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 can get housing and is not going to be homeless. She wants the divorce. Where is the drama? They each keep anything they had before marriage and anything during the marriage is shared equally. Done.

OP, regarding your inheritance: if a parent has a catastrophic medical event and then needs significant at-home care long term, that will eat up a lot of money.

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

+1 There are some really bitter women on this board, many of whom have been cheated on by awful husbands and then abandoned by them even as. they begged to work things out. This is not OP's situation.

Was there a significant event that you led to you stopping working 18 months ago? Given he isn't in a very good financial situation and then had to take on full responsiblity for the family, I would assume there was a major illness with your child or some extenuating circumstance that led to you deciding to no longer contribute financially? You need to return to work so that you can take on your share again of the responsiblity for yourself and your half for your child. Did you have benefits and put money towards retirement while you were working?

I would say that fair would be to keep whatever you had before. Then I would look at the future and assess what you both need to ensure you will both have similar standards of living until your child is an adult. So look at both your incomes (once you are working or based on your previous income) and then work out how much each party has and needs to get through the next few years so the child has similar living standards in each home.

In terms of future, you will have an inheritance and so I don't see why you would go after him for his retirement funds. You also worked and can put money away for retirement from your employment and you have money comeing in. But I don't really get the spiteful men and women who like to see their ex wife or ex husband suffer and have the attitude of leave him or her with nothing, take every penny you can, kick them when they are down etc.

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.

Marriage is a merging of two poeple in ot one -- that includes assets according to the laws of the relevant state. If he didn't feel that way, he shouldn't have gotten married and had a child, or should have had a differnet prenup - he wasn't a child groom after all.

That’s not how the law works.

Money is earned before the marriage is not considered marital assets.

The law does not believe you are emerging two people.

The law believes that while you’re married, whatever happens financially during the marriage is half the responsibility of one spouse and half the responsibility of the other spells, even if it’s Debt.

If you come into a marriage with student loans and get divorced, your spouse is not responsible for your student loans.

If you come into the marriage with money and get divorced, your spouse is not entitled to that money

Anonymous wrote:"I’m going thru this right now with my best friend and this is the exact conversation we keep having. She’s been conditioned to think all the money he earned and saved for the last twenty years is his, as if their marriage never happened. I have to say it repeatedly: it’s already YOUR shared money."

Here's the problem with this line of thinking: You somehow want to believe this while simultaneously saying that the retirement money she'd get if her parents died tomorrow would only be hers. She hasn't worked for 3ish years. He covered them 100% for those 3/13 years of marriage, yet her inheritance shouldn't be used to offset this uneven contribution?!?! It's like people want to have the rule benefit her no matter what. There needs to be a principled approach to these matters. Otherwise, it's just one of those "what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine" situations.

She has no inheritance. Alkshe has are wishes and hopes, and those can't offset real assets. That she even brought up a possible future possible inheritance in her post is indicative of why she needs a lawyer.

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.

Marriage is a merging of two poeple in ot one -- that includes assets according to the laws of the relevant state. If he didn't feel that way, he shouldn't have gotten married and had a child, or should have had a differnet prenup - he wasn't a child groom after all.

Anything you each had before the marriage you keep and everything else is split 50-50.

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...

Anonymous wrote:Please see a lawyer.

+1 his attitude means you need a lawyer. He already has you on the defensive and thinking you "deserve" less than the law allows.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you serious? OP is much better off than he is. Agree she shouldn’t short herself, but she will end up better off than her ex.

How? He has his business while she is counting on the goodness of family. Do you know how manipulative family can turn when they realize you are dependent on them? It's all rosy now because she has her DH to fall back on. They know she has options. Once she is divorced with no place to stay, things can turn.

Anonymous wrote:"I’m going thru this right now with my best friend and this is the exact conversation we keep having. She’s been conditioned to think all the money he earned and saved for the last twenty years is his, as if their marriage never happened. I have to say it repeatedly: it’s already YOUR shared money."

Here's the problem with this line of thinking: You somehow want to believe this while simultaneously saying that the retirement money she'd get if her parents died tomorrow would only be hers. She hasn't worked for 3ish years. He covered them 100% for those 3/13 years of marriage, yet her inheritance shouldn't be used to offset this uneven contribution?!?! It's like people want to have the rule benefit her no matter what. There needs to be a principled approach to these matters. Otherwise, it's just one of those "what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine" situations.

DP.

While I agree in theory to a " principled" approach, especially because there is so little money to go around, there is no guarantee that there will be any inheritance money. OP needs to consider only solid facts as they exist now: She has no house, no job, and no inheritance. There is a decent chance that the inheritance will never happen. There is a good chance that she falls out with her family and they no longer want to live with her.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you serious? OP is much better off than he is. Agree she shouldn’t short herself, but she will end up better off than her ex.

Anonymous wrote:"I’m going thru this right now with my best friend and this is the exact conversation we keep having. She’s been conditioned to think all the money he earned and saved for the last twenty years is his, as if their marriage never happened. I have to say it repeatedly: it’s already YOUR shared money."

Here's the problem with this line of thinking: You somehow want to believe this while simultaneously saying that the retirement money she'd get if her parents died tomorrow would only be hers. She hasn't worked for 3ish years. He covered them 100% for those 3/13 years of marriage, yet her inheritance shouldn't be used to offset this uneven contribution?!?! It's like people want to have the rule benefit her no matter what. There needs to be a principled approach to these matters. Otherwise, it's just one of those "what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine" situations.

The inheritance doesn’t exist.

If you don’t like the law of marital dissolution suggest you try to change it. But the law is the law.