OP, please know that we are rooting for you and your STBX. Some of the PPs may seem harsh, but they just want you to approach this with caution and clarity.

You seem to be counting in best case scenario with future events( housing, caregiver job, inheritance), while your spouse is counting on worst case scenario ( his business does not pick up again), and this is making you feel you can afford to give him more than he would give you if the roles were reserved.

It's great that you want to make sure he is taken care of. But he doesn't seem to reciprocate that feeling. Perhaps he too is optimistic about your position with the relative, so he thinks you will be fine either way.

How about this: get the maximum you get under the law and then if your family comes through with the job and the inheritance and you feel like your STBX could use some help, help him out financially over the years.

I have a friend who takes care of her ex. They split their joint assets down the middle, but she makes a lot of money in her law firm while he is retired. So she pays for his apartment and monthly expenses even though she has full custody of their child. It would have been foolish for her to give him all the assets based on the assumption that her firm will flourish. What if the firm had failed? She'd be left with nothing and starting from scratch in her late 40s.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you've gotten some good math here, but I do agree that a consult with a lawyer might be good to give you a realistic idea of what the law would say.

So then you have a better idea, and you can go to him with a range of options. Here's what the law says, but what if we did X, or shifted from X to Y, or balanced things this way or that way?

I'd also think through very carefully what you expect to need. Depending on your state, college costs may be on or off the table (in terms of child suport). Given expected inheritance, are you willing to forego some of his retirement for maybe a lump sum put into college costs? Given his age, and you not working, how were those costs going to be covered?

It may be given his anxiety around retirement, that you could lay out scenarios that protect his retirement but give you other things of equal weight. Given his age, he must be concerned about being forced to work longer. His retirement is not large and there are teenage costs looming - college for one but also maybe a car, or even the travel to visit college options, higher expenses for high school, etc.

What about the house or other marital property?

Do not, under any circumstances, make any life decisions based on an "expected inheritance"! That inheritance can very quickly get eaten up in long-term care. It is just straight-up dumb to live your life based on a contingency you don't control.

This is a good point. Taking less in a divorce because of an expected inheritance is idiotic.

+1.

OP, this divorce is a financial disaster. You are both broke. How bad is the marriage?

By what standards are we broke? We're not Rockefellers but I know people who are broke, and we have a lot more than they do.

You have 2M in assets, most of which has not yet been taxed, no jobs in your 60s and 50s, and a kid who is not yet in college. Now you are about to have 2 households. Are both of you going to pay rent/mortgages? Or do you have paid off houses?

Don't count on the inheritance as a lot of things can change between now and when it materialized.

OP here. Our kid has a healthy 529 plan. I will be living with a family member, so no new living expenses for me, and I will be paid for the caregiving I provide to that relative. And I will go back to work at least part-time.

How much is in your kid's 401k? Everything else in your response is "will". What if family member changes their mind about you living with them or you taking care of them?

Please take your financial assessment seriously before you decide how you want to divide the marital assets. Leave all the benefits from this relative out of the assessment because they are not guaranteed.

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.

Wrong. She is legally entitled to only half of the retirement saved during the marriage. Premarital assets are not divisible in a divorce.

You are not entitled to his retirement or any of his assets before you met. You are only entitled to 50% of assets/retirement accrued during the marriage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you've gotten some good math here, but I do agree that a consult with a lawyer might be good to give you a realistic idea of what the law would say.

So then you have a better idea, and you can go to him with a range of options. Here's what the law says, but what if we did X, or shifted from X to Y, or balanced things this way or that way?

I'd also think through very carefully what you expect to need. Depending on your state, college costs may be on or off the table (in terms of child suport). Given expected inheritance, are you willing to forego some of his retirement for maybe a lump sum put into college costs? Given his age, and you not working, how were those costs going to be covered?

It may be given his anxiety around retirement, that you could lay out scenarios that protect his retirement but give you other things of equal weight. Given his age, he must be concerned about being forced to work longer. His retirement is not large and there are teenage costs looming - college for one but also maybe a car, or even the travel to visit college options, higher expenses for high school, etc.

What about the house or other marital property?

Do not, under any circumstances, make any life decisions based on an "expected inheritance"! That inheritance can very quickly get eaten up in long-term care. It is just straight-up dumb to live your life based on a contingency you don't control.

This is a good point. Taking less in a divorce because of an expected inheritance is idiotic.

+1.

OP, this divorce is a financial disaster. You are both broke. How bad is the marriage?

By what standards are we broke? We're not Rockefellers but I know people who are broke, and we have a lot more than they do.

You have 2M in assets, most of which has not yet been taxed, no jobs in your 60s and 50s, and a kid who is not yet in college. Now you are about to have 2 households. Are both of you going to pay rent/mortgages? Or do you have paid off houses?

Don't count on the inheritance as a lot of things can change between now and when it materialized.

OP here. Our kid has a healthy 529 plan. I will be living with a family member, so no new living expenses for me, and I will be paid for the caregiving I provide to that relative. And I will go back to work at least part-time.

Stop pretending like you have it handled and don’t need “his” money. It is YOUR SHARED assets. I need you to get tough and value yourself for what you are worth, op, and I don’t just mean in terms of money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you've gotten some good math here, but I do agree that a consult with a lawyer might be good to give you a realistic idea of what the law would say.

So then you have a better idea, and you can go to him with a range of options. Here's what the law says, but what if we did X, or shifted from X to Y, or balanced things this way or that way?

I'd also think through very carefully what you expect to need. Depending on your state, college costs may be on or off the table (in terms of child suport). Given expected inheritance, are you willing to forego some of his retirement for maybe a lump sum put into college costs? Given his age, and you not working, how were those costs going to be covered?

It may be given his anxiety around retirement, that you could lay out scenarios that protect his retirement but give you other things of equal weight. Given his age, he must be concerned about being forced to work longer. His retirement is not large and there are teenage costs looming - college for one but also maybe a car, or even the travel to visit college options, higher expenses for high school, etc.

What about the house or other marital property?

Do not, under any circumstances, make any life decisions based on an "expected inheritance"! That inheritance can very quickly get eaten up in long-term care. It is just straight-up dumb to live your life based on a contingency you don't control.

This is a good point. Taking less in a divorce because of an expected inheritance is idiotic.

+1.

OP, this divorce is a financial disaster. You are both broke. How bad is the marriage?

By what standards are we broke? We're not Rockefellers but I know people who are broke, and we have a lot more than they do.

You have 2M in assets, most of which has not yet been taxed, no jobs in your 60s and 50s, and a kid who is not yet in college. Now you are about to have 2 households. Are both of you going to pay rent/mortgages? Or do you have paid off houses?

Don't count on the inheritance as a lot of things can change between now and when it materialized.

OP here. Our kid has a healthy 529 plan. I will be living with a family member, so no new living expenses for me, and I will be paid for the caregiving I provide to that relative. And I will go back to work at least part-time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you've gotten some good math here, but I do agree that a consult with a lawyer might be good to give you a realistic idea of what the law would say.

So then you have a better idea, and you can go to him with a range of options. Here's what the law says, but what if we did X, or shifted from X to Y, or balanced things this way or that way?

I'd also think through very carefully what you expect to need. Depending on your state, college costs may be on or off the table (in terms of child suport). Given expected inheritance, are you willing to forego some of his retirement for maybe a lump sum put into college costs? Given his age, and you not working, how were those costs going to be covered?

It may be given his anxiety around retirement, that you could lay out scenarios that protect his retirement but give you other things of equal weight. Given his age, he must be concerned about being forced to work longer. His retirement is not large and there are teenage costs looming - college for one but also maybe a car, or even the travel to visit college options, higher expenses for high school, etc.

What about the house or other marital property?

Do not, under any circumstances, make any life decisions based on an "expected inheritance"! That inheritance can very quickly get eaten up in long-term care. It is just straight-up dumb to live your life based on a contingency you don't control.

This is a good point. Taking less in a divorce because of an expected inheritance is idiotic.

+1.

OP, this divorce is a financial disaster. You are both broke. How bad is the marriage?

By what standards are we broke? We're not Rockefellers but I know people who are broke, and we have a lot more than they do.

You have 2M in assets, most of which has not yet been taxed, no jobs in your 60s and 50s, and a kid who is not yet in college. Now you are about to have 2 households. Are both of you going to pay rent/mortgages? Or do you have paid off houses?

Don't count on the inheritance as a lot of things can change between now and when it materialized.

The only thing on the table is what you earned (salaries and interest on investments) during the years you were married. Now, that's how it's thought about in most states. But crazy places like Virginia that use an Equitable Distribution approach (whatever the judge feels like doing that day) can have different outcomes.

You need to figure out what is marital property

If you both contributed equally to 401ks during the marriage, then you could roughly keep your own accounts. But it sounds like he contributed more (from income during the marriage which is marital property) so you are likely owed an offset

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you've gotten some good math here, but I do agree that a consult with a lawyer might be good to give you a realistic idea of what the law would say.

So then you have a better idea, and you can go to him with a range of options. Here's what the law says, but what if we did X, or shifted from X to Y, or balanced things this way or that way?

I'd also think through very carefully what you expect to need. Depending on your state, college costs may be on or off the table (in terms of child suport). Given expected inheritance, are you willing to forego some of his retirement for maybe a lump sum put into college costs? Given his age, and you not working, how were those costs going to be covered?

It may be given his anxiety around retirement, that you could lay out scenarios that protect his retirement but give you other things of equal weight. Given his age, he must be concerned about being forced to work longer. His retirement is not large and there are teenage costs looming - college for one but also maybe a car, or even the travel to visit college options, higher expenses for high school, etc.

What about the house or other marital property?

Do not, under any circumstances, make any life decisions based on an "expected inheritance"! That inheritance can very quickly get eaten up in long-term care. It is just straight-up dumb to live your life based on a contingency you don't control.

This is a good point. Taking less in a divorce because of an expected inheritance is idiotic.

+1.

OP, this divorce is a financial disaster. You are both broke. How bad is the marriage?

By what standards are we broke? We're not Rockefellers but I know people who are broke, and we have a lot more than they do.

You need a lawyer if you want anything and money talks are uncomfortable/contentious.

I managed to file without a lawyer, mutual consent divorce, I have primary physical custody of our 1 child and he pays child support. Not touching his retirement or property equity. He is coming out ahead probably about 1M.

I am getting a shitty deal and I accept that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an actuary who used to do QDROs. What’s being split in half is not the total pension, but effectively the pension earned during the marriage. I understand that you are dealing with something like a 401K, not a pension, but the underlying principle for fairness should be similar.

Not necessarily. 401k can be treated like a cash asset during a divorce.

No it is not.

This is why everybody should have a prenup and nobody should count on the state they live on to determine how many is divided because all these these women on this site have no idea with the laws are.

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.

You were completely wrong. If she is in Maryland, she is not entitled to have his retirement before they got married she may be entitled to a portion of the appreciation.

If you’re in Virginia, you’re not even entitled to a portion of the appreciation. You’re only entitled to the amount put in during the marriage and the appreciation on that amount.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree you're not really entitled to what he saved up before you met. I'd probably ask for 200,000 of the non-retirement funds plus generous child support.

The law and the expired pre-nup say otherwise. Attorney, OP! This is not the amicable divorce he wants you to believe it is.

No it doesn’t. Premarital money is not marital money,

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would honor the prenup basically to be a decent human being.

OP here - this is what I'm thinking. He will push back on determining what he contributed and yielded on his retirement in the last 13 years, but I think he should.

I strongly disagree. There is a reason someone put an expiration date on the prenup and the other person agreed to the expiration date. The prenup no longer exists. It’s completely irrelevant. This was not a very short marriage and there’s a child involved. There’s no benefit to walking away from money you’re legally entitled to.

That’s not to say that you should push for half his retirement savings prior to your marriage. You don’t need to be vindictive, but you also don’t need to pretend you still have a prenup in effect. Just be fair.

Agree with being fair in principle.

If you allow him to keep more money than 50%, you should secure an enforceable promise to pay up to a set amount for your child's college. Or other things to benefit your child. Such as a life insurance policy. Ensure that his extra money accumulated in the marriage goes to your kid as best you can.