Pendente Lite Guideline vs Actual Spousal Support (in VA) -- How did it compare in your case? SAHM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends. I got alimony for life. I was married for 24 years. I was a SAHM. My ex is a doctor with a high salary.

Which state and percentage of his salary were you awarded, age at the time of divorce?

Age, 48. I get $120,00 a year tax free for the first 8 years. My alimony goes down every year till I reach the age of 65. After that I get $36,000 a year tax free.

He makes $650,000 a year.

My a..hole exH was "fired" just as I filed for divorce. Then went back to the same company as a "consultant", right after signing the settlement agreement.

How do you plan for your retirement? It's a nice alimony but without assets or savings after 65 y.o. it will be tight..

You need to work. There’s no reason an able bodied 48 year old can’t get a job.

I work and happy without his alimony. But I was just lucky to secure a job after 10 years SAHM. This doesn't change the fact that he's a a-hole. Who "fires" himself and gets severance at 54, just so he didn't have to pay alimony and higher CS? He basically ripped off his own child.

His income 1st year after divorce was settled is $2mm/year. I am taking him back to court for a different child support in the fall. If I make 150K and he makes $2mm, there is something wrong with him paying only $1300/month in CS!

Most judges would not have called him out on the timing of his "firing." Also, most lawyers would have hired a professional to determine his earning potential. I'd go back to court on this one.

Meant: Most judges would have called him out

My salary is higher than what his alimony would have been, and I am building my resume. Going to court back than trying to call him out meant missing another 2 years of my life, work history and health, in addition to $200K in legal fees. He also could had forced sale of marital assets causing me even higher financial harm vs me just loosing his alimony. So I settled and got marital assets I wanted intact.

I know that alimony cannot be changed after I signed MSA, but I am taking him back to court for the child support. He's incredibly cheap with our son, and refuses to pay his college expenses.

What state did you divorce in?

DC

Oh I thought DC covers college? Or is it just that CS continues through 21?

[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:It depends. I got alimony for life. I was married for 24 years. I was a SAHM. My ex is a doctor with a high salary.

Which state and percentage of his salary were you awarded, age at the time of divorce?

Age, 48. I get $120,00 a year tax free for the first 8 years. My alimony goes down every year till I reach the age of 65. After that I get $36,000 a year tax free.

He makes $650,000 a year.

My a..hole exH was "fired" just as I filed for divorce. Then went back to the same company as a "consultant", right after signing the settlement agreement.

How do you plan for your retirement? It's a nice alimony but without assets or savings after 65 y.o. it will be tight..

You need to work. There’s no reason an able bodied 48 year old can’t get a job.

I work and happy without his alimony. But I was just lucky to secure a job after 10 years SAHM. This doesn't change the fact that he's a a-hole. Who "fires" himself and gets severance at 54, just so he didn't have to pay alimony and higher CS? He basically ripped off his own child.

His income 1st year after divorce was settled is $2mm/year. I am taking him back to court for a different child support in the fall. If I make 150K and he makes $2mm, there is something wrong with him paying only $1300/month in CS!

Most judges would not have called him out on the timing of his "firing." Also, most lawyers would have hired a professional to determine his earning potential. I'd go back to court on this one.

Meant: Most judges would have called him out

My salary is higher than what his alimony would have been, and I am building my resume. Going to court back than trying to call him out meant missing another 2 years of my life, work history and health, in addition to $200K in legal fees. He also could had forced sale of marital assets causing me even higher financial harm vs me just loosing his alimony. So I settled and got marital assets I wanted intact.

I know that alimony cannot be changed after I signed MSA, but I am taking him back to court for the child support. He's incredibly cheap with our son, and refuses to pay his college expenses.

What state did you divorce in?

DC

Oh I thought DC covers college? Or is it just that CS continues through 21?

No DC doesn't cover college, only CS through 21. But as everyone goes to college and CS is based on the child's needs, the college becomes a need. That's what I am going to argue when I take my ex back to court this fall. Son is finishing HS next year

[Anonymous]

I don’t know. I think my ex SAHM made out pretty well. She’ll never have to pay rent/mortgage again and acts like she’s in her 20s again, partying, etc. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yikes at this thread. Never get married fellas!

Yikes at this thread. Never give up your job to stay home, ladies! You need to look out for number one.

Well, the problem is, the SAHM role does not get enough respect. Think of the myriad jobs a SAHM does and consider all the people you hire to replace what a SAHM does. I sometimes feel as though the feminist movement eliminated SAHM as a choice for women in that the concept of alimony seems to have gone away. IMO this role should be a viable option for a man or a woman and it should be protected under the law. A woman or man dosesn't stay home with the kids without the consent of the other partner. That was a choice that partner also made, and the consequences of one partner out of the workforce should not be a burden only that one person has to bear.

See above what men write: you have to work at 48! As if there is an abundance of well paying jobs available to a SAHM after a long gap with employment. These men are totally self centered and disconnected from reality.
If I was playing my marriage history again, I would not have stayed at home and supported his traveling career without a stone clad postnup

If you're too proud to fold towels at Kohls, that's your problem.

And this last one should be a guidance for any woman whose husband wants her to "focus on household". This is exactly what he would tell in 15 years while upgrading for a new shiny young thing!.

I believe marriage is a very unsafe financial contract for women, unless you negotiate a stone clad postnup before even having babies

It's unsafe for men, too. Your wife can decamp at any time for any reason and take half your net worth with her.

I'm not sure what this "postnup" would do that the divorce laws don't already do.

Alimony would be in postnup, if a higher paying spouse insists that the lower paying spouse pushing back on her/his career. Then there won't be a need to spend $200K in divorce court to get that alimony. Assets are divided 50/50 and CS are determined by default formula so these are less contentious issues to fight over

If your DH is a jerk, he's certainly not going to sign a postnup. And if he's a jerk, he's going to fight the postnup in court and you wind up paying lawyers anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the courts doesn't seem to be alimony. It seems to be childcare. The childcare stipend someone has to pay to support children is way too small and does not cover college at all. And people will fight custody just so they don't have to pay it which is weird because actually having custody is more expensive.

I don't agree but whatever the case, the issue is really control over how the money is spent. I am much happier having custody and making sure my money is actually spent on my children for things I think they need, rather than write a big check to my ex who then decides what to spend it on or maybe doesn't spend it on the kids at all.

When I was married, I already paid for everything the kids did, so being divorced didn't change anything.

As for college, the fact of the matter is that when you divorce, you are now paying to maintain two households, which means that you have less money in total. That means less money available for retirement and college, among other things. If the money isn't there for college, it isn't there. That's just part of the damage you do to your kids when you get divorced.

I was coming from a place where my attorney said guys argue over childcare so they can pay less but then don't use their days. The mom rarely argues because she wants the kids the house so will take the reduced paycheck. I don't really understand the college issue in DCUM world. It's a given that most of the jobs around here require college degrees and most of the adults in this area have them. So your child should have them too. Who else is going to take over your IT position if not your child when you retire? So college when both parents went to college should be part of the equation unless you qualify for aid. And the average salary on DCUM is something like $200k so there is definitely money for college. If you can pay childcare for K-18 you can pay at least that same amount for the college years.

It is true that parents should pay for college if they can, and most parents want to do so. That being the case, it doesn't need to be a legal obligation.

I certainly wouldn't want to be in a position where the kid could say, "I am going to attend a stupidly expensive college and study something useless and take eight years to graduate and there's nothing you can do about it because the court will make you pay." You need to have that leverage to say if you do something really dumb, you will pay for it not me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yikes at this thread. Never get married fellas!

Yikes at this thread. Never give up your job to stay home, ladies! You need to look out for number one.

Well, the problem is, the SAHM role does not get enough respect. Think of the myriad jobs a SAHM does and consider all the people you hire to replace what a SAHM does. I sometimes feel as though the feminist movement eliminated SAHM as a choice for women in that the concept of alimony seems to have gone away. IMO this role should be a viable option for a man or a woman and it should be protected under the law. A woman or man dosesn't stay home with the kids without the consent of the other partner. That was a choice that partner also made, and the consequences of one partner out of the workforce should not be a burden only that one person has to bear.

See above what men write: you have to work at 48! As if there is an abundance of well paying jobs available to a SAHM after a long gap with employment. These men are totally self centered and disconnected from reality.
If I was playing my marriage history again, I would not have stayed at home and supported his traveling career without a stone clad postnup

If you're too proud to fold towels at Kohls, that's your problem.

And this last one should be a guidance for any woman whose husband wants her to "focus on household". This is exactly what he would tell in 15 years while upgrading for a new shiny young thing!.

I believe marriage is a very unsafe financial contract for women, unless you negotiate a stone clad postnup before even having babies

It's unsafe for men, too. Your wife can decamp at any time for any reason and take half your net worth with her.

I'm not sure what this "postnup" would do that the divorce laws don't already do.

Alimony would be in postnup, if a higher paying spouse insists that the lower paying spouse pushing back on her/his career. Then there won't be a need to spend $200K in divorce court to get that alimony. Assets are divided 50/50 and CS are determined by default formula so these are less contentious issues to fight over

If your DH is a jerk, he's certainly not going to sign a postnup. And if he's a jerk, he's going to fight the postnup in court and you wind up paying lawyers anyway.

Not the case: he was offering a postnup back then and I proudly declined. My mistake. Men become jerks when their Ps turn away from your P.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the courts doesn't seem to be alimony. It seems to be childcare. The childcare stipend someone has to pay to support children is way too small and does not cover college at all. And people will fight custody just so they don't have to pay it which is weird because actually having custody is more expensive.

I don't agree but whatever the case, the issue is really control over how the money is spent. I am much happier having custody and making sure my money is actually spent on my children for things I think they need, rather than write a big check to my ex who then decides what to spend it on or maybe doesn't spend it on the kids at all.

When I was married, I already paid for everything the kids did, so being divorced didn't change anything.

As for college, the fact of the matter is that when you divorce, you are now paying to maintain two households, which means that you have less money in total. That means less money available for retirement and college, among other things. If the money isn't there for college, it isn't there. That's just part of the damage you do to your kids when you get divorced.

I was coming from a place where my attorney said guys argue over childcare so they can pay less but then don't use their days. The mom rarely argues because she wants the kids the house so will take the reduced paycheck. I don't really understand the college issue in DCUM world. It's a given that most of the jobs around here require college degrees and most of the adults in this area have them. So your child should have them too. Who else is going to take over your IT position if not your child when you retire? So college when both parents went to college should be part of the equation unless you qualify for aid. And the average salary on DCUM is something like $200k so there is definitely money for college. If you can pay childcare for K-18 you can pay at least that same amount for the college years.

It is true that parents should pay for college if they can, and most parents want to do so. That being the case, it doesn't need to be a legal obligation.

I certainly wouldn't want to be in a position where the kid could say, "I am going to attend a stupidly expensive college and study something useless and take eight years to graduate and there's nothing you can do about it because the court will make you pay." You need to have that leverage to say if you do something really dumb, you will pay for it not me.

It should definitely be a legal obligation and court should rule on reasonableness, not you. My exH makes way in excess of $1mm/year and he told son to take loans at 10% interest. A judge would have made him pay reasonable college expenses if that was a law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yikes at this thread. Never get married fellas!

Yikes at this thread. Never give up your job to stay home, ladies! You need to look out for number one.

Well, the problem is, the SAHM role does not get enough respect. Think of the myriad jobs a SAHM does and consider all the people you hire to replace what a SAHM does. I sometimes feel as though the feminist movement eliminated SAHM as a choice for women in that the concept of alimony seems to have gone away. IMO this role should be a viable option for a man or a woman and it should be protected under the law. A woman or man dosesn't stay home with the kids without the consent of the other partner. That was a choice that partner also made, and the consequences of one partner out of the workforce should not be a burden only that one person has to bear.

See above what men write: you have to work at 48! As if there is an abundance of well paying jobs available to a SAHM after a long gap with employment. These men are totally self centered and disconnected from reality.
If I was playing my marriage history again, I would not have stayed at home and supported his traveling career without a stone clad postnup

If you're too proud to fold towels at Kohls, that's your problem.

And this last one should be a guidance for any woman whose husband wants her to "focus on household". This is exactly what he would tell in 15 years while upgrading for a new shiny young thing!.

I believe marriage is a very unsafe financial contract for women, unless you negotiate a stone clad postnup before even having babies

It's unsafe for men, too. Your wife can decamp at any time for any reason and take half your net worth with her.

I'm not sure what this "postnup" would do that the divorce laws don't already do.

Alimony would be in postnup, if a higher paying spouse insists that the lower paying spouse pushing back on her/his career. Then there won't be a need to spend $200K in divorce court to get that alimony. Assets are divided 50/50 and CS are determined by default formula so these are less contentious issues to fight over

If your DH is a jerk, he's certainly not going to sign a postnup. And if he's a jerk, he's going to fight the postnup in court and you wind up paying lawyers anyway.

No, postnups are harder to fight over vs no postnup at all

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the courts doesn't seem to be alimony. It seems to be childcare. The childcare stipend someone has to pay to support children is way too small and does not cover college at all. And people will fight custody just so they don't have to pay it which is weird because actually having custody is more expensive.

I don't agree but whatever the case, the issue is really control over how the money is spent. I am much happier having custody and making sure my money is actually spent on my children for things I think they need, rather than write a big check to my ex who then decides what to spend it on or maybe doesn't spend it on the kids at all.

When I was married, I already paid for everything the kids did, so being divorced didn't change anything.

As for college, the fact of the matter is that when you divorce, you are now paying to maintain two households, which means that you have less money in total. That means less money available for retirement and college, among other things. If the money isn't there for college, it isn't there. That's just part of the damage you do to your kids when you get divorced.

I was coming from a place where my attorney said guys argue over childcare so they can pay less but then don't use their days. The mom rarely argues because she wants the kids the house so will take the reduced paycheck. I don't really understand the college issue in DCUM world. It's a given that most of the jobs around here require college degrees and most of the adults in this area have them. So your child should have them too. Who else is going to take over your IT position if not your child when you retire? So college when both parents went to college should be part of the equation unless you qualify for aid. And the average salary on DCUM is something like $200k so there is definitely money for college. If you can pay childcare for K-18 you can pay at least that same amount for the college years.

It is true that parents should pay for college if they can, and most parents want to do so. That being the case, it doesn't need to be a legal obligation.

I certainly wouldn't want to be in a position where the kid could say, "I am going to attend a stupidly expensive college and study something useless and take eight years to graduate and there's nothing you can do about it because the court will make you pay." You need to have that leverage to say if you do something really dumb, you will pay for it not me.

It should definitely be a legal obligation and court should rule on reasonableness, not you. My exH makes way in excess of $1mm/year and he told son to take loans at 10% interest. A judge would have made him pay reasonable college expenses if that was a law

Wrong. Nobody is better equipped to assess the reasonableness of a child's educational plans and goals, both intrinsically and in relation to parental resources, than the parent. The court should stay the hell out of that process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yikes at this thread. Never get married fellas!

Yikes at this thread. Never give up your job to stay home, ladies! You need to look out for number one.

Well, the problem is, the SAHM role does not get enough respect. Think of the myriad jobs a SAHM does and consider all the people you hire to replace what a SAHM does. I sometimes feel as though the feminist movement eliminated SAHM as a choice for women in that the concept of alimony seems to have gone away. IMO this role should be a viable option for a man or a woman and it should be protected under the law. A woman or man dosesn't stay home with the kids without the consent of the other partner. That was a choice that partner also made, and the consequences of one partner out of the workforce should not be a burden only that one person has to bear.

I think you’re wrong about consent for staying home. I know lots of families where the working spouse does not want the other spouse to be SAH. Heck, read DCUM. I think people acquiesce be wise they get tired of arguing about it. But that’s different than consent.

That was my situation. Now exW took years off, even when we didn't have kids. And she didn't use her time at home to take care of the house or the children. One year while she was not working DD spent the year in all-day day care. Her not working was a huge source of stress in my life.

And for situations like this you could have signed a postnup stating that she refuses alimony if 1) there are no kids or 2)she doesnt' go back to work after getting her degree

My situation was totally different: autistic SN child, calls from school almost every week when son beat somebody up or reading diagonally, driving to therapies etc. Even policy was called to our house when our 12 yo became violent and locked us out destroying furniture inside.
ExH insisted I didn't work. Then "upgraded" me in 15 years when son's mental health improved

Just to be clear, my exW didn't need training to go back to work. She had a PhD in statistics. She was just lazy, and was happy to have another person to adult things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just like DB Cooper, women always want to know how big the payday will be before they step off the plane's rear staircase.

After giving up having a career and salary so our H could pursue his - yes. Yes we do.

DB Cooper gave up his career in the Green Berets as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the courts doesn't seem to be alimony. It seems to be childcare. The childcare stipend someone has to pay to support children is way too small and does not cover college at all. And people will fight custody just so they don't have to pay it which is weird because actually having custody is more expensive.

I don't agree but whatever the case, the issue is really control over how the money is spent. I am much happier having custody and making sure my money is actually spent on my children for things I think they need, rather than write a big check to my ex who then decides what to spend it on or maybe doesn't spend it on the kids at all.

When I was married, I already paid for everything the kids did, so being divorced didn't change anything.

As for college, the fact of the matter is that when you divorce, you are now paying to maintain two households, which means that you have less money in total. That means less money available for retirement and college, among other things. If the money isn't there for college, it isn't there. That's just part of the damage you do to your kids when you get divorced.

I was coming from a place where my attorney said guys argue over childcare so they can pay less but then don't use their days. The mom rarely argues because she wants the kids the house so will take the reduced paycheck. I don't really understand the college issue in DCUM world. It's a given that most of the jobs around here require college degrees and most of the adults in this area have them. So your child should have them too. Who else is going to take over your IT position if not your child when you retire? So college when both parents went to college should be part of the equation unless you qualify for aid. And the average salary on DCUM is something like $200k so there is definitely money for college. If you can pay childcare for K-18 you can pay at least that same amount for the college years.

It is true that parents should pay for college if they can, and most parents want to do so. That being the case, it doesn't need to be a legal obligation.

I certainly wouldn't want to be in a position where the kid could say, "I am going to attend a stupidly expensive college and study something useless and take eight years to graduate and there's nothing you can do about it because the court will make you pay." You need to have that leverage to say if you do something really dumb, you will pay for it not me.

I am the parent that gets $10,000 for two kids for childcare (full custody mind you so that would be $2500 for each kid with half custody? Who lives on this a year? It's our monthly spending per person so now my ex pays for about 2 months worth of expenses and I pay the other 10 -fair right? Guys are such victims right?). I'm simply advocating that if kids go to school they can't pay for basics like food and clothing and so those should be covered automatically. The same cost of child care. It should end at 21 or 22, not 18.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know. I think my ex SAHM made out pretty well. She’ll never have to pay rent/mortgage again and acts like she’s in her 20s again, partying, etc. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

Why are you divorced?

[Anonymous]

Men are all too happy to have a SAHM during the hard years, letting their wives do the overnights and chasing tantruming toddlers while he hangs around the office “working late.” But then the revisionist history comes out, oh actually I was fine with sharing the burden but she INSISTED… whatever you say bud. The data and my lived experience shows that men who have SAHWs see their careers take off. The idea is to not divorce and enjoy the fruit of the mutually beneficial arrangement together. There is risk on both side if that doesn’t work out, but don’t pretend you weren’t getting something out of it too. After a long career in biglaw I see right through that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the courts doesn't seem to be alimony. It seems to be childcare. The childcare stipend someone has to pay to support children is way too small and does not cover college at all. And people will fight custody just so they don't have to pay it which is weird because actually having custody is more expensive.

I don't agree but whatever the case, the issue is really control over how the money is spent. I am much happier having custody and making sure my money is actually spent on my children for things I think they need, rather than write a big check to my ex who then decides what to spend it on or maybe doesn't spend it on the kids at all.

When I was married, I already paid for everything the kids did, so being divorced didn't change anything.

As for college, the fact of the matter is that when you divorce, you are now paying to maintain two households, which means that you have less money in total. That means less money available for retirement and college, among other things. If the money isn't there for college, it isn't there. That's just part of the damage you do to your kids when you get divorced.

I was coming from a place where my attorney said guys argue over childcare so they can pay less but then don't use their days. The mom rarely argues because she wants the kids the house so will take the reduced paycheck. I don't really understand the college issue in DCUM world. It's a given that most of the jobs around here require college degrees and most of the adults in this area have them. So your child should have them too. Who else is going to take over your IT position if not your child when you retire? So college when both parents went to college should be part of the equation unless you qualify for aid. And the average salary on DCUM is something like $200k so there is definitely money for college. If you can pay childcare for K-18 you can pay at least that same amount for the college years.

It is true that parents should pay for college if they can, and most parents want to do so. That being the case, it doesn't need to be a legal obligation.

I certainly wouldn't want to be in a position where the kid could say, "I am going to attend a stupidly expensive college and study something useless and take eight years to graduate and there's nothing you can do about it because the court will make you pay." You need to have that leverage to say if you do something really dumb, you will pay for it not me.

It should definitely be a legal obligation and court should rule on reasonableness, not you. My exH makes way in excess of $1mm/year and he told son to take loans at 10% interest. A judge would have made him pay reasonable college expenses if that was a law

Wrong. Nobody is better equipped to assess the reasonableness of a child's educational plans and goals, both intrinsically and in relation to parental resources, than the parent. The court should stay the hell out of that process.

Disagree: there are standards of living and average college expenses that are published. If the adolescent child lives on campus, these reasonable expenses are now much higher vs living with parent(s). Thus it should be automatically included in CS
The law in some states requires to pay a tuition for a community college which I think is around $7,000/year. But what about living expenses ?