Anonymous wrote:In DC higher contribution may result in court awarding more assets to one spouse . I divorced jn DC in 2021 in a similar situation.

50/50 not a set formula here, particular if the wife can prove the money was hers. Eg came from the account the husband didn’t have access to.

My friend divorced in VA she retained the house.

Yeah, very difficult to snatch because she decided to co-mingle it. She would also have to Pay OP spousal support and child support if they keep kids 50/50.

doesn't matter what is the source of money but if got mixed with 401K or family home then they both share equally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in this situation pretty much exactly with my family money used for downpayment among other things. We split everything 50/50, including retirement. He pays me child support though since he makes more- that's the only difference.

He doesn’t pay YOU child support. That isn’t YOUR money. It is for your children.

My ex absolutely pays ME child support. I'm not going to let my kids go without, so I've already paid for what they need. Child support lets ME recoup some of those costs, that he is responsible for, so that I can also save for my retirement, and take care of my own needs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the one spouse have to agree to buy out the other one? Why would one spouse not agree?

One spouse might not be comfortable with the optics of one parent being able to stay in the family home as if nothing happened. Especially if there is family money enabling that. The spouse may prefer that both parents are “starting over” and in new spaces. Otherwise it looks more like one parent got kicked out or left. It’s a perfectly valid perspective.

No it is not valid. It is sh*ty and selfish, and usually argued by a man who has more interest in punishing and blaming his ex than actually, you know, working to be a really good dad. Since courts do care about the best interests of the children they might see through this and order the buyout.

Unlikely and you are making shit up, with a heavy dose of misandry to boot.

None of this has to do with the “best interest of children” so that is a complete red herring.

Forcing your wife to sell your children’s home because you are insecure about her relationship with the kids and insist on a “level playing field” is so far removed from the best interests of the kids, I don’t know what to tell you. Not only are you destroying a key aspect of stability for the kids (their home and possibly friends and school) but you are also wasting money that could go to the kids instead.

Yeah, when kids go through all the changes that come with divorce, staying in the same home helps a bit. Leaving the childhood home would be one more loss to grieve.

Like even my cheating alcoholic ex gets this, and wanted me to stay in the home. Part of our settlement is that he pays the mortgage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in this situation pretty much exactly with my family money used for downpayment among other things. We split everything 50/50, including retirement. He pays me child support though since he makes more- that's the only difference.

He doesn’t pay YOU child support. That isn’t YOUR money. It is for your children.

lol thanks for pointing that out genius.

The fact is it is so second nature for moms to provide for their kids that we all understand what PP meant. The child support is hers to support the kids. Only a man who doesn’t have the same intuitive stance of taking care of kids and instead is aggrieved about having to pay his fair share could think he is making a clever point.

Your misandry is showing again, you disgusting twat.

Ok dude keep telling on yourself 😂

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the one spouse have to agree to buy out the other one? Why would one spouse not agree?

One spouse might not be comfortable with the optics of one parent being able to stay in the family home as if nothing happened. Especially if there is family money enabling that. The spouse may prefer that both parents are “starting over” and in new spaces. Otherwise it looks more like one parent got kicked out or left. It’s a perfectly valid perspective.

No it is not valid. It is sh*ty and selfish, and usually argued by a man who has more interest in punishing and blaming his ex than actually, you know, working to be a really good dad. Since courts do care about the best interests of the children they might see through this and order the buyout.

Unlikely and you are making shit up, with a heavy dose of misandry to boot.

None of this has to do with the “best interest of children” so that is a complete red herring.

Forcing your wife to sell your children’s home because you are insecure about her relationship with the kids and insist on a “level playing field” is so far removed from the best interests of the kids, I don’t know what to tell you. Not only are you destroying a key aspect of stability for the kids (their home and possibly friends and school) but you are also wasting money that could go to the kids instead.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the one spouse have to agree to buy out the other one? Why would one spouse not agree?

One spouse might not be comfortable with the optics of one parent being able to stay in the family home as if nothing happened. Especially if there is family money enabling that. The spouse may prefer that both parents are “starting over” and in new spaces. Otherwise it looks more like one parent got kicked out or left. It’s a perfectly valid perspective.

No it is not valid. It is sh*ty and selfish, and usually argued by a man who has more interest in punishing and blaming his ex than actually, you know, working to be a really good dad. Since courts do care about the best interests of the children they might see through this and order the buyout.

Unlikely and you are making shit up, with a heavy dose of misandry to boot.

None of this has to do with the “best interest of children” so that is a complete red herring.

In DC higher contribution may result in court awarding more assets to one spouse . I divorced jn DC in 2021 in a similar situation.

50/50 not a set formula here, particular if the wife can prove the money was hers. Eg came from the account the husband didn’t have access to.

My friend divorced in VA she retained the house.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in this situation pretty much exactly with my family money used for downpayment among other things. We split everything 50/50, including retirement. He pays me child support though since he makes more- that's the only difference.

He doesn’t pay YOU child support. That isn’t YOUR money. It is for your children.

lol thanks for pointing that out genius.

The fact is it is so second nature for moms to provide for their kids that we all understand what PP meant. The child support is hers to support the kids. Only a man who doesn’t have the same intuitive stance of taking care of kids and instead is aggrieved about having to pay his fair share could think he is making a clever point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the one spouse have to agree to buy out the other one? Why would one spouse not agree?

One spouse might not be comfortable with the optics of one parent being able to stay in the family home as if nothing happened. Especially if there is family money enabling that. The spouse may prefer that both parents are “starting over” and in new spaces. Otherwise it looks more like one parent got kicked out or left. It’s a perfectly valid perspective.

No it is not valid. It is sh*ty and selfish, and usually argued by a man who has more interest in punishing and blaming his ex than actually, you know, working to be a really good dad. Since courts do care about the best interests of the children they might see through this and order the buyout.

Everyone claiming the house will be split 50-50 is wrong. Most states are *equitable* division states, which does not mean 50-50. Courts can and do consider factors like the respective financial and labor contributions to the estate. Even if the house is marital property (because the wife commingled the gift from her family and the house is jointly titled and the husband presumably helped pay for the upkeep and mortgage), the court can still recognize that the wife made the greater financial contribution and award her a larger share.

But obviously this depends on the case law of the state in question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the one spouse have to agree to buy out the other one? Why would one spouse not agree?

You have to be kidding. Whoever gets the house is in a better position usually. I let my ex keep it without fully buying me out but most people would never do that. If I wanted it, he told me he would refuse to let me keep it. There is also an emotional component of who keeps the house.

Why didn’t you make him buy you out?

I am assuming pp is the man and he gave into his ex-wife

Anonymous wrote:

She will likely not be permitted to keep the home and buy out the husband, unless he consents to it. He should not consent to it.