Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)
Reply to "What is Just Compensation for a "Life Lost"? "
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]To play devil's advocate: OP detrimentally relied on DH's promise of lifetime commitment. To give her the benefit of the bargain, so to speak, she is entitled to: (1) the present value of half her husband's future earnings until retirement plus his retirement until his actuarial life expectancy less: (2) half of the present value of her projected income until retirement plus her retirement until his actuarial life expectancy (assuming he has a lower life expectancy). plus: (3) half of their current net assets less half of their current net debts. It sounds like the current offer is (3) plus 1/3 of the mortgage for three years and whatever she's legally entitled to from his retirement. From a contract perspective that sounds like not enough. I don't know what she's "legally entitled to" from his retirement, but that seems like the biggest hole. The present value of a retirement account is the value projected to retirement age and then discounted to present value. She's entitled to half of that. Below I've pasted some info I found on the internet:[/quote] I agree with this analysis and with the OP's sense that she should get alimony for more than three years based on having put her career second to support her husband's career. Yes, she chose to do that. However, she chose to do that in reliance on her reasonable expectation that marriage is a lifelong commitment. Conceptually, the professional opportunities that DH was able to exploit as a result of her willingness to move around and presumably do more at home (to enable him to do what he needed to do to fast track at work) should be considered a joint investment in his future earnings. She subsidized his career growth, so she should share in the long-term rewards.[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics