Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"It’s not that straightforward and I have no doubt that in a marriage this long the commingling of assets would easily unwind this argument."

In that case, the general rule that she'll get an inheritance that would be considered non marital property should be disregarded. If he comingled, which benefits her, than she needs to reciprocate by including the reality that her inheritance would have benefitted both of them in retirement, had they remained married.

Uh no. You need to stop giving bitter divorced man advice, because it’s incorrect.

OP’s husband chose to marry a 30-something woman and have a child with her in his 50s. That choice came with life-altering consequences to provide for his child and split assets with his wife. Bitter, divorced men who knock up younger women as they are nearing retirement are so dumb. Now he gets to lie in the bed he made.

Pane need to get a job and an apartment. She will not be homeless. 10 year marriage is short. She’s leaving not him. You are the bitter one.
You need to stop being greedy. She is not entitled to his inheritance, nor is he to hers. She gets 50-50 of anything earned in the marriage, as does he. They each get what they came in with. Child support is calculated by formula. She is choosing to divorce, not him.

It doesn't matter who files for divorce for financial distribution. What are you arguing about? It's 50/50 for everything marital by the law. OP shouldn't bend to her STBX demands to give up her half just because he's older. If he's ok with mother of his child being de-facto homeless after waiving her 50%, and needing to take care of a relative to have roof over her head, he clearly doesn't have her best interests in mind.

Anonymous wrote:"Don’t walk away with less than 50% as it’s very hard for a woman in her 50s to rebuild wealth."

The husband is significantly older than the wife here. She has many more working years ahead of her to build a retirement fund, whereas he has practically none. Plus, he's worked every year they've been married while she didn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are overcomplicating a simple issue. This is easy.

1. Marital property is split 50/50 or equitably.
2. Premarital property remains separate unless comingled but the burden of proof is in the party arguing that any property is seperate to prove it.
3. Inheritances that have been received are separate property unless commingled.
4. Inheritances that have not been received don’t exist. They are irrelevant because they have no value.

Divide the assets accordingly.

Agreed.

Lawyers will tell you to go after what you are entitled to under the law, because that’s their job. The law, however, is not designed to preserve goodwill or promote amicability. So, if you are in the rare case where you both want to be decent people, then you will need to resist the temptation to go after what you “could” get.

Still, you should picture how you would feel if you settled like this and then he turned into an a*hole the next day. Would you feel cheated or would you still feel like you came out OK with what was fair? It is a useful thought experiment.

It’s not about going after and getting something, it’s about keeping her share of what is already hers.

That’s fine, but I know many people who suffer through many years of legal hell and misery to “keep what’s theirs” and it’s not a great way to spend your good years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"It’s not that straightforward and I have no doubt that in a marriage this long the commingling of assets would easily unwind this argument."

In that case, the general rule that she'll get an inheritance that would be considered non marital property should be disregarded. If he comingled, which benefits her, than she needs to reciprocate by including the reality that her inheritance would have benefitted both of them in retirement, had they remained married.

Uh no. You need to stop giving bitter divorced man advice, because it’s incorrect.

OP’s husband chose to marry a 30-something woman and have a child with her in his 50s. That choice came with life-altering consequences to provide for his child and split assets with his wife. Bitter, divorced men who knock up younger women as they are nearing retirement are so dumb. Now he gets to lie in the bed he made.

You need to stop being greedy. She is not entitled to his inheritance, nor is he to hers. She gets 50-50 of anything earned in the marriage, as does he. They each get what they came in with. Child support is calculated by formula. She is choosing to divorce, not him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They will also split half of hers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to wake up.

You’re not his wife anymore and you need to take care of yourself. Do not argue against your own self interest just so you can feel that you’re being “nice.” Literally nobody cares—but you sure will once you’re struggling and have no retirement savings because you were desperate to be nice.

10 years is a long term marriage.

Stop arguing against your own self interest.

You’re too old to be this stupid.

10 years is not a long-term marriage, not even close.

Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote:OP, you need to go see a lawyer and ask what is market in your state for you to receive, and then propose you get that, or a little more if you want bargaining room.

The stock market has gone up a lot in 13 years. In many states, you arguably would be entitled to half of the appreciation on the assets he had before marriage.

Your inheritance is IRRELEVANT. Your parents could blow through that in no time with elder care expenses and anyway inheritances if kept separate are not marital assets in most states.

Anonymous wrote:You need to wake up.

You’re not his wife anymore and you need to take care of yourself. Do not argue against your own self interest just so you can feel that you’re being “nice.” Literally nobody cares—but you sure will once you’re struggling and have no retirement savings because you were desperate to be nice.

10 years is a long term marriage.

Stop arguing against your own self interest.

You’re too old to be this stupid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"It’s not that straightforward and I have no doubt that in a marriage this long the commingling of assets would easily unwind this argument."

In that case, the general rule that she'll get an inheritance that would be considered non marital property should be disregarded. If he comingled, which benefits her, than she needs to reciprocate by including the reality that her inheritance would have benefitted both of them in retirement, had they remained married.

Uh no. You need to stop giving bitter divorced man advice, because it’s incorrect.

OP’s husband chose to marry a 30-something woman and have a child with her in his 50s. That choice came with life-altering consequences to provide for his child and split assets with his wife. Bitter, divorced men who knock up younger women as they are nearing retirement are so dumb. Now he gets to lie in the bed he made.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP started this thread as a decent person.... after listening to DCUM bitter women, OP will leave as a different person.

She started this thread as a decent person who was about to be divorced and homeless...

She could always, you know, honor her vows and not abandon her husband.

Back to this question: OP, why are you leaving this guy? You seem to like him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are overcomplicating a simple issue. This is easy.

1. Marital property is split 50/50 or equitably.
2. Premarital property remains separate unless comingled but the burden of proof is in the party arguing that any property is seperate to prove it.
3. Inheritances that have been received are separate property unless commingled.
4. Inheritances that have not been received don’t exist. They are irrelevant because they have no value.

Divide the assets accordingly.

Agreed.

Lawyers will tell you to go after what you are entitled to under the law, because that’s their job. The law, however, is not designed to preserve goodwill or promote amicability. So, if you are in the rare case where you both want to be decent people, then you will need to resist the temptation to go after what you “could” get.

Still, you should picture how you would feel if you settled like this and then he turned into an a*hole the next day. Would you feel cheated or would you still feel like you came out OK with what was fair? It is a useful thought experiment.

It’s not about going after and getting something, it’s about keeping her share of what is already hers.