50/50 split of assets with SAHM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of crazy lazy women posting.

Of course a SAHM did not contribute to the success of OP and should not get 1/2, that’s insane.

It is true that raising kids does not entitle someone to 5 million dollars but you don’t think SAHMs who take care of their husbands’ children contribute to their success? At all? Do you think that if an especially lazy SAHM did nothing and the working spouse still had to do all the diapers, cooking, housekeeping, getting kids off to school, etc, in addition to working, his career wouldn’t be impacted at all?

Not that it matters because a marriage is a contract like any other and has financial implications, but its so weird to me that someone can say with their whole chest that a the work of a SAHM contributes nothing to the career of h

Yes I think his career would not be impacted.

SAHMs act like their agreement is a sacrifice when it was a gift.

Bfd, the SAHM coordinated the cleaners and tutors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of crazy lazy women posting.

Of course a SAHM did not contribute to the success of OP and should not get 1/2, that’s insane.

Then why did OP get married?

Because he was in love but at some point he wasn’t or maybe she wasn’t. Maybe she treated like a bank and realized she married for the wrong reasons. Maybe he’s a douche bag.

Idk but SAHMs are not prostitutes, they don’t get paid for services rendered.

Maybe he used her for his image of family and kids and a loving wife to further his career and dumped her because he was having an affair, which he could do as she was raising the kids, buying his clothing, and handling everything in the house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

BS she took care of the kids and home so he could rise in his career. Without her he would have had to take the kids to school, activities, do all the shopping, cooking, organize house work, gardening, gifts, holidays, etc, etc. Could he have had such a career doing all that - no.

We don’t know this. You are assuming here.

He agreed she would not work. That’s all that mattered. You really think he raised the kids while making all that money with no help. Be real.

We don’t know what they agreed on.

I know tons of SAHM who said that they would work and then don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

BS she took care of the kids and home so he could rise in his career. Without her he would have had to take the kids to school, activities, do all the shopping, cooking, organize house work, gardening, gifts, holidays, etc, etc. Could he have had such a career doing all that - no.

How do you know? Not every SAHM is a “good” one. OP clearly hates her for a reason.

NP. Agreed. I’m tired of this idea that all SAHPs are automatically good.

I’m supporting a friend through an awful divorce now. She is the sole earner because her DH is an abusive loser (documented abuse — photos and video). She is the primary parent AND earner. Even with the documentation of abuse and CPS involvement she is going to probably pay him 50% and lifetime alimony. This is California which basically hates working parents as far as I can tell. The courts are giving her sole physical custody and STILL making her pay him. It is absolutely insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of crazy lazy women posting.

Of course a SAHM did not contribute to the success of OP and should not get 1/2, that’s insane.

Then why did OP get married?

Because he was in love but at some point he wasn’t or maybe she wasn’t. Maybe she treated like a bank and realized she married for the wrong reasons. Maybe he’s a douche bag.

Idk but SAHMs are not prostitutes, they don’t get paid for services rendered.

Maybe he used her for his image of family and kids and a loving wife to further his career and dumped her because he was having an affair, which he could do as she was raising the kids, buying his clothing, and handling everything in the house.

And maybe she was banging the next-door neighbor, their kids are drug addicts because she was neglectful, and she spends their money at a casino.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

BS she took care of the kids and home so he could rise in his career. Without her he would have had to take the kids to school, activities, do all the shopping, cooking, organize house work, gardening, gifts, holidays, etc, etc. Could he have had such a career doing all that - no.

We don’t know this. You are assuming here.

He agreed she would not work. That’s all that mattered. You really think he raised the kids while making all that money with no help. Be real.

I am being real. We don’t know whether the wife has had the mental burden of the family, which is relatively less replaceable compared to gardening, cooking, shopping etc. A single parent with money can hire help to get all these things done. Again, my point is you are assuming that OP would not have made the same money without SAHM wife. That assumption simply has no basis.

I happen to know that paying nannies, housekeepers, tutors, etc. is anything but cheap, so that SAHM is likely worth much, much, much more than you, OP.

Kids should be raised by their parents, not nannies so he'd be a pretty bad father if he's never home and just outsourced to staff while getting rid of their SAHM and leaving her homeless, with no money and taking the kids from her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

BS she took care of the kids and home so he could rise in his career. Without her he would have had to take the kids to school, activities, do all the shopping, cooking, organize house work, gardening, gifts, holidays, etc, etc. Could he have had such a career doing all that - no.

We don’t know this. You are assuming here.

He agreed she would not work. That’s all that mattered. You really think he raised the kids while making all that money with no help. Be real.

I am being real. We don’t know whether the wife has had the mental burden of the family, which is relatively less replaceable compared to gardening, cooking, shopping etc. A single parent with money can hire help to get all these things done. Again, my point is you are assuming that OP would not have made the same money without SAHM wife. That assumption simply has no basis.

I happen to know that paying nannies, housekeepers, tutors, etc. is anything but cheap, so that SAHM is likely worth much, much, much more than you, OP.

Kids should be raised by their parents, not nannies so he'd be a pretty bad father if he's never home and just outsourced to staff while getting rid of their SAHM and leaving her homeless, with no money and taking the kids from her.

So are you saying all SAHMs should homeschool?

Just because you have help, doesn’t mean you’re outsourcing everything. Y’all seem really happy to have your husband’s work 24 x 7 so that you can be staying at her moms and never see their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

BS she took care of the kids and home so he could rise in his career. Without her he would have had to take the kids to school, activities, do all the shopping, cooking, organize house work, gardening, gifts, holidays, etc, etc. Could he have had such a career doing all that - no.

We don’t know this. You are assuming here.

He agreed she would not work. That’s all that mattered. You really think he raised the kids while making all that money with no help. Be real.

I am being real. We don’t know whether the wife has had the mental burden of the family, which is relatively less replaceable compared to gardening, cooking, shopping etc. A single parent with money can hire help to get all these things done. Again, my point is you are assuming that OP would not have made the same money without SAHM wife. That assumption simply has no basis.

I happen to know that paying nannies, housekeepers, tutors, etc. is anything but cheap, so that SAHM is likely worth much, much, much more than you, OP.

Kids should be raised by their parents, not nannies so he'd be a pretty bad father if he's never home and just outsourced to staff while getting rid of their SAHM and leaving her homeless, with no money and taking the kids from her.

Not one person said that she should be left homeless most people agree 30% is a good amount.

Plus, she’ll get half of the house.

I think kids should be raised by lots and lots of different people, no one person can give a child everything. Teachers, tutors, nannies, coaches, and uncles, grandparents, cousins

Kids need more than just one person in their life.

[Anonymous]

Should have had a prenup if you felt 50/50 was so inherently unfair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

BS she took care of the kids and home so he could rise in his career. Without her he would have had to take the kids to school, activities, do all the shopping, cooking, organize house work, gardening, gifts, holidays, etc, etc. Could he have had such a career doing all that - no.

We don’t know this. You are assuming here.

He agreed she would not work. That’s all that mattered. You really think he raised the kids while making all that money with no help. Be real.

I am being real. We don’t know whether the wife has had the mental burden of the family, which is relatively less replaceable compared to gardening, cooking, shopping etc. A single parent with money can hire help to get all these things done. Again, my point is you are assuming that OP would not have made the same money without SAHM wife. That assumption simply has no basis.

I happen to know that paying nannies, housekeepers, tutors, etc. is anything but cheap, so that SAHM is likely worth much, much, much more than you, OP.

Kids should be raised by their parents, not nannies so he'd be a pretty bad father if he's never home and just outsourced to staff while getting rid of their SAHM and leaving her homeless, with no money and taking the kids from her.

Not one person said that she should be left homeless most people agree 30% is a good amount.

Plus, she’ll get half of the house.

I think kids should be raised by lots and lots of different people, no one person can give a child everything. Teachers, tutors, nannies, coaches, and uncles, grandparents, cousins

Kids need more than just one person in their life.

Lots and lots of people? No. It's well known that kids need to a secure attachment to a primary caregiver. Not a revolving door of villagers.

[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.

I agree with you but I am from another country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

BS she took care of the kids and home so he could rise in his career. Without her he would have had to take the kids to school, activities, do all the shopping, cooking, organize house work, gardening, gifts, holidays, etc, etc. Could he have had such a career doing all that - no.

We don’t know this. You are assuming here.

He agreed she would not work. That’s all that mattered. You really think he raised the kids while making all that money with no help. Be real.

I am being real. We don’t know whether the wife has had the mental burden of the family, which is relatively less replaceable compared to gardening, cooking, shopping etc. A single parent with money can hire help to get all these things done. Again, my point is you are assuming that OP would not have made the same money without SAHM wife. That assumption simply has no basis.

I happen to know that paying nannies, housekeepers, tutors, etc. is anything but cheap, so that SAHM is likely worth much, much, much more than you, OP.

Kids should be raised by their parents, not nannies so he'd be a pretty bad father if he's never home and just outsourced to staff while getting rid of their SAHM and leaving her homeless, with no money and taking the kids from her.

Not one person said that she should be left homeless most people agree 30% is a good amount.

Plus, she’ll get half of the house.

I think kids should be raised by lots and lots of different people, no one person can give a child everything. Teachers, tutors, nannies, coaches, and uncles, grandparents, cousins

Kids need more than just one person in their life.

Lots and lots of people? No. It's well known that kids need to a secure attachment to a primary caregiver. Not a revolving door of villagers.

Doesn’t mean there is no primary caregiver

[Anonymous]

She didn’t earn it, but she also didn’t spend it. In theory, the money was also hers until the time of the divorce, and they both decided not to spend it and to save for retirement.

It makes sense to me that half of their savings is hers. It was half hers when they saved it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Should have had a prenup if you felt 50/50 was so inherently unfair.

Or you should’ve had a prenup if you felt like you deserved 50-50

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should have had a prenup if you felt 50/50 was so inherently unfair.

Or you should’ve had a prenup if you felt like you deserved 50-50

Why? Doesn't seem like the wife will need it. Spouse has an uphill battle to prove she doesn't.