did it go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is your HHI nearly $500,000/year but you have so little? Where did it go?

You act like everybody making $500K have been doing it for more than a few years. They bought 2 whole homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like you've been through hell and I personally think what is "fair" is for you to get almost it all - he will be able to replace it quickly and i imagine you spent tremendous time and energy trying to help him and deserve some security in your life when you walk away

but i'd probably accept 1/3 to be done with it. a contentious battle could easily eat up more than that in legal fees.

Fair isn’t really the issue. She gets half of assets accumulated during the short marriage. There’s no compensation for “stress” or whatever. Judge doesn’t care and a lawyer will tell you that. Nor does a judge care that he can make it back quickly in the future. The law doesn’t work this way and the sooner you understand that the better.

You get nothing of the $200,000 down payment on the condo except what you contributed to it. You said it was mostly from him. So if you put in $10,000 and he put in $190,000, that’s what you get. Plus 50/50 of any equity, should there be any after costs.

You get half of any savings accumulated during the marriage. If any of that $100,000 in savings was there before the marriage, back that out.

No she won’t get 1/2 of the saving unless she can show she contributed 1/2.

No, that is a marital asset and will be split evenly. Unless some portion of that savings existed before they said “I do.”

The proportion of who contributed what DURING the marriage isn’t relevant. Those assets get divided 50/50 as they were a joint unit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like you've been through hell and I personally think what is "fair" is for you to get almost it all - he will be able to replace it quickly and i imagine you spent tremendous time and energy trying to help him and deserve some security in your life when you walk away

but i'd probably accept 1/3 to be done with it. a contentious battle could easily eat up more than that in legal fees.

Fair isn’t really the issue. She gets half of assets accumulated during the short marriage. There’s no compensation for “stress” or whatever. Judge doesn’t care and a lawyer will tell you that. Nor does a judge care that he can make it back quickly in the future. The law doesn’t work this way and the sooner you understand that the better.

You get nothing of the $200,000 down payment on the condo except what you contributed to it. You said it was mostly from him. So if you put in $10,000 and he put in $190,000, that’s what you get. Plus 50/50 of any equity, should there be any after costs.

You get half of any savings accumulated during the marriage. If any of that $100,000 in savings was there before the marriage, back that out.

again - she only gets half in a community property state.

Pretty much any states including the ones in this area. Family Law in Virginia and Maryland follow this even though they aren’t community property states. DC too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like you've been through hell and I personally think what is "fair" is for you to get almost it all - he will be able to replace it quickly and i imagine you spent tremendous time and energy trying to help him and deserve some security in your life when you walk away

but i'd probably accept 1/3 to be done with it. a contentious battle could easily eat up more than that in legal fees.

Fair isn’t really the issue. She gets half of assets accumulated during the short marriage. There’s no compensation for “stress” or whatever. Judge doesn’t care and a lawyer will tell you that. Nor does a judge care that he can make it back quickly in the future. The law doesn’t work this way and the sooner you understand that the better.

You get nothing of the $200,000 down payment on the condo except what you contributed to it. You said it was mostly from him. So if you put in $10,000 and he put in $190,000, that’s what you get. Plus 50/50 of any equity, should there be any after costs.

You get half of any savings accumulated during the marriage. If any of that $100,000 in savings was there before the marriage, back that out.

No she won’t get 1/2 of the saving unless she can show she contributed 1/2.

No, that is a marital asset and will be split evenly. Unless some portion of that savings existed before they said “I do.”

The proportion of who contributed what DURING the marriage isn’t relevant. Those assets get divided 50/50 as they were a joint unit.

You are wrong!

Tell me you don't know how divorce laws work without...

In the United States, there are two primary methods of dividing property during a divorce: equitable distribution and community property. In equitable distribution states, judges divide a couple’s assets and earnings accumulated during marriage equitably (fairly) but not necessarily equally when they divorce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree you should be asking for half. Or 100% of what you’re entitled to, and don’t settle for less. This guy has bled you dry. You’re both entitled to a fresh start. I would not get contentious but he should follow the letter of the law — with no kids there is a formula in these cases. Just use it and move on.

Do NOT settle for less because you feel guilty. You do not owe him. The opposite. He broke his vow by refusing to get sober. He is the one who is not keeping his commitments.

OP is living about her means. He did not bleed her dry. 50-50.

But he has forced OP into living above her means if they are in a $1.2m condo. She wouldn't be living above "her means" if she were on her own with an income unfer $100k. She married a person making significantly more and I'm sure he wasn't willing to live in a place that she could afford half of with her means alone. So when one spouse is significantly poorer, marrying someone with more money does end up costing them a lot because they end up paying a higher proportion of the meager income to their joint expenses. There is no way for the OP to not live above her income in a scenario like this if they live in anything more expensive than what 2 $100k incomes could afford.

It was a 4-year marriage. That argument might work if it were a 24-year marriage. But not a 4-year marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like you've been through hell and I personally think what is "fair" is for you to get almost it all - he will be able to replace it quickly and i imagine you spent tremendous time and energy trying to help him and deserve some security in your life when you walk away

but i'd probably accept 1/3 to be done with it. a contentious battle could easily eat up more than that in legal fees.

Fair isn’t really the issue. She gets half of assets accumulated during the short marriage. There’s no compensation for “stress” or whatever. Judge doesn’t care and a lawyer will tell you that. Nor does a judge care that he can make it back quickly in the future. The law doesn’t work this way and the sooner you understand that the better.

You get nothing of the $200,000 down payment on the condo except what you contributed to it. You said it was mostly from him. So if you put in $10,000 and he put in $190,000, that’s what you get. Plus 50/50 of any equity, should there be any after costs.

You get half of any savings accumulated during the marriage. If any of that $100,000 in savings was there before the marriage, back that out.

again - she only gets half in a community property state.

Pretty much any states including the ones in this area. Family Law in Virginia and Maryland follow this even though they aren’t community property states. DC too.

No they don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree you should be asking for half. Or 100% of what you’re entitled to, and don’t settle for less. This guy has bled you dry. You’re both entitled to a fresh start. I would not get contentious but he should follow the letter of the law — with no kids there is a formula in these cases. Just use it and move on.

Do NOT settle for less because you feel guilty. You do not owe him. The opposite. He broke his vow by refusing to get sober. He is the one who is not keeping his commitments.

OP is living about her means. He did not bleed her dry. 50-50.

But he has forced OP into living above her means if they are in a $1.2m condo. She wouldn't be living above "her means" if she were on her own with an income unfer $100k. She married a person making significantly more and I'm sure he wasn't willing to live in a place that she could afford half of with her means alone. So when one spouse is significantly poorer, marrying someone with more money does end up costing them a lot because they end up paying a higher proportion of the meager income to their joint expenses. There is no way for the OP to not live above her income in a scenario like this if they live in anything more expensive than what 2 $100k incomes could afford.

Nice fantasy land you should write supernatural fiction.

No, PP is exactly right. That’s why OP getting a minimum of 1/3 of the joint assets is fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like you've been through hell and I personally think what is "fair" is for you to get almost it all - he will be able to replace it quickly and i imagine you spent tremendous time and energy trying to help him and deserve some security in your life when you walk away

but i'd probably accept 1/3 to be done with it. a contentious battle could easily eat up more than that in legal fees.

Fair isn’t really the issue. She gets half of assets accumulated during the short marriage. There’s no compensation for “stress” or whatever. Judge doesn’t care and a lawyer will tell you that. Nor does a judge care that he can make it back quickly in the future. The law doesn’t work this way and the sooner you understand that the better.

You get nothing of the $200,000 down payment on the condo except what you contributed to it. You said it was mostly from him. So if you put in $10,000 and he put in $190,000, that’s what you get. Plus 50/50 of any equity, should there be any after costs.

You get half of any savings accumulated during the marriage. If any of that $100,000 in savings was there before the marriage, back that out.

No she won’t get 1/2 of the saving unless she can show she contributed 1/2.

No, that is a marital asset and will be split evenly. Unless some portion of that savings existed before they said “I do.”

The proportion of who contributed what DURING the marriage isn’t relevant. Those assets get divided 50/50 as they were a joint unit.

IT IS NOT 50-50 UNLESS IN COMMUNITY PROPERTY STATE

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree you should be asking for half. Or 100% of what you’re entitled to, and don’t settle for less. This guy has bled you dry. You’re both entitled to a fresh start. I would not get contentious but he should follow the letter of the law — with no kids there is a formula in these cases. Just use it and move on.

Do NOT settle for less because you feel guilty. You do not owe him. The opposite. He broke his vow by refusing to get sober. He is the one who is not keeping his commitments.

OP is living about her means. He did not bleed her dry. 50-50.

But he has forced OP into living above her means if they are in a $1.2m condo. She wouldn't be living above "her means" if she were on her own with an income unfer $100k. She married a person making significantly more and I'm sure he wasn't willing to live in a place that she could afford half of with her means alone. So when one spouse is significantly poorer, marrying someone with more money does end up costing them a lot because they end up paying a higher proportion of the meager income to their joint expenses. There is no way for the OP to not live above her income in a scenario like this if they live in anything more expensive than what 2 $100k incomes could afford.

Nice fantasy land you should write supernatural fiction.

No, PP is exactly right. That’s why OP getting a minimum of 1/3 of the joint assets is fair.

Nope again. She will get back what she put in, minus fees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like you've been through hell and I personally think what is "fair" is for you to get almost it all - he will be able to replace it quickly and i imagine you spent tremendous time and energy trying to help him and deserve some security in your life when you walk away

but i'd probably accept 1/3 to be done with it. a contentious battle could easily eat up more than that in legal fees.

Fair isn’t really the issue. She gets half of assets accumulated during the short marriage. There’s no compensation for “stress” or whatever. Judge doesn’t care and a lawyer will tell you that. Nor does a judge care that he can make it back quickly in the future. The law doesn’t work this way and the sooner you understand that the better.

You get nothing of the $200,000 down payment on the condo except what you contributed to it. You said it was mostly from him. So if you put in $10,000 and he put in $190,000, that’s what you get. Plus 50/50 of any equity, should there be any after costs.

You get half of any savings accumulated during the marriage. If any of that $100,000 in savings was there before the marriage, back that out.

again - she only gets half in a community property state.

Pretty much any states including the ones in this area. Family Law in Virginia and Maryland follow this even though they aren’t community property states. DC too.

Wtf not they do NOT. it is “equitable division.” If you have some kind of basis in case law in DC/MD/VA that a much lower earning spouse in a short marriage with no kids would get 50%, please cite to it. I believe OP should be made whole and 1/3 seems fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should get what you contributed, that’s fair.

It doesn't work that way because marriage is a contract and marital property is owned jointly, no matter who worked for pay to accumulate it.

OP, you need a lawyer and you should walk away with half.

Completely wrong legally. What was acquired individually PRIOR to the marriage stays with that individual.
What was jointly acquired after the marriage is up for 50% consideration.
Many greedy marriage partners think that they are unreasonably entitled to half and then they find out they are sadly mistaken..

Yes, that is what I said. What is acquired during the marriage is "marital property." I did not make any reference to what was acquired individually prior to the marriage.

In an equitable distribution state, things are not divided 50/50, they are divided fairly. So if one person has more assets outside the marriage that they will retain, the other person might get more than 50% of the marital assets unless there is some cause like a adultery or abuse that should grant them less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should get what you contributed, that’s fair.

It doesn't work that way because marriage is a contract and marital property is owned jointly, no matter who worked for pay to accumulate it.

OP, you need a lawyer and you should walk away with half.

Completely wrong legally. What was acquired individually PRIOR to the marriage stays with that individual.
What was jointly acquired after the marriage is up for 50% consideration.
Many greedy marriage partners think that they are unreasonably entitled to half and then they find out they are sadly mistaken..

Yes, that is what I said. What is acquired during the marriage is "marital property." I did not make any reference to what was acquired individually prior to the marriage.

In an equitable distribution state, things are not divided 50/50, they are divided fairly. So if one person has more assets outside the marriage that they will retain, the other person might get more than 50% of the marital assets unless there is some cause like a adultery or abuse that should grant them less.

MD/DC/VA are no fault states so even adultery doesn't matter.

[Anonymous]

It's wild to me that so many people think they are getting 50/50 if they divorce when they live in an equitable distribution state. WILD!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's wild to me that so many people think they are getting 50/50 if they divorce when they live in an equitable distribution state. WILD!

I guess don’t take legal advice from the internet…