How much alimony do you get if you were married for less than 2 years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Divorce lawyer here:

--Her best hope for support is on a temporary basis, from the period of time that a lawsuit is filed until the divorce is entered. Since that could take close to a year if the case is contested, she should consider filing asap.

--In some states, a factor the court considers in awarding spousal support is whether a marital decision was made which affected a party's earning capacity, employment, career, etc. For example, in VA, the relevant part of the statute reads, "The decisions regarding employment, career, economics, education and parenting arrangements made by the parties during the marriage and their effect on present and future earning potential, including the length of time one or both of the parties have been absent from the job market..."

--Since by the time the trial date happens, the parties will be separated for about 1/2 the length of the marriage anyway, the point immediately above won't really matter, especially with such a short term marriage.

Her best hope is to file now for temporary support and expect it to end when the final support hearing occurs.

Listen to this person. Other factors to consider are whether the couple agreed that she should not work after moving in order to support him in his career, or if she engaged in a diligent job search during those two years but was unable to find a job. If she quit her job to move and then just didn't feel like working, that's going to be a harder sell to a court. But either way, any support she gets is going to be very limited. Two year just isn't enough time out of the work force to meaningfully compromise your long-term earnings for most people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friends of mine got divorced a few years ago. They had been married 10 years, no kids. She had no significant assets when they married. He already owned a small house. She was underemployed for the first 8 years of the marriage and unemployed for the last 2 years. She left with 1/2 of all their assets (including their house and his small side business), 4 years of alimony (enough to live on), and a cut of his retirement savings and future pension. She did her homework and got a great lawyer. A shorter marriage will result in a smaller alimony payout, but her having moved and being unemployed will likely result in some sort of alimony, even if only for a few months.

Sounds like he had perhaps the worst divorce lawyer to ever pass the bar. No kids? She worked at least part time for 8 of the 10 years? I get splitting the assets and a few years of alimony. But how the hell did his lawyer give up a huge cut of his client's 401k and pension?!?

It doesn’t say he gave up a huge cut of his retirement. It says she got a cut of his retirement. That’s fair. A portion of it was earned during the marriage, was marital, and should have been divided.

No. Fck off. If you split now, the idea that you get each other's money in 30 years is absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She’ll get half the equity in the house. If he put down a large down payment, she gets half of it. She can also get half of retirement accounts accrued during the two years they were married. That’s about it.

Nope. She'll get half the increase in equity that occurred while they were married. Which could even be a negative number.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't get why the women would agree to a divorce. Also he owes her two years back pay and loss of future pay, taking a two year break from work and moving to a different state is a huge impact on earning potential.

If she does not want a divorce and he does he need to move out of house and be willing to give up more than if she wanted out.

Any good lawyer or court will view this guy as the ultimate scumbag. Getting married, making wife quit job, leave her family go to a different state for his career, she sets up houses for him, scrubs, cleans cooks, he put it in his name alone then tries to throw her out the door.

I would say a 1/2 his assets and some broken knee caps would be fair.

2. You can het a divorce even if only one person wants it.

2. If the house is in his name only, she can’t stay there against his wishes.

No one will view him as a scumbag....but you.

Actually, she can.

It would take a very long time to force an eviction in a marriage/divorce. The house is marital property regardless of how he feels about it.

And technically you have to follow eviction proceedings. By law you can't even kick a grown child out of your house if he does not want to go without going threw eviction proceedings. It is biggest crock of shit in the world that "house is in his name" If a property was in his name prior to marriage he has rights, he bought that while married. Sounds like no pre or post nup. He took martial assets and bought a house in his name.

Other consideration this women was previously divorced, does she have children from prior marriage or did she give up alimony to get married.

My friend is divorced twice. Each time cost him a house. Both times short marriages. This women needs a place to live. She has no job. If she does not get alimony she needs a place to live. Also during separation period spouses are allowed to live in same house. If women has zero income and not yet divorced why would she leave the home? Plus unless she got a good pay out why would she leave when divorced finalized. She should drag him through eviction process. It is more her house than his house in sense she is a stay at home wife who does not work. She is there all the time. He may own it on paper, but only sleeps there as he is at work. Why the heck would she leave it.

Guy was smart he would get her a rich boyfriend who wants to marry her and then she will happily leave. As they say in Divorce court widows get all your money. Dont piss her off too much as she may inherit your money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friends of mine got divorced a few years ago. They had been married 10 years, no kids. She had no significant assets when they married. He already owned a small house. She was underemployed for the first 8 years of the marriage and unemployed for the last 2 years. She left with 1/2 of all their assets (including their house and his small side business), 4 years of alimony (enough to live on), and a cut of his retirement savings and future pension. She did her homework and got a great lawyer. A shorter marriage will result in a smaller alimony payout, but her having moved and being unemployed will likely result in some sort of alimony, even if only for a few months.

Sounds like he had perhaps the worst divorce lawyer to ever pass the bar. No kids? She worked at least part time for 8 of the 10 years? I get splitting the assets and a few years of alimony. But how the hell did his lawyer give up a huge cut of his client's 401k and pension?!?

It doesn’t say he gave up a huge cut of his retirement. It says she got a cut of his retirement. That’s fair. A portion of it was earned during the marriage, was marital, and should have been divided.

No. Fck off. If you split now, the idea that you get each other's money in 30 years is absurd.

If you are married greater than 10 years and don't remarry you get his Social Security. Greater than 10 years is considered a long term marriage. I have been married 20 years. My wife has not worked the vast majority of marriage. I have a seven figure 401k. I would assume I would have to give half of that to her and it would be rolled into an IRA in her name. I also have a cash balance pension that pays out later on from a company I started working at after we were married and no longer work at. I assume she would get half that pension check.

She had no opportunity to save for retirement or contribute to SS in last 20 years. Why would I get to take her retirement money in a divorce?

A ten year threshold is a huge bar to pass. Some rich folk married to poor folk have been know to file for divorce sometimes at year 9 years and 11 months sometimes without telling spouse. Past ten years is a long term marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friends of mine got divorced a few years ago. They had been married 10 years, no kids. She had no significant assets when they married. He already owned a small house. She was underemployed for the first 8 years of the marriage and unemployed for the last 2 years. She left with 1/2 of all their assets (including their house and his small side business), 4 years of alimony (enough to live on), and a cut of his retirement savings and future pension. She did her homework and got a great lawyer. A shorter marriage will result in a smaller alimony payout, but her having moved and being unemployed will likely result in some sort of alimony, even if only for a few months.

Sounds like he had perhaps the worst divorce lawyer to ever pass the bar. No kids? She worked at least part time for 8 of the 10 years? I get splitting the assets and a few years of alimony. But how the hell did his lawyer give up a huge cut of his client's 401k and pension?!?

It doesn’t say he gave up a huge cut of his retirement. It says she got a cut of his retirement. That’s fair. A portion of it was earned during the marriage, was marital, and should have been divided.

No. Fck off. If you split now, the idea that you get each other's money in 30 years is absurd.

It’s not “each other’s” money. It’s marital if earned from the date of the marriage to the date of separation. As it should be despite your misguided beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’ll get half the equity in the house. If he put down a large down payment, she gets half of it. She can also get half of retirement accounts accrued during the two years they were married. That’s about it.

Nope. She'll get half the increase in equity that occurred while they were married. Which could even be a negative number.

No, she won’t. If equity increased during the marriage but the home was paid for with separate money, it’s still his.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friends of mine got divorced a few years ago. They had been married 10 years, no kids. She had no significant assets when they married. He already owned a small house. She was underemployed for the first 8 years of the marriage and unemployed for the last 2 years. She left with 1/2 of all their assets (including their house and his small side business), 4 years of alimony (enough to live on), and a cut of his retirement savings and future pension. She did her homework and got a great lawyer. A shorter marriage will result in a smaller alimony payout, but her having moved and being unemployed will likely result in some sort of alimony, even if only for a few months.

Sounds like he had perhaps the worst divorce lawyer to ever pass the bar. No kids? She worked at least part time for 8 of the 10 years? I get splitting the assets and a few years of alimony. But how the hell did his lawyer give up a huge cut of his client's 401k and pension?!?

It doesn’t say he gave up a huge cut of his retirement. It says she got a cut of his retirement. That’s fair. A portion of it was earned during the marriage, was marital, and should have been divided.

No. Fck off. If you split now, the idea that you get each other's money in 30 years is absurd.

If you are married greater than 10 years and don't remarry you get his Social Security. Greater than 10 years is considered a long term marriage. I have been married 20 years. My wife has not worked the vast majority of marriage. I have a seven figure 401k. I would assume I would have to give half of that to her and it would be rolled into an IRA in her name. I also have a cash balance pension that pays out later on from a company I started working at after we were married and no longer work at. I assume she would get half that pension check.

She had no opportunity to save for retirement or contribute to SS in last 20 years. Why would I get to take her retirement money in a divorce?

A ten year threshold is a huge bar to pass. Some rich folk married to poor folk have been know to file for divorce sometimes at year 9 years and 11 months sometimes without telling spouse. Past ten years is a long term marriage.

Divorce lawyer again: a 10 year marriage is generally considered a medium length marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friends of mine got divorced a few years ago. They had been married 10 years, no kids. She had no significant assets when they married. He already owned a small house. She was underemployed for the first 8 years of the marriage and unemployed for the last 2 years. She left with 1/2 of all their assets (including their house and his small side business), 4 years of alimony (enough to live on), and a cut of his retirement savings and future pension. She did her homework and got a great lawyer. A shorter marriage will result in a smaller alimony payout, but her having moved and being unemployed will likely result in some sort of alimony, even if only for a few months.

Sounds like he had perhaps the worst divorce lawyer to ever pass the bar. No kids? She worked at least part time for 8 of the 10 years? I get splitting the assets and a few years of alimony. But how the hell did his lawyer give up a huge cut of his client's 401k and pension?!?

It doesn’t say he gave up a huge cut of his retirement. It says she got a cut of his retirement. That’s fair. A portion of it was earned during the marriage, was marital, and should have been divided.

No. Fck off. If you split now, the idea that you get each other's money in 30 years is absurd.

If you are married greater than 10 years and don't remarry you get his Social Security. Greater than 10 years is considered a long term marriage. I have been married 20 years. My wife has not worked the vast majority of marriage. I have a seven figure 401k. I would assume I would have to give half of that to her and it would be rolled into an IRA in her name. I also have a cash balance pension that pays out later on from a company I started working at after we were married and no longer work at. I assume she would get half that pension check.

She had no opportunity to save for retirement or contribute to SS in last 20 years. Why would I get to take her retirement money in a divorce?

A ten year threshold is a huge bar to pass. Some rich folk married to poor folk have been know to file for divorce sometimes at year 9 years and 11 months sometimes without telling spouse. Past ten years is a long term marriage.

To clarify about the bolded part.... the non-working spouse (NWS) can apply and receive SS based on the working spouse's work record. The NWS can get a max of 50% of the SS benefit (if it is greater than what NWS would receive on her own work contributions record). This has no effect on the working spouse's SS benefits. even if there is a new wife (I'm assuming the NWS is female), and she is married to the working spouse for another 10 years, BOTH spouses can receive SS benefits based on the working spouse's work record... but again, the max each can get is 50% of the total benefit (of the working spouse), and this assumes that the ex spouse does not remarry before 55 yrs of age.

[Anonymous]

STRIKE that part about remarrying after 55. I was mistaken. You have to be UNMARRIED if you want to claim on your ex-spouse's record. (but it is possible to get survivor's benefits ... too detailed to discuss here).

[Anonymous]

Probably nothing. I have been married 10 years, 2 kids. Getting nothing. Husband makes 180k. Unfortunately, I worked most of the marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Probably nothing. I have been married 10 years, 2 kids. Getting nothing. Husband makes 180k. Unfortunately, I worked most of the marriage.

Need a better lawyer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’ll get half the equity in the house. If he put down a large down payment, she gets half of it. She can also get half of retirement accounts accrued during the two years they were married. That’s about it.

Nope. She'll get half the increase in equity that occurred while they were married. Which could even be a negative number.

No, she won’t. If equity increased during the marriage but the home was paid for with separate money, it’s still his.

Only if House bought before marriage. Or during marriage with a quit claim deed.

I doubt this women signed a quit claim deed waiving any rights to house

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A man is not a plan.

+1

[Anonymous]

https://www.newsday.com/business/divorce-new-tax-law-1.29553155