How would you divide the money in this divorce scenario?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not guilt. It's wanting to do good by a person you probably still care about but you just don't want to be their spouse any longer.

Bullsh*t. He needs to do good by her too, which means she gets what she is entitled to to support herself and her child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree you're not really entitled to what he saved up before you met. I'd probably ask for 200,000 of the non-retirement funds plus generous child support.

The law and the expired pre-nup say otherwise. Attorney, OP! This is not the amicable divorce he wants you to believe it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not guilt. It's wanting to do good by a person you probably still care about but you just don't want to be their spouse any longer.

Bullsh*t. He needs to do good by her too, which means she gets what she is entitled to to support herself and her child.

"She learned to pour from an empty cup because she was taught that her worth was measured in what she gave, not what she kept for herself."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, your marriage is not considered a long term marriage, so you won't be entitled to any spousal support, especially since you could easily return to work.

OP, ignore this PP completely. In any state if you went to trial you would be some form of alimony, and in even stingy states you would be 3-4 years.

There is some dumb bad advice on here clearly coming from men trying to fleece women they don’t even know.

Get. An. Attorney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We met and married later in life (me late 30s, him about 50). Thirteen years later, we are divorcing. We have one child, in elementary school. We want to do this without lawyers. There are no disagreements about dividing property, but he is afraid I'm going to take him to the cleaners, which I don't intend to do. Still, I am not sure what is a fair division of our money. He doesn't think I'm entitled to any of his retirement funds, since he had already saved a lot of it (probably most) before we met. He is mid-60s, self-employed, has variable income (not much lately), and no inheritance coming. I am 50, stopped working 18 months ago to care for family, and do expect some inheritance eventually (not f$#%-you money, but maybe around $2M).

Here is what we have:

$670K non-retirement funds between us ($40K mine, $400K his, $230K in a joint account)
About $1.5M retirement funds between us ($285K mine, $1.2M his)

The money conversation is already contentious, because of his fear of losing what he worked for before we met, but he told me to "tell him what I want" as a starting point. I don't even know where to begin.

You need a lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Half his retirement fund, half the joint account, plus alimony since you're not working and child support for your child. Did he not think he was going to split retirement with you when you got married? Without a pre-nup, you should assume he intended for you to have half of any money he came in with.

She's not entitled to half his retirement when they didn't even get married until he was past 50 and had already saved most of it. Get real.

To beat a dead horse: she is entitled to half his retirement. Legally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree you're not really entitled to what he saved up before you met. I'd probably ask for 200,000 of the non-retirement funds plus generous child support.

The law and the expired pre-nup say otherwise. Attorney, OP! This is not the amicable divorce he wants you to believe it is.

Agree. He's trying to gaslight you into thinking you deserve less than what you are entitled to under the law. When he says he doesn't want you to "take him to the cleaners," he means he doesn't want to split assets equitably and legally, and he is using language to make you internalize your own powerlessness. The laws around the division of assets in a divorce exist for many reasons, including your self-sufficiency post-divorce. The division of marital assets is not a gift to you or a penalty to him—it's the dissolution of an economic partnership and a way to prevent you from becoming dependent on the state now. The financial responsibility for you and your child's existence after your divorce should go to the marriage that created your economic interdependency, not us taxpayers through public assistance programs, which you will surely require if you listen to your STBXH and his ridiculous positions.

[Anonymous]

OP if you feel ok doing so, give your state or county so we can give you some attorney recs. You sound stuck and like you might be in a pretty imbalanced and maybe even manipulative or controlling relationship, and as a random stranger on the internet, it’s hard to read this and not be able to step in to help.

If you were my friend, I’d be setting up appointments for you today and would sit with you during the zooms or take you to your initial consults. Please be a friend to yourself.

[Anonymous]

I am an actuary who used to do QDROs. What’s being split in half is not the total pension, but effectively the pension earned during the marriage. I understand that you are dealing with something like a 401K, not a pension, but the underlying principle for fairness should be similar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Half his retirement fund, half the joint account, plus alimony since you're not working and child support for your child. Did he not think he was going to split retirement with you when you got married? Without a pre-nup, you should assume he intended for you to have half of any money he came in with.

She's not entitled to half his retirement when they didn't even get married until he was past 50 and had already saved most of it. Get real.

To beat a dead horse: she is entitled to half his retirement. Legally.

This is how it works. He shows proof of the account balance from 13 years ago. Any increase to the balance from the date of their marriage gets split 50/50. He'll argue that she's not entitled to the gain on the original balance, only the additional contributions and the gain on them. She'll argue that she's entitled to all the gains because he kept contributing to the same account, and it's impossible to separate it from the new contributions and gains. They'll agree in mediation to split the gain beyond the balance from 13 years ago 50/50, or they'll go to court, and the judge will rule on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP if you feel ok doing so, give your state or county so we can give you some attorney recs. You sound stuck and like you might be in a pretty imbalanced and maybe even manipulative or controlling relationship, and as a random stranger on the internet, it’s hard to read this and not be able to step in to help.

If you were my friend, I’d be setting up appointments for you today and would sit with you during the zooms or take you to your initial consults. Please be a friend to yourself.

OP here, thank you for this kind response. We are in D.C. My spouse is just trying to protect himself, taking into account his age and unpredictable income (he is self-employed in an industry that can have good years and lean years, and the last few years have been pretty lean).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP if you feel ok doing so, give your state or county so we can give you some attorney recs. You sound stuck and like you might be in a pretty imbalanced and maybe even manipulative or controlling relationship, and as a random stranger on the internet, it’s hard to read this and not be able to step in to help.

If you were my friend, I’d be setting up appointments for you today and would sit with you during the zooms or take you to your initial consults. Please be a friend to yourself.

OP here, thank you for this kind response. We are in D.C. My spouse is just trying to protect himself, taking into account his age and unpredictable income (he is self-employed in an industry that can have good years and lean years, and the last few years have been pretty lean).

OP again - I did speak with an attorney about 18 months ago, when I knew I wanted to divorce but wasn't ready to pull the trigger yet. So I can go back to her for another consultation to frame my initial "offer" to my husband.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you've gotten some good math here, but I do agree that a consult with a lawyer might be good to give you a realistic idea of what the law would say.

So then you have a better idea, and you can go to him with a range of options. Here's what the law says, but what if we did X, or shifted from X to Y, or balanced things this way or that way?

I'd also think through very carefully what you expect to need. Depending on your state, college costs may be on or off the table (in terms of child suport). Given expected inheritance, are you willing to forego some of his retirement for maybe a lump sum put into college costs? Given his age, and you not working, how were those costs going to be covered?

It may be given his anxiety around retirement, that you could lay out scenarios that protect his retirement but give you other things of equal weight. Given his age, he must be concerned about being forced to work longer. His retirement is not large and there are teenage costs looming - college for one but also maybe a car, or even the travel to visit college options, higher expenses for high school, etc.

What about the house or other marital property?

Do not, under any circumstances, make any life decisions based on an "expected inheritance"! That inheritance can very quickly get eaten up in long-term care. It is just straight-up dumb to live your life based on a contingency you don't control.

This is a good point. Taking less in a divorce because of an expected inheritance is idiotic.

+1.

OP, this divorce is a financial disaster. You are both broke. How bad is the marriage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am an actuary who used to do QDROs. What’s being split in half is not the total pension, but effectively the pension earned during the marriage. I understand that you are dealing with something like a 401K, not a pension, but the underlying principle for fairness should be similar.

Not necessarily. 401k can be treated like a cash asset during a divorce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP if you feel ok doing so, give your state or county so we can give you some attorney recs. You sound stuck and like you might be in a pretty imbalanced and maybe even manipulative or controlling relationship, and as a random stranger on the internet, it’s hard to read this and not be able to step in to help.

If you were my friend, I’d be setting up appointments for you today and would sit with you during the zooms or take you to your initial consults. Please be a friend to yourself.

OP here, thank you for this kind response. We are in D.C. My spouse is just trying to protect himself, taking into account his age and unpredictable income (he is self-employed in an industry that can have good years and lean years, and the last few years have been pretty lean).

OP again - I did speak with an attorney about 18 months ago, when I knew I wanted to divorce but wasn't ready to pull the trigger yet. So I can go back to her for another consultation to frame my initial "offer" to my husband.

Talk to at least 2-3 other attorneys. You knew different perspectives and personalities to make sure this person is the right fit for you. Do not be embarrassed to ask friends for referrals. That’s how I got access to a really great list of high-powered (but surprisingly affordable) attorneys in my area. If you know anyone in law, people outside of family law often have very good recommendations and attorneys often circulate internal lists of recommended divorce attorneys within their firms or their professional networks. I asked ~6 people for recommendations and started calling attorneys who came up multiple times on very different people’s lists.